Negotiated Giglio/Brady code sparks stakeholder debate over disclosure protections
Loading...
Summary
A delete‑all version of SF 325 would set statewide minimum policies for prosecutors' handling of Giglio/Brady material, streamline limited access for prosecuting authorities and add penalties for improper disclosure; county attorneys and law‑enforcement groups supported the uniformity aims while the ACLU warned criminal penalties and ambiguous recipient definitions could chill defense counsel, journalists and public discussion.
Sen. Kran introduced a delete‑all (DE) substitute for SF 325, describing a negotiated effort with county attorneys, chiefs, sheriffs and labor groups to create consistent statewide standards for prosecuting authorities to identify, access and protect Brady/Giglio material. Proponents said the measure would reduce inconsistent motion practice and provide floor standards for policies and technical protections.
Nancy Haas (Minnesota County Attorneys Association), John Hollitz (Saint Louis County), David Titus (MPPOA), Kevin Beck (labor attorney) and Chief Jay Henthorn testified in favor, highlighting the problem of variation across jurisdictions and the burden on prosecutors and public employees. Several presenters emphasized that the bill is intended to ensure prosecutors can access necessary nonpublic data for litigation while protecting that data from improper dissemination.
The ACLU (John Bealer) and Legal Rights Center raised objections to certain provisions, particularly a criminal penalty in subdivision 6 that they said lacked a mens rea requirement and could sweep in defendants, defense counsel or journalists who lawfully obtained or reported on Giglio material; they also questioned whether the delete‑all had been circulated to all stakeholders and flagged a prior fiscal note estimating increased judicial workload. Hennepin County Attorney’s Office testified the proposed data access would reduce thousands of motions to compel but that limited objections and protective orders would remain in a small fraction of cases.
Committee members pressed authors to clarify who counts as a prohibited recipient under the disclosure penalty and to refine language so legitimate public discussion or court disclosures are not imperiled. Given remaining concerns, the committee laid SF 325 on the table to allow further negotiation among stakeholders.
