Florida

Overview

Florida represents a complex and often contradictory legal environment when it comes to prosecutorial disclosure and law enforcement accountability. On the one hand, the state has codified certain aspects of Brady and Giglio obligations through both court rule and statutory law, and some individual counties—particularly in urban centers—have implemented formal “Do Not Call” or Brady Lists. On the other hand, Florida’s expansive network of independently elected State Attorneys and over 400 law enforcement agencies produces wide variability in disclosure practices, with no statewide requirement to maintain or publish lists of officers with credibility issues. Despite having the legal framework to support transparency, Florida suffers from a lack of enforcement consistency, strong resistance from police unions, and persistent barriers to accessing disciplinary records—especially in smaller jurisdictions.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Florida has 20 judicial circuits, each served by an elected State Attorney. These offices enjoy significant autonomy in determining how, when, and whether to disclose law enforcement misconduct or track officers deemed Giglio-impaired. Florida’s court system is governed by the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Florida Evidence Code, which incorporate constitutional due process standards and discovery requirements. However, there is no uniform statewide Brady List system, nor any public registry of officers who have been found to have lied or committed acts of dishonesty relevant to courtroom testimony.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) certifies law enforcement officers, and while it does maintain records of decertification, it does not designate whether the cause is related to dishonesty, nor does it maintain a Giglio-specific database. Consequently, officers with sustained credibility issues may still testify or transfer between jurisdictions without disclosure, unless individual State Attorneys have taken proactive steps.

Historical Context

Florida’s history of criminal justice reform is marked by intense political battles, particularly over the death penalty, police accountability, and prosecutorial discretion. During the 1990s and 2000s, the state became known for its aggressive law-and-order stance, mass incarceration policies, and prosecutorial practices that often prioritized conviction rates over transparency. This culture fostered an environment in which Brady and Giglio compliance was treated more as an ethical guideline than a strict mandate.

In recent years, public pressure following high-profile police shootings, wrongful convictions, and investigative journalism has led to increased scrutiny. Some jurisdictions, such as Miami-Dade, Broward, and Hillsborough counties, have adopted internal systems for tracking law enforcement witnesses with credibility concerns. However, there is no legislative requirement that they do so, and many jurisdictions still operate without formal policies, creating a patchwork of accountability.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

Florida’s Constitution guarantees due process under Article I, Sections 9 and 16, which mirror the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Florida's discovery rules require prosecutors to disclose exculpatory information, but do not specifically codify Giglio obligations.

Key sources of authority include:

• Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220: Mandates that the prosecution disclose “any material information within the State’s possession or control which tends to negate the guilt of the accused” or impeach state witnesses.

• Rule 4-3.8(d), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct: Requires that prosecutors timely disclose any evidence that tends to negate guilt or mitigate the offense.

• Chapter 119, Florida Statutes (Public Records Law): Grants broad access to public records, but includes numerous exemptions for law enforcement personnel records, often used to shield internal affairs reports from public disclosure.

While Florida law requires that decertified officers be listed by FDLE, it does not require prosecutors or law enforcement agencies to flag officers for Giglio purposes or maintain lists of those unfit to testify.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

Florida appellate courts have addressed Brady and Giglio repeatedly, with some important decisions reinforcing the prosecution’s disclosure obligations:

• Smith v. State, 931 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2006): Florida Supreme Court affirmed the duty to disclose impeachment material, holding that suppression of a witness’s criminal background violated Brady.

• Guzman v. State, 868 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2003): The court recognized the cumulative effect of undisclosed impeachment evidence in reversing a conviction.

• Hernandez v. State, 180 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015): A clear example where failure to disclose exculpatory evidence led to reversal and criticism of prosecutorial discretion.

Despite these precedents, Florida courts often apply a narrow materiality test, and reversals for Brady violations remain rare unless clear prejudice can be shown.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

Florida’s law enforcement training is governed by FDLE through the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (CJSTC). Training includes ethics and legal procedures, but does not consistently or thoroughly cover Brady or Giglio disclosure obligations.

There is no mandatory requirement for departments to notify prosecutors when an officer has been found to have committed acts of dishonesty. Some larger agencies have adopted internal policies for flagging such officers or initiating internal review before allowing them to testify, but there is no legal requirement to do so. Smaller and rural agencies often lack any internal review process for determining Giglio status.

Prosecutors, depending on the circuit, may keep internal Do Not Call lists. For example:

• Miami-Dade: The State Attorney’s Office maintains a Brady/Giglio Unit and has published guidelines on disclosure.

