Proposed Ohio Bill Would Allow Officers to Challenge Placement on Brady-Giglio Lists, Raising Transparency Concerns
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A newly introduced bill at the Ohio Statehouse would allow law enforcement officers to petition a court to have their names removed from prosecutor-maintained Brady-Giglio lists, a proposal critics warn could weaken a key safeguard used to protect the public.
House Bill 975, introduced July 13 by Republican state Reps. Phil Plummer and Cindy Abrams would amend Ohio’s public records law and create a new section of state law allowing officers to challenge their inclusion on a Brady-Giglio list.
What is a Brady-Giglio list?
Brady-Giglio lists are used by prosecutors to track law enforcement officers whose credibility may be questioned during criminal proceedings.
The lists stem from two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, which require prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to defendants, including information that could affect the credibility of government witnesses.
Under the proposed legislation, a Brady-Giglio list would be defined as a list compiled by a prosecutor containing the names of law enforcement officers with at least one substantiated incident of misconduct that is material to the officer’s credibility as a witness in a criminal case.
The bill defines a substantiated incident of misconduct as an incident involving:
Untruthfulness or dishonesty;
Conduct occurring while performing law enforcement duties; and
Evidence supporting the allegation.
The legislation would exclude certain situations, including criminal charges that were dismissed, acquittals, convictions later overturned on appeal, or convictions involving a pardon or commutation.
What would the bill change?
Under current practice, prosecutors maintain Brady-Giglio lists based on their legal obligations to disclose credibility issues to defendants. The proposed bill states prosecutors would not be required to maintain a Brady-Giglio list, but if they do, they would have to notify an officer in writing when their name is added.
The officer could then file a petition in the common pleas court of the county where the officer’s law enforcement agency is located.
A judge would hold a hearing where the officer and prosecutor could present evidence regarding whether the officer should remain on the list.
If the court determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the officer should not be included, the judge would order the officer’s removal.
The bill would also allow for confidential, or “in-camera,” hearings if requested by the officer, prosecutor, or the court.
Supporters argue bill protects officers’ rights
Supporters of the legislation say the proposal gives officers a legal avenue to challenge inaccurate or unfair inclusion on a credibility list.
They argue that being placed on a Brady-Giglio list can damage an officer’s career, limit employment opportunities, and impact public perception, even when allegations may be disputed.
The bill’s sponsors have not yet released detailed public statements explaining their reasons for introducing the legislation.
Critics raise concerns about transparency and accountability
Opponents of the proposal argue that the bill could create additional barriers to prosecutors’ ability to disclose credibility concerns and could make it harder for defendants to obtain information that may be critical to their defense.
Critics say Brady-Giglio disclosures exist to ensure fairness in criminal trials by allowing juries and defense attorneys to evaluate the reliability of witnesses, particularly police officers whose testimony may be central to a case.
They argue that allowing officers to challenge removal from these lists could shift the focus away from transparency and toward protecting the careers of officers accused of credibility-related misconduct.
Public records changes also included
The legislation would also amend Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43, which governs public records.
The bill’s language would repeal the existing section and replace it with updated provisions connected to the creation and handling of Brady-Giglio lists.
What happens next?
House Bill 975 remains in the early stages of the legislative process. It must be assigned to a House committee, receive hearings, and pass both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly before reaching the governor’s desk.
