L.A. Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey makes a case for justice for all

Fifty years after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Brady vs. Maryland, which established that prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to disclose information favorable to defendants, the debate continues over whether prosecutors are skirting that obligation.

In Los Angeles, the debate was revived last year when the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California sued Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley’s office, alleging that prosecutors were routinely concealing so-called Brady material.

Cooley repeatedly denied the allegations, noting that his office was among the first in the nation to develop a policy that specifically addressed compliance and had established a Brady Alert System that prosecutors were required to access. The system is a database of information that contains negative information about law enforcement officers, government employees and paid witnesses that could potentially undermine their testimony at trial.

The Times’ editorial page has praised Cooley’s policies, as it did last year in an editorial that also called on the district attorney to loosen the standards used for disclosure to ensure that defendants were provided any information that might prove their innocence or affect the outcome of their cases.

Now it seems that the lawsuit has been dropped. And last week, the district attorney’s office unveiled newly revised Brady policies that address the problems identified by the ACLU in its suit. That’s a good thing, right?

I’m not sure that new Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey thinks so. Her office insists the revised guidelines aren’t a big deal, just small clarification to existing policies.

Frankly, Lacey’s office can call it a clarification, a tweak or a revision, but the reality is the revised policies are not the same as the old guidelines. For example, under the previous policies, prosecutors needed only to tap the Brady Alert System to comply with their obligations. But under the amended guidelines put in place last week, prosecutors are instructed that the “Brady Alert System may not contain all potentially exculpatory impeachment information” and, therefore, a prosecutor “should not rely exclusively on the Brady Alert System to satisfy his or her disclosure obligation.”

Moreover, Lacey issued an internal statement Monday highlighting the changes: “I have issued two important special directives. They deal with our obligation as prosecutors to disclose evidence that might be exculpatory for a defendant facing criminal charges…. It is imperative that everyone on the prosecution team understands and complies with the rule of law and the policy set forth in these directives. The integrity of the criminal justice system requires that prosecutors play fair in seeking justice. When in doubt, disclose the evidence and litigate its admissibility in a court of law.”

This is Lacey’s first major policy change since she took office. I’d like to commend her for wisely recognizing that her job is to achieve justice, not simply to obtain convictions -- if only she would accept such praise.

ALSO:

Washington’s dark secrets

Fair trial for George Zimmerman

Edward Snowden: Hero or criminal?