In addition to my own ideas, I drew from
- Julie Risher's article Chief's Counsel: Brady Is Middle-Aged - But Is Compliance in Its Infancy for Some Agencies?
- Lou Reiter, co-director of the Legal Liability and Risk Management Institute’s, article Brady - The Next Step for Law Enforcement
for the above-listed recommendations.
Risher interestingly suggests that effective Brady training would include the impact of "tunnel vision." This phenomenon can cause investigators to discard information that does not support a hypothesis and to focus on information that does. The information that does not support a hypothesis may prove to be exculpatory - at least that's what a defense attorney might convincingly argue.
Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors' offices are facing a gathering storm of Brady litigation and action by the courts and possibly Congress.
In the wake of widespread Brady violations in Baltimore, the Maryland Court of Appeals adopted many recommendations from the American College of Trial Lawyers establishing bright line Brady obligations. Following the dismissal by Attorney General Eric Holder of felony convictions of Alaska's then Sen. Ted Stevens for Brady violations there have been calls for Congress to codify the government's Brady obligations. (See web link Look to Brady decision for fair trial standards.)
We should pro-actively set our own policies and mechanisms for compliance. The choice is ours. Now is the time to act.