D.A. Promises Better Information on Officer Credibility

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said Wednesday he is implementing a new policy to ensure that criminal defendants receive information to which they are entitled regarding the credibility of police officers who are witnesses in their cases.

The policy was drafted in response to shortcomings in the current system brought to light by the Rampart corruption scandal. The centerpiece of the new approach is the creation of a centralized computer database that will track allegations of officer misconduct.

Under the policy, prosecutors will be required to run relevant officers’ names through the database before deciding whether to file a criminal case and prior to calling any officer to the witness stand. When a prosecutor learns of information that potentially undermines an officer’s credibility it will be turned over to the defense. How that information is used will be up to the judge in the case.

“We think this is a big deal,” said Garcetti, adding that no other major district attorney’s office in the nation has a similar policy or database. When the database is functional, he said, prosecutors and defense attorneys will have immediate access to information that could bear on an officer’s credibility.

By law, prosecutors are required to disclose information that is favorable to defendants, including that which challenges the integrity or truthfulness of a police officer witness in a case. That requirement, known as a prosecutor’s “Brady” obligation, grew out of a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady vs. Maryland.

For years, defense attorneys have complained that criminal defendants in Los Angeles are denied fair trials because prosecutors either fail to discover or to disclose information about an officer’s credibility, though they reasonably could be expected to know it. The Times has identified numerous instances in which information undermining an officer’s credibility was not disclosed to defense attorneys.

In one case, a defendant never was told that the officer testifying in his drug case had been relieved of duty and was facing drug allegations of his own at the time he testified. When the judge learned about the officer’s status three years later as a result of an article in The Times, she overturned the man’s conviction.

In their defense, prosecutors say it has been nearly impossible for them to keep track of officer discipline in a county the size of Los Angeles.

“This is not a 10-person office where everyone knows every police officer in town,” said Garcetti, whose 1,100 lawyers prosecute more than 300,000 cases a year. The new policy and computer database, Garcetti said, will make it easier for prosecutors to discover relevant information about the officers in their cases.

The policy requires all deputy district attorneys to report suspected misconduct to their supervisors and to check for any allegations of misconduct against officers in their cases. “There are no more excuses,” one district attorney’s official said. “There’s no reason not to know.”

Although the policy is effective immediately, Garcetti said he considers it a work in progress and plans to circulate copies of the document to judges and defense attorneys for their comments.

“This is evolving,” Garcetti said. “Nobody has ever done this before.”

Los Angeles County Public Defender Michael P. Judge called Garcetti’s policy a step in the right direction, but said legislation still needs to be enacted to guarantee that police departments turn over to prosecutors all the relevant information they have in their files about police officer misconduct.

“I’m glad the district attorney is doing this, but much more needs to be done,” Judge said.

Under Garcetti’s policy, which is spelled out in a three-page document, the central clearinghouse for information regarding officer credibility will be the district attorney’s Special Investigation Division--the unit responsible for prosecuting public officials, including police officers. The computer database will include allegations of police misconduct lodged by prosecutors, any criminal proceedings against an officer and allegations of police criminality submitted to the district attorney by police agencies, even if prosecutors decline to file charges.

“Everything we have will go into it,” said Garcetti, adding that existing records will be put into the database.

Garcetti said he will be requesting that police departments throughout the county voluntarily submit officer discipline records to his office. State law, however, requires that certain police officer personnel records remain confidential.

In addition, Superior Court Judge Larry P. Fidler last week ordered that a series of hearings be held to “fix” disclosure problems that have denied some defendants their constitutional right to a fair trial.