• Hillsborough County: Uses an internal system to track and disclose information about officers with sustained misconduct relevant to testimony.

• Other circuits: Either maintain informal lists or none at all.

There is no uniformity, and there is no requirement to share these lists across counties or with the defense unless specifically requested.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

Florida lacks a centralized oversight mechanism for Brady/Giglio compliance. Each State Attorney operates independently, and there is no statewide body tasked with auditing disclosure practices or enforcing uniform standards.

The Florida Bar may discipline attorneys for ethical violations, including Brady violations, but such discipline is rare and usually non-public. Few, if any, prosecutors have been disbarred or suspended solely for failing to disclose Giglio material.

Civilian oversight boards exist in some cities—such as Miami, Tampa, and Jacksonville—but they are not statewide, and they have limited authority to compel disclosures related to internal misconduct or prosecutorial practices.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Crosley Green (1990–2021) – Green was convicted of murder based largely on a witness who later recanted. Decades later, it was revealed that exculpatory evidence had been withheld by prosecutors. Though his conviction was overturned, he spent over 30 years incarcerated. The case highlighted deep failures in disclosure and accountability within the State Attorney’s Office.

2. Sheriff’s Deputies in Broward County (2018–2022) – Multiple deputies were placed on administrative leave or fired for falsifying reports or planting evidence. Internal records surfaced in civil litigation but were never proactively disclosed to defense counsel, raising serious Brady/Giglio concerns.

3. Miami-Dade Police Department Internal Memo Leak (2020) – A leaked internal memo revealed that over 20 officers were flagged for dishonesty or misconduct affecting testimony. Defense attorneys were not previously aware of these issues, and the memo had not been disclosed during trial preparation.

Outcomes and Implications

Florida’s disclosure failures have led to wrongful convictions, overturned verdicts, and civil litigation—but rarely to internal reform or public accountability. Even in jurisdictions with stronger policies, such as Miami-Dade, disclosure is still largely discretionary, and the lack of a statewide mandate means that officers barred from testifying in one county may be called in another. Defense attorneys report routine difficulty accessing disciplinary records, and Brady/Giglio arguments are often dismissed by courts applying a narrow view of materiality.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Statewide Brady/Giglio System: Disclosure policies are determined at the local level, with no coordination or oversight.

• Public Records Exceptions Shield Misconduct: Chapter 119 exemptions often prevent access to internal affairs or personnel files.

• Inconsistent Training and Enforcement: Brady and Giglio are inconsistently taught and rarely enforced in disciplinary actions.

• Officers Can Transfer Without Accountability: Giglio-impacted officers are not tracked across counties or agencies.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Efforts to pass statewide mandates for Brady/Giglio tracking have been blocked or ignored, often due to opposition from law enforcement unions and concerns over due process for officers. Prosecutors also resist mandatory disclosure systems that reduce their discretion or expose office practices to external scrutiny. With each State Attorney independently elected, reform must be pursued county by county unless mandated by state legislation.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Enact a Statewide Brady/Giglio List Statute: Require each State Attorney to maintain a publicly accessible list of officers with sustained misconduct related to credibility or dishonesty.

2. FDLE Integration with Prosecutorial Databases: Require FDLE to report all sustained misconduct to the relevant State Attorney and link decertification to Giglio concerns.

3. Mandatory Disclosure Training: Include Brady and Giglio compliance in required continuing education for prosecutors and law enforcement.

4. Uniform Policy for Officer Testimony: Adopt a statewide standard prohibiting the use of testimony from officers with sustained credibility issues unless disclosed and litigated.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Amend Chapter 119 to Expand Access: Limit the exemptions used to shield disciplinary records and provide public access to sustained findings of dishonesty or misconduct.

2. Create an Oversight Body: Establish a state-level commission to audit prosecutorial compliance with Brady/Giglio obligations and investigate complaints.

3. Link Officer Certification to Giglio Findings: Require CJSTC to revoke or suspend certification for officers found to have lied under oath or falsified evidence.

4. Encourage Inter-County Collaboration: Develop a centralized system for State Attorneys to share Brady Lists, ensuring cross-jurisdictional awareness.

Conclusion

Florida has the legal tools and institutional capacity to build a transparent, consistent system of disclosure—but has chosen instead to allow discretion and fragmentation to dominate. Without a statewide mandate, Brady and Giglio compliance remains a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction lottery, often dependent on the will of individual prosecutors and the opacity of local law enforcement. Until the state embraces codified transparency, Florida’s courts will continue to rely on luck and litigation, rather than law and leadership, to protect the right to a fair trial.