Is Terminationthe Only ResponseBy Ronal Serpas, Superintend.docx

Is Termination
the Only Response?
By Ronal Serpas, Superintendent, New Orleans,
Louisiana, Police Department; and Michael Hagar,
Captain, Metropolitan Nashville, Tennessee,
Police Department
Over the decades, law enforcement leaders have been under
increasing pressure to answer the question, “What do I do
with a law enforcement employee who has been proven to
be untruthful in the workplace?”
Many departments have been confronted with significant and
farreaching
court decisions that play prominent roles in this decisionmaking
process, as well as vigorous debates and lengthy court
battles with labor organizations around the issue of truthfulness
expectations in policy and disciplinary actions.
The U.S. Department of Justice has issued far-reaching
instructions on the conduct of federal law enforcement cases
that
may involve local and state police employees who have
histories
of being untruthful in the workplace. There have been articles
published in Police Chief magazine and other publications
discussing
this issue. In light of these critical and evolving issues,
a recent decision from the Tennessee Court of Appeals
analyzing
the procedures and practices of the Metropolitan Nashville
Police Department (MNPD), in Davidson County, Tennessee,
can
be instructive.
Editor’s Note: When this article was originally written, Ronal

Serpas
was the chief of police for Metropolitan Nashville, Tennessee.
Between writing the article and its publication date, Serpas
accepted a new position as Superintendent of Police for the City
of New Orleans.
For the past seven years, the magazine has published articles
building on the knowledge base of this issue. Other articles
published by the Police Chief on the subject include “Brady
Is Middle-Aged—but Is Compliance in Its Infancy for Some
Agencies?” by Julie Risher (June 2008); “Should Police
Officers
Who Lie Be Terminated as a Matter of Public Policy?” by Elliot
Spector, (April 2008); “Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the
Defense: Is a Liars Squad Coming to Your Town?” by Lisa A.
Judge
(November 2005); and “Police Officer Truthfulness and the
Brady
Decision,” by Jeff Noble (October 2003). This article adds to
the
body of knowledge of addressing employee untruthfulness.
MEMO
RANDUM
TO: Dr. Bruce Gay
FROM: Vibert Jacob
DATE: 7 February 2017
SUBJECT
: Witness Credibility and Prosecutor Obligation
Evidence is the cornerstone of the justice system. Be that as it
may, there are instances where
prosecutors have been accused of withholding of such
evidence. There are instance where the credibility of a
witnessed can be undermined by the evidence presented to

court. In such instances, it is the responsibility of the person
pursuing the case to reveal such evidence. This memorandum
will highlight several instances that reveal the need for the
prosecutor to disclose any evidence that might undermine the
credibility of a crucial witness to a case.
Brady vs. Maryland
One of the most notable cases that highlight the importance of
revealing evidence that puts into question the credibility of a
witness is Brady vs. Maryland.
In this case, the petitioner applied to have the case retried based
on his allegation that he had been convicted of a crime
committed by his accomplice. Both the petitioner and the
accomplice were accused of first degree murder but only the
petitioner ended up being convicted. However, the petitioner
claimed that his accomplice actually confessed to the crime, but
this information was withheld by the prosecutor.
Discussion
.
Giglio vs. the United States
In Giglio vs. United States,
Giglio was accused of forger. The bank worker was accused of
forging currency notes and convicted to five years in prison.
The main witness in the case was Mr. Taliento who also
happened to have been Giglio’s co-conspirator. The conviction
of the bank employee was mainly hinged on the witness
testimony put forward by Mr. Taliento. However, the prosecutor
to the case failed to reveal that they had offered a deal to the
witness whereby he was assured of immunity from prosecution
in case he agreed to testify against his accomplice. In his
application for a second hearing, Giglio pointed out that his
accomplice had been offered a deal and this had compromised

his credibility as a witness. Initially, his request for a re-
hearing was denied but later on, the court agreed
to a second hearing.
gave.
United States vs. Agurs
The third case that brings out the aspect of witness credibility is
United States vs. Agurs
. Agurs was accused of first degree murder for murdering her
boyfriend. Upon completion of the case, Agurs, the defendant
realized that the prosecutor had failed to disclose evidence
regarding her boyfriend’s history of violence. In his defense,
the prosecutor argued that Agurs had not requested to be
furnished with evidence relating to her boyfriend’s past. The
case of Agurs vs. United States brings to the fray several issues
with one key issue being the role of prosecutor in revealing any
evidence that relate to the witness credibility
.
Discussion
Due to the ability of such evidence to be crucial in determining
a case, it is reasonable for the prosecutor to be handed the
responsibility of providing certain pieces of information such as
the history of a witness or victim in a case. As such, the
credibility of a witness needs to be determined before any
evidence or testimonies are received from the witness, while at
the same time, in the case of the credibility of law enforcement
officers, evidence regarding the history of an officer witness
proves to be crucial for the sake of serving justice and fairness.
All in all, the credibility of a witness is one of the most
important elements when it comes to determining the possible
outcome of a case. A prosecutor has a legal obligation to
provide evidence that can go into addressing issues to do with
the credibility of a witness. This is important since issues to do
with credibility must be resolved before a witness is allowed to

