DC police keep secret list

[F4GIB]

Secret List of police officers Makes Prosecution of Criminals More Difficult

Mar 24th - 11:54am
Neal Augenstein, WTOP Radio

WASHINGTON - A police officer's testimony can make or break a criminal case when it goes to trial. WTOP Radio has learned of a secret list that makes it even more difficult to put criminals behind bars.

In D.C. it's called the Lewis List, but sources tell WTOP similar lists exist in almost every jurisdiction.

It's a computerized list, kept by prosecutors, of police officers under investigation -- officers prosecutors knew will have their credibility challenged if they testify.

Because of the list, prosecutors and police have had to change their tactics to ensure their cases are solid. For example, they try to get suspects to confess to an officer who is not on the list and to make sure the names of the arresting officers are not on the list.

Neither prosecutors nor police will confirm it, but sources tell WTOP one of the officers involved in the investigation of the beating and robbing of a T-shirt vendor, known as "Grandma," is on the Lewis List. In that ongoing case, a judge has scheduled a hearing to reconsider whether the alleged confession of James Dorsey would be admissible in court

On average, more than 100 names are on the Lewis List in the District. Most are officers who work for the Metropolitan Police Department, but some are from smaller departments. * * *

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=735837

 

[Vex]

There's one of these for civilains, too. It's called NCIC.

It's sad a list like this has to be kept, but if the suspect is going to give a legitimate confession, wouldn't you want it usable in court?

I also think it's interesting that they say there's an "average," which mean sometimes more, sometimes less. I wonder how one gets off the list? Does this list contain anyone that's currently under an internal affairs investigation? Kinda seems like being deemed guilty until proven innocent.

And as we know, an internal affairs investigtion could come from anyone for anything, big or little. So now John Doe gets a ticket, he says he was racially profiled, the officer and this situation is under investigation for 3 months until the beaureacracy can work it's magic. During this time the defense attorneys get to challenge the credibility of an officer because John Doe didn't think he deserved a ticket which sparked a false investigation. When the IA investigation is over, is the officer's credibility magically restored?

 

[SOT]

While I've never heard of "secret lists" this is nothing new. Prosecutors are required to notify the defense if a witness is known to have credibility issues. Therefore many officers will lose their job if there is evidence that can be used to impeach them on the stand, because they are useless for testimony from that point on.

Here is the court case which addresses this issue: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=405&invol=150

Officers known to have credibility problems are said to have "Giglio problems" due to this case. It's a career killer.

 

[beerslurpy]

Such lists are good and should be public rather than secret. If I get pulled over and have a record of felonies or even mere arrests, every cop will know it in a second. Why should I not know that the cop that pulled me over despite not speeding is a habitual liar or thief?

 

[Autolycus]

I agree with Beerslurpy. I have been stating that we allow the LEOs to much power. They know to much information about us and we are not allowed to know about them.

 

[beerslurpy]

Our society has already determined that things like this are a good idea so it is only a matter of time before everyone tastes the pain of privacy invasions, even cops.

Look at all the efforts to track everyone's financial records and follow people who violate public morals (we used to call them flashers or public urinators, now we call them sex offenders). The movement towards cataloging and watching of every citizen is nowhere near running out of steam.

 

[JohnBT]

They aren't going to make information available on ongoing investigations. I guess you could call that a secret. JT

 

[c_yeager]

I dont see whats wrong with this. These men havent been convicted of a crime but their credibility can be called into question. Untill they are exhonerated or convicted/fired then it is prudent to cover the bases. There is no reason to endanger criminal cases for this.

 

[Pilgrim]

Prosecutors and senior police staff pretty much know which officers are weak, do a poor job of investigating, and do not do well on the witness stand. Their level of competence does not sink to the level of firing them, so they just limp along jeopardizing cases.

Eventually they get transferred to jobs requiring very little in the way of investigative skills, such as prisoner transportation, court security, and D.A.R.E..

Pilgrim

 

[El Tejon]

Secret list? Geez, a little over dramatic for a Giglio list?

When I was a LEO, we kept such a list. It was hardly "secret", it was right then in the supervisor's file cabinet.