- Exclusion of a witness' testimony
- Continuance of the case
- Dismissal of the case with prejudice (the case cannot be re-instituted)
- Reversal of a conviction
- Sanctions by the court
Court-imposed sanctions could include:
- Finding of contempt
- Imposition of costs incurred by the defense
- And, as recently decided by the 9th Circuit in Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco (2009), the police may be held civilly liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In this case, the liability could possibly encompass 13 years of wrongful incarceration - BIG BUCKS.
According to the court's opinion in Tennison, homicide investigators withheld a taped confession to the murder by an individual that an eye witness had identified as the shooter. The eye witness had also stated that Tennison and Goff (both were convicted and imprisoned) were not present at the scene. The eye witness' statements were buried in the file.
Also, not disclosed was a $2,500 reward requested by the investigators from a Secret Witness Program that the defendants asserted might have encouraged witnesses to identify them as being involved in the crime, including one witness who changed her story twice about whether she had actually witnessed the murder.
The 9th Circuit rejected the investigators' argument that Tennison and Goff had to show they acted in bad faith. Instead, a suing plaintiff can prevail if they show officers,
Acted with deliberate indifference to or reckless disregard for an accused's rights or for the truth in withholding evidence from prosecutors.
It is noteworthy that the Tennison court found the investigators acted with reckless indifference even though they included the eye witness statements that neither Tennison nor Goff were at the scene and identifying someone else as the shooter in the file turned over to the prosecutor. The court reasoned that, in the absence of actively bringing the statements to the prosecutor's attention, including the information in the file only served to bury, not disclose it.
This finding may have been influenced by the investigators' more egregious conduct of withholding the confession by the person identified by the eye witness as the shooter. Regardless, it suggests that specific protocols for alerting prosecutors to exculpatory evidence are in order.
The Brady list and more
Brady poses another minefield for officers. The media has fostered a newly heightened public scrutiny of prosecutors and their Brady duties. Recent high profile cases involving Brady violations have also re-energized the defense bar.
Last year Brady v. Maryland received new public life in the widely covered trial of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens. After obtaining convictions at trial, the government's motion to dismiss the case based on Brady violations by the prosecution made headline news. The prosecutors in that case are still under investigation. The defense bar is re-energized in its Brady motions and litigation. (See web link below to Litigating Brady v. Maryland.)
In response, many prosecution offices have developed, or are developing, Brady Lists of officers with impeachment evidence in their background. Prosecutors then notify defense attorneys whenever a Brady listed officer is to be called as a witness, along with providing the impeachment evidence.
Find yourself Brady-listed and you may just find yourself out of police work. (See web link below to Fired Ceres detective seeks job, back pay.) Even if you hang onto your job, how are you going to feel testifying and being cross examined on lying about falling asleep on the job (or any other impeachment evidence) in every criminal case?
How would you feel about being civilly sued under a standard of reckless indifference regarding your obligation to recognize, preserve, collect and disclose any and all exculpatory evidence? Exculpatory evidence doesn't just include evidence that could be used to impeach you. It also includes evidence that could be used to impeach the witnesses you interview. Can you recognize all such evidence?