testify. Furthermore, credibility of a witness with respect to law
enforcement officers must also be taken into account before
allowing the law enforcement officer to testify.
References
Giglio vs. the United States: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-
supreme-court/405/150.html
Brady vs. Maryland:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/case.html
United States vs. Agurs: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-
supreme-court/427/97.html
Criteria
Levels of Achievement
Content
(70%)
Advanced
92-100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing
1-83%
Not present
Total
%
Answer Specificity
23 to 25 points:
All key components of the question are thoroughly answered in
the paper.
21 to 22.5 points:
All key components of the question is largely answered in the
paper with few exceptions.

1 to 20.5 points:
Key portions of assigned questions are left unanswered.
0 points
Not present
10
Logic & Clarity
23 to 25 points:
Clear, logical flow to paper; major points are stately clearly.
21 to 22.5 points:
Clear logical flow to paper; major points are stated clearly for
the most part.
1 to 20.5 points:
Lack of clarity and failure to logically explain and communicate
answers is the norm.
0 points
Not present
18
Research & Support
18.5 to 20 points:
Major points are thoroughly supported by the following:
1.Lecture material or Scripture
2.Good examples (pertinent
conceptual or personal

examples
3.Thoughtful analysis
(considering assumptions,
analyzing implications,
comparing/contrasting
concept)
16.5 to 18 points:
Major points are largely supported by the following:
1.Lecture material or
Scripture
2.Good examples (pertinent
examples
(considering assumptions,
concept)

1 to 16 points:
Major points are lacking substantial support by the following:
1.Lecture material or
Scripture
2.Good examples
(pertinent
examples
(considering
assumptions,
concept)
0 points
Not present
13
Structure (30%)
Advanced

92-100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing
1-83%
Not present
Total
%
Spelling, Grammar & APA
18.5 to 20 points:
Little to no errors in spelling, grammar and APA
16.5 to 18 points:
Some errors in spelling, grammar & APA
1 to 16 points:
Numerous errors in spelling, grammar & APA
0 points
Not present
0
Sufficient Length
9.25 to 10 points:
2.5 pages of content and a title page (reference page if needed)
8.25 to 9 points:
Paper runs a bit long or a bit short of page requirements
1 to 8 points:
Paper is more than three pages or less than two pages.

0 points
Not present
10
Professor Comments:
Case briefing lacking, several key legal issues were overlooked,
memorandum lacks specifics as to the conduct of officers,
numerous APA errors
Total:
51
�you need to use a cover page
�This is an inter-office memorandum, address it to your
department (see part 2), do not address it to me
�double space only,
�Do NOT use FULL justification, use LEFT justification
�YES, so you need to be more specific about the
DISCIPLINARY actions that attach to officers who lie in
official reports because such evidence must be disclose at trial
as required by these cases you are briefing. You need to tie
your introduction to the purpose of the memorandum with
specifics, not vague generalities
�not correct way to cite cases in APA, see announcement that

was posted
was posted
�in case briefing, you Give facts of the case first, then the legal
issue, then what the Court held. do not use the word
“discussion” you gave the facts, but you did not give the legal
issue or the court’s decision. in short, you did not adequately
brief this case. This level of detail was explained in the weekly
announcement
�do not give commentary on the case. give the legal issue and
legal precedent
was posted
was posted
�which court? be specific
was posted

was posted
�this is NOT the key issue. this is not what is different about
discovery in Agurs from Brady. Re-read the case
was posted
10/15/2016
Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense: Is a Liars Squ
ad Coming to Your Town? – Police Chief Magazine
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/disclosing-officer-untruthf
ulness-to-the-defense-is-a-liars-squad-coming-to-your-town/ 1/5
SUBSCRIBE JOIN
SELECT LANGUAGE ▼

