Missouri

Overview

Missouri’s criminal justice system remains largely discretionary and decentralized in its approach to enforcing Brady and Giglio obligations. Despite constitutional and ethical rules requiring the disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment evidence, Missouri lacks any statutory requirement for prosecutors to maintain or share Giglio lists. No statewide mechanism exists for tracking officer misconduct, and the decision to disclose credibility-related findings rests entirely with local prosecutors—of which there are over 100. Law enforcement disciplinary records are broadly exempt from disclosure, and institutional coordination between police departments and prosecutorial offices is inconsistent at best. While individual jurisdictions like St. Louis and Jackson County have taken steps toward transparency, Missouri as a whole remains structurally unprepared to ensure consistent candor in the courtroom.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Missouri has 115 counties and two independent cities, each with its own elected Prosecuting Attorney or Circuit Attorney (as in St. Louis City). Prosecutors are responsible for criminal prosecutions and have broad discretion over discovery practices. Criminal disclosure is governed by Missouri Supreme Court Rule 25.03, which requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory and mitigating evidence, but contains no explicit mandate for impeachment material unless requested.

Law enforcement officers are certified and regulated by the Peace Officer Standards and Training Program (POST) under the Department of Public Safety. POST has the authority to suspend or revoke licenses but does not maintain a public database of officer misconduct and is not required to notify prosecutors of disciplinary actions involving credibility.

Missouri's Sunshine Law governs public access to government records, but internal affairs investigations and personnel records are often shielded under exemptions, even after findings of misconduct are sustained.

Historical Context

Missouri has seen repeated instances where failures to disclose officer misconduct or prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory material led to wrongful convictions or public scandal. Among the most prominent was the case of Lamar Johnson, whose 1995 murder conviction was vacated in 2023 after the Missouri Supreme Court agreed that prosecutors had withheld key exculpatory evidence and relied on discredited witness testimony.

Following the 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri became a national focal point for demands for police accountability. Yet efforts to mandate disclosure of officer disciplinary histories and establish statewide Giglio compliance protocols have faced strong resistance from police unions, local prosecutors, and lawmakers concerned about officer privacy and prosecutorial independence.

Even recent bipartisan criminal justice reform efforts have not resulted in meaningful statutory requirements around Brady/Giglio obligations. As a result, the quality of disclosure remains uneven and largely dependent on local political will.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

The Missouri Constitution guarantees due process under Article I, Section 10, and confrontation rights under Section 18(a).

Key legal authorities include:

• Missouri Supreme Court Rule 25.03(A)(9): Requires the state to disclose “any material or information… which tends to negate the guilt or reduce the punishment” of the accused—but does not explicitly require disclosure of officer disciplinary histories or impeachment evidence.

• Rule 4-3.8(d) of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct: Mirrors the ABA model, obligating prosecutors to disclose all information that tends to negate guilt or mitigate punishment.

• Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo § 610.010–610.035): Allows public access to certain records but provides broad exceptions for law enforcement personnel files and internal investigations.

No law in Missouri requires law enforcement agencies to notify prosecutors of findings related to officer dishonesty, misconduct, or use-of-force concerns—nor must prosecutors maintain lists of such officers for Giglio purposes.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

Missouri courts have long recognized Brady obligations but have not expanded them into actionable institutional duties:

• State ex rel. Engel v. Dormire, 304 S.W.3d 120 (Mo. 2010): Affirmed that suppression of material impeachment evidence can constitute a Brady violation.

• State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485 (Mo. 2000): Reversed a conviction due to failure to disclose prior inconsistent statements of a state witness, emphasizing the importance of impeachment evidence.

• Johnson v. State, 615 S.W.3d 73 (Mo. 2020): Upheld the need for “clear and convincing” new evidence in post-conviction review, even in cases involving potential Brady violations.

Despite these decisions, Missouri courts have not imposed procedural safeguards or required prosecutors to proactively track and disclose officer credibility issues.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

POST provides basic training and continuing education for Missouri law enforcement officers but does not require instruction on Brady or Giglio obligations. The agency maintains an internal record of officer decertification but does not publish it or proactively notify prosecutors of relevant findings.

Each police department maintains its own internal affairs processes, with no requirement to share sustained misconduct findings with the local prosecutor. In jurisdictions with strong union representation or opaque internal policies, this often results in prosecutors being unaware that their witnesses have been disciplined for dishonesty, bias, or unconstitutional conduct.

A few offices—most notably in St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and Jackson County—have begun developing Do Not Call lists or Giglio tracking protocols. However, these lists are not publicly accessible, and there is no requirement to share them across jurisdictions or with defense counsel unless the officer is testifying in a pending case.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

There is no independent state body responsible for auditing or enforcing Brady or Giglio compliance. Prosecutorial discipline is handled by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC), which has rarely sanctioned prosecutors for disclosure violations. Most complaints are resolved confidentially or through informal measures.

POST does not coordinate with prosