The recent attention given to the "Brady" decision and the subsequent grandstanding by San Francisco Public Defender, Jeff Adachi, has bought to the forefront an issue that has been law since 1963. Let me first explain what Brady vs. Maryland means.
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in the Brady case that the government has a duty to disclose material evidence to the defense which could tend to change the outcome of the trial. This exculpatory evidence, often referred to as "Brady Material," could tend to prove that the accused party is innocent or cast doubt on their guilt. Under "Brady," evidence affecting the credibility of the police officer as a witness may be exculpatory evidence and should be given to the defense during discovery. In essence, the heart of "Brady" deals with a police officer's past with regards to sustained complaints of lying and/or untruthfulness. This information would clearly be exculpatory and pertinent to the defenses case.
Under "Brady" it is the District Attorney's responsibility to turn over the names of any officer who may meet "Brady" criteria to the defense. What has given Adachi the political leverage against Kamala Harris on the issue is the fact that San Francisco has never formalized a "Brady" policy, as many other cities have done since 2002.
In 1972, the United States vs. Giglio expanded "Brady" to require the DA turn over any information that could impeach the "credibility or veracity" of a police officer's testimony, or if an officer has a past record of falsifying reports or other conduct which could impact their truthfulness."
Adachi, who is one of the most vindictive human beings to ever hold office in this city, pounced on the issue alleging that the SFPD is filled with potential felons and convicted perjurers. When information leaked out that up to 80 officers were being looked at for possible "Brady" exposure, Adachi implied that every one of these officers were somehow guilty until proven innocent. The truth of the matter is that MCD, at the direction of Chief Gascon, went back as far as 1980 searching for just about any sustained discipline that could even remotely be interpreted as a possible "Brady" issue.
The fact of the matter is that any information the defense may wish to access is already available through a "Pitches Motion" that allows the defense to access the personnel files of any officer by making the request through our legal division.
Through Adachi's scheming and grandstanding, the impression is now being given that hundreds of people will now go free because the DA failed to turn over exculpatory evidence that would have exonerated their client.
The truth is that it is more likely that no cases will be overturned due to "Brady" violations, but the press will never write that story.
We are actively involved in negotiations with the Department over a written, comprehensive policy that will serve as a road map for future "Brady" issues. We will do it without the rhetoric of a Public Defender with higher political aspirations