Police Chief
Magazine | Topics | Ethics | Disclosing O㫓߶ cer
Untruthfulness to the Defense: Is a Liars Squad
Coming to Your Town?
Disclosing Of cer Untruthfulness to the
Defense: Is a Liars Squad Coming to Your
Town?
Lisa A. Judge, Police Legal Advisor, Tucson, Arizona, Police
Department
Since 1963, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions has
clari菟쯨ed that, in a criminal
case, prosecutors must disclose to the defense evidence
favorable to the defendant.
This includes information that may be used to impeach the
credibility of government
witnesses, including law enforcement o㫓߶ cers. These decisions
mean that o㫓߶ cers
who have documented histories of lying in o㫓߶ cial matters,
falsifying reports, or
expressing bias may become even greater liabilities to their
agencies because their
records may render them unable to testify credibly and
consequently unable to
work e㣚舟ectively as law enforcement o㫓߶ cers.
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/subscribe/
http://iacppolice.ebiz.uapps.net/PersonifyEbusiness/Default.asp
x?TabID=335
http://www5.smartadserver.com/click?imgid=17237008&insid=
6008992&pgid=703219&uid=-
3135561339745329071&tgt=%24dt%3d1t%3b%24dma%3d584%
3b%3b%24hc&systgt=%24qc%3d4799583%3b%24ql%3dmediu
m%3b%24qpc%3d22904%3b%24qpp%3d804%3b%24qt%3d152

_720_30621t%3b%24dma%3d584%3b%24b%3d16530%3b%24o
%3d11061%3b%24sw%3d1920%3b%24sh%3d1080&go=http%3
a%2f%2fwww.mhs.com%2fproduct.aspx%3fgr%3dsaf%26id%3d
overview%26prod%3dls-cmi
http://www.theiacp.org/
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/
javascript:void(0)
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/category/topics/
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/category/topics/ethics/
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/disclosing-officer-
untruthfulness-to-the-defense-is-a-liars-squad-coming-to-your-
town/
10/15/2016
Supreme Court Cases
In Brady v. Maryland the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the
suppression by the
prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request
violates due process
where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,
irrespective of the
good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” In Brady two men
were tried for a
murder that occurred during a robbery. One of the defendants,
Brady, admitted that
he had taken part in the robbery but claimed that the other
defendant committed
the killing. The Court found that the prosecution should have

disclosed to Brady’s
attorney the co-defendant’s statements confessing to the killing.
In Giglio v. United States the Supreme Court extended the
obligation to share
exculpatory information with the defendant to include
information concerning the
credibility of government witnesses. Giglio was convicted of
forgery primarily on
the testimony of an unindicted co-conspirator. At trial, the co-
conspirator testi菟쯨ed
that he had not received any promises of leniency in exchange
for his testimony
against Giglio, when in fact the prosecutor who presented the
case to the grand jury
had promised not to prosecute him in exchange for testifying.
The Court was
unimpressed with the trial prosecutor’s claims that he knew
nothing of the deal.
“When the reliability of a given witness may be determinative
of guilt or innocence,”
the Court wrote, “nondisclosure of evidence a㣚舟ecting
credibility falls within this
general rule.”
In United States v. Agurs the Supreme Court expanded the rule
further by recognizing
a duty to disclose exculpatory information even in the absence
of a speci菟쯨c request
for it. The female defendant was convicted of second-degree
murder in the
stabbing death of a male acquaintance. The defendant had
claimed self-defense.
After the trial, the defendant learned that the prosecutor had
failed to disclose the
victim’s previous guilty pleas to assault and weapon possession

charges. The Court
held that the prosecutor’s failure to disclose material
exculpatory evidence violated
due process.
United States v. Bagley further de菟쯨ned “material” evidence as
information that, if
disclosed to the defense attorney, would have a “reasonable
probability of providing
a di㣚舟erent result in the trial or sentencing.” This case also
clari菟쯨ed that
impeachment evidence must be disclosed to the defense. Here,
the government
failed to disclose contracts with con菟쯨dential informants who
testi菟쯨ed against the
1
2
3
4
10/15/2016
defendant in his trial on weapons and narcotics charges, which
his attorney could
have used to impeach their testimony. The Court found that this

type of information
was material since it would cast doubt on the motives of the
witnesses.
Finally, the Court’s decision in Kyles v. Whitley imposed upon
the prosecutor an
a㫓߶ rmative “duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to
the others acting on
the government’s behalf, including the police,” and a resulting
duty to disclose that
evidence to the defense. In this case, the defendant was
convicted of 菟쯨rst-degree
murder but was given a new trial after it was discovered that the
prosecutor had not
divulged exculpatory evidence, even though the prosecutor was
unaware of the
evidence, which was in police 菟쯨les. The Court stated that
even if a prosecutor isn’t
aware of the exculpatory evidence, “procedures and regulations
can be established
to carry [the prosecutor’s] burden and to insure communication
of all relevant
information on each case to every lawyer who deals with it.”
Federal Law Enforcement’s Response to the Disclosure Rules
The bottom line: these Supreme Court decisions create a rule
that requires
prosecutors to learn of and disclose to the defense information
that could be used
to discredit law enforcement witnesses in a case. Prosecutors
are essentially held
responsible for knowing what the police know. The reality is
that prosecutors must
rely on law enforcement agencies to inform them of a hidden
witness credibility
problem including, for example, evidence of an o㫓߶ cer’s prior

