Among the examples cited in the contempt motions is one in which a police officer was the only witness in a firearms possession case. In court filings, the Police Department said the officer was given a penalty of “training and counseling” by the Police Board of Inquiry, but it did not disclose the charge against him or the departmental violations leading up to his penalty.
Another case involved an officer with sustained charges of falsification of documents that were not disclosed to the DA’s Office, which it considers a failure to provide information to the defense as required by law.
What is being sought is commonly referred to as “impeaching information,” Cummings said. Such information, which in many cases could be favorable to the defense, must be disclosed as part of pretrial discovery under the Constitution.
Information about an officer’s prior use of excessive force or lying in a prior criminal investigation could cause credibility issues, Cummings said, and she contended the Police Department is not turning over that information.
Claims of racial bias are also at issue, said Cummings.
“We need to know about it,” she said, “because not only could it affect our decisions on whether or not we should be prosecuting the case, but we certainly need to know about it because it’s our obligation to turn it over to the defense.”
Cummings said this is not the first time the District Attorney’s Office has attempted to resolve the dispute. “We have tried to convince the Police Department this is a broken way of doing things.”
The Police Department said it did not know about the motions until Wednesday and declined to comment.