Efforts Afoot To Protect Lying Cops From Being Exposed

YouTube player

This hap­pens when white peo­ple in posi­tions of pow­er believe they are shield­ed from the vio­lence police per­pet­u­ate against peo­ple of col­or. They are going as far as to roll back rules that make it pub­lic when those lying crim­i­nal cops com­mit per­jury on affi­davits and while tes­ti­fy­ing in court to the point they can no longer be relied on as witnesses.
It is impor­tant to under­stand that rolling back pro­vi­sions in the law that make it pub­lic that cops are lairs and that their tes­ti­mo­ny can­not be trust­ed means that cops will become more empow­ered to lie, plant evi­dence, and com­mit per­jury to con­vict peo­ple they have as they have been doing for tens of decades.

The sys­tem of white suprema­cy unleashed in 2016 by Donald Trump has reignit­ed the old sys­tem of racism African-Americans expe­ri­enced gen­er­a­tions ago.
Don’t for­get also that Florida’s Ron Desantis has ordered Colleges and Universities to end diver­si­ty hir­ing and train­ing. He has also thrown his sup­port behind New York City Subway killer Daniel Penny, the 24-year-old Marine sergeant who mur­dered Jordan Neeley. The demons are loose. (mb)

YouTube player

By Virginia Bridges

At a time when the pub­lic is call­ing for more police account­abil­i­ty, two orga­ni­za­tions are com­pet­ing for con­trol over the process that gives offi­cers an often career-end­ing label of being untrustworthy.
A bill work­ing its way through the General Assembly has lift­ed a cur­tain on a dis­pute between North Carolina crim­i­nal jus­tice stake­hold­ers. The dis­agree­ment could help offi­cers deemed untrust­wor­thy on the job land new posi­tions in law enforce­ment, accord­ing to experts.
North Carolina’s Conference of District Attorneys and the Police Benevolent Association dis­agree about who should con­trol a process intend­ed to pre­vent cops with a his­to­ry of bias, lying or fab­ri­cat­ing evi­dence from tes­ti­fy­ing in court. In its cur­rent form, House Bill 704 would repeal a sec­tion of a 2021 law that requires offi­cials to tell state law enforce­ment com­mis­sions when a dis­trict attor­ney deems an offi­cer or deputy untrust­wor­thy to tes­ti­fy. The law requires offi­cers, their employ­ers, pros­e­cu­tors and judges to report what are often called Giglio let­ters. The bill, which passed in the House and has moved to the Senate, repeals a sec­tion of a law signed by Gov. Roy Cooper in September 2021. It was part of a bipar­ti­san effort to iden­ti­fy and track bad cops and police use of exces­sive use of force, a pri­or­i­ty for states across the coun­try after the mur­der of George Floyd in 2020.

The pro­posed repeal of a por­tion of the law has vocal crit­ics, includ­ing Dawn Blagrove, exec­u­tive direc­tor of civ­il rights orga­ni­za­tion Emancipate NC, which is push­ing for more crim­i­nal jus­tice reform. ”This is dis­grace­ful,” Blagrove said after a reporter informed her about the bill. She described it as a step back for crim­i­nal jus­tice reform that decreased trans­paren­cy about bad cops.
Rep. Joe John, a Raleigh Democrat, was a pri­ma­ry spon­sor of ini­tial ver­sions of the bill, which gave offi­cers a route to appeal­ing Giglio des­ig­na­tions. He removed his name because the bill now focus­es on repeal­ing noti­fi­ca­tion require­ments, he said.
Rep. Hugh Blackwell, a Burke County Republican and a pri­ma­ry spon­sor in the House, didn’t respond to mul­ti­ple requests for com­ments about the cur­rent language.

U.S. Supreme Court rul­ings since 1963 have required pros­e­cu­tors to dis­close rel­e­vant evi­dence that could raise ques­tions about wit­ness­es’ cred­i­bil­i­ty, bias or moti­va­tion. That could include offi­cers pre­vi­ous­ly caught lying in a case or a wit­ness who was offered immu­ni­ty in exchange for tes­ti­mo­ny favor­ing the prosecution.
In some cas­es, dis­trict attor­neys issue Giglio let­ters to offi­cers or their employ­ers that out­line what infor­ma­tion would be dis­closed if an offi­cer tes­ti­fied in court. Sometimes the let­ters say the offi­cers are deemed not cred­i­ble and are barred from tes­ti­fy­ing in all cas­es in that juris­dic­tion. The let­ters are often called “death let­ters” because they can be career-end­ing. The 2021 law requires offi­cers, agen­cies and dis­trict attor­neys to report the let­ters bar­ring court tes­ti­mo­ny to one of two North Carolina law enforce­ment train­ing com­mis­sions. In 2022, 15 of those let­ters were report­ed, accord­ing to the first full-year tal­ly report to a leg­isla­tive over­sight com­mit­tee, also required by law.

Under the 2021 law, the Giglio let­ter is placed in an offi­cers’ state cer­ti­fi­ca­tion file. The let­ters are shared with prospec­tive law enforce­ment employ­ers when an offi­cer trans­fers to a new agency and with dis­trict attor­neys in those loca­tions. After a state cer­ti­fi­ca­tion agency receives a Giglio let­ter, the agency reviews the infor­ma­tion, look­ing for vio­la­tions of its rules. If vio­la­tions are found, offi­cers can face sanc­tions such as sus­pen­sion or los­ing their cer­ti­fi­ca­tion.. The ini­tial ver­sion of the cur­rent bill, intro­duced in April, would have required that offi­cers receive notice of a pend­ing Gilgio let­ter and the oppor­tu­ni­ty to dis­pute it. Backed by the Police Benevolent Association, which advo­cates for 16,000 offi­cers in the state, the bill also cre­at­ed a process where offi­cers could appeal their neg­a­tive des­ig­na­tion to supe­ri­or court. 
The ear­li­est ver­sion of the bill, cir­cum­vent­ed pros­e­cu­tors’ respon­si­bil­i­ty man­dat­ed by the United States Supreme Court, said Conference of District Attorney exec­u­tive direc­tor Kimberly Spahos. The respon­si­bil­i­ty includes seek­ing out and report­ing whether a government’s wit­ness suf­fers from lack of cred­i­bil­i­ty, dis­hon­esty and oth­er issues that will affect their abil­i­ty to tes­ti­fy, Spahos said.

The author­i­ty is giv­en to pros­e­cu­tors and pros­e­cu­tors alone and doesn’t give supe­ri­or court judges or any­one else the author­i­ty to pre­empt or over­turn the deci­sion to force some­one to call a wit­ness they don’t think is cred­i­ble, she said. The Police Benevolent Association dis­agrees with the conference’s stance on how far their author­i­ty extends, includ­ing the issuance of Giglio let­ters. The asso­ci­a­tion is chal­leng­ing offi­cer Giglio des­ig­na­tions in two cas­es work­ing their way through state courts. Under today’s polit­i­cal pres­sure to hold offi­cers account­able, some dis­trict attor­neys aren’t gath­er­ing all the facts before issu­ing the let­ter, asso­ci­a­tion Executive Director John Midgette said. In oth­er cas­es, they are mis­ap­ply­ing Giglio stan­dards or send­ing the let­ters in retal­i­a­tion, he said. Yet there is no way that offi­cers can object to “this badge of infamy,” Midgette said.Representatives from the sher­iffs asso­ci­a­tion and police chiefs asso­ci­a­tion said they sup­port due process for offi­cers who receive Giglio let­ters that is con­sis­tent with the Supreme Court decisions.

Representatives from the state sher­iffs’ asso­ci­a­tion and police chiefs asso­ci­a­tion said they oppose repeal of the cur­rent law.
“I think every­one can agree that we don’t want bad actors wear­ing police uni­forms,” said Hendersonville Police Chief Blair Myhand, pres­i­dent of the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police.
The NC Sheriffs’ Association sup­ports the cur­rent law because it allows the com­mis­sions to iden­ti­fy prob­lem­at­ic offi­cers, said Eddie Caldwell, the group’s gen­er­al counsel.
The law cre­at­ed a process that allowed offi­cers to object to the Giglio des­ig­na­tion and offi­cials to review the alle­ga­tions and deter­mine whether the officer’s cer­ti­fi­ca­tions should be sus­pend­ed or revoked, he said. The Police Benevolent Association rep­re­sen­ta­tive Midgette said they don’t want to elim­i­nate the oppor­tu­ni­ty to iden­ti­fy prob­lem­at­ic offi­cers, but want to give offi­cers some due process in that sys­tem. “We just want to have fair­ness in the sys­tem so good offi­cers have the right be heard before their rep­u­ta­tions is ruined,” he said. The exec­u­tive direc­tor of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys declined to take a stance on the cur­rent lan­guage in the bill. “What I can tell you is we don’t sup­port law enforce­ment offi­cers that have cred­i­bil­i­ty issues being able to move around the state and us not know about it,” Spahos said.