untruthfulness in
o㫓߶ cial matters.
Responding to this requirement, Attorney General Janet Reno in
1996 established
the so-called Giglio policy, which required federal law
enforcement agencies to
inform federal prosecutors about potential impeachment
information. Speci菟쯨cally,
federal investigative agencies are required to report prior
misconduct involving the
o㫓߶ cers in a case if that misconduct is “material to the
defense” and would damage
the credibility of an o㫓߶ cer-witness.
This policy places a burden both on the enforcement agency and
individual o㫓߶ cers
to ensure that federal prosecutors are informed about
impeachment information.
Mere allegations of this type of evidence need not be reported
to the prosecutor
unless the allegation is determined to be “very credible.”
However, under this policy,
even allegations against the o㫓߶ cer that were not sustained, are
not credible, or
5
10/15/2016

resulted in exoneration may be subject to disclosure if: (1)
required by a court; (2)
the allegation was made by a federal prosecutor or judge, or
received publicity; (3)
the agency and the prosecutor agree that disclosure is
appropriate under the
circumstances; or (4) the agency deems such disclosure is
appropriate.
Implications for State and Local Police Departments
Many state and local agencies have similarly begun to disclose
to prosecutors any
conclusive information regarding untruthfulness, bias, and
crimes committed by an
o㫓߶ cer who is to be a material witness in a criminal
prosecution. Once the
prosecutor is aware of such information, he or she can decide if
the information
should be disclosed to the defense attorney.
If the misconduct involves untruthfulness, it is likely to
undermine the o㫓߶ cer’s ability
to testify e㣚舟ectively. Agencies have responded to this
problem in di㣚舟erent ways.
Some have adopted strict truthfulness policies and terminate
o㫓߶ cers who violate
them. Other agencies have simply placed o㫓߶ cers with
impeachment problems in
administrative assignments where there is no likelihood of
becoming a witness in a
criminal case, essentially creating so-called liars squads.
Defense attorneys are using information about untruthful
o㫓߶ cers to create
databases to be used by other defense attorneys. For example, in

San Diego, a
defense attorney faced with a police witness in a case need only
consult a database
established by San Diego County Public Defender’s O㫓߶ ce
containing information
about local police misconduct and bias. If there is information
about that o㫓߶ cer
being untruthful or in some way biased as a witness, the
attorney will attempt to use
that information to impeach that o㫓߶ cer.
As this trend grows, agencies will be required to deal more
forcefully with o㫓߶ cers
who lie. Departments may choose to adopt strict policies
regarding truthfulness and
rigorously adhere to those policies. Without taking such steps,
agencies set
themselves up to employ a portion of their commissioned
workforce as
administrative employees, unable to investigate crimes and
testify regarding their
investigations. ■
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).
6
1
2
3
4

10/15/2016
The Police Chief is the o㫓߶ cial publication of the International
Association of
Chiefs of Police.
All contents © 2003–2016 International Association of Chiefs
of Police. All Rights
Reserved.
Copyright and Trademark Notice | Member and Non-Member
Supplied Information
| Links Policy
44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA USA 22314 |
703.836.6767 or
1.800.THE IACP
Designed and Built by Matrix Group International, Inc.®
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
“Database to Let Attorneys See Conduct of O㫓߶ cers,” San
Diego Union-Tribune, Dec.
24, 2000.
4

5
6
town/
town/
town/
http://www.matrixgroup.net/
Accounting Methods
Assignment Steps
Resources:
· Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
· Tutorial help on Excel® and Word functions can be found on
the Microsoft® Office website. There are also additional
tutorials via the web offering support for Office products.
Scenario:
· BizCon, a consulting firm, has just completed its first year of
operations. The company's sales growth was explosive. To
encourage clients to hire its services, BizCon offered 180-day
financing - meaning its largest customers do not pay for nearly
6 months. Because BizCon is a new company, its equipment
suppliers insist on being paid cash on delivery. Also, it had to
pay up front for 2 years of insurance. At the end of the year,
BizCon owed employees for one full month of salaries, but due
to a cash shortfall, it promised to pay them the first week of
next year.

As the senior accountant, the Chief Financial Officer has asked
you to prepare a memo to be sent to management notifying them
of the delayed wage payments.
Prepare the memo in a maximum 200 words including the
following information to better outline the situation - Assess
how at the end of the year, BizCon reported a favorable net
income
Format This is a MEMO, not a paper. APA is not needed
EXCEPT for citations and references.

Is Terminationthe Only ResponseBy Ronal Serpas, Superintend.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Is Terminationthe Only ResponseBy Ronal Serpas, Superintend.docx

More from christiandean12115

Recently uploaded

Is Terminationthe Only ResponseBy Ronal Serpas, Superintend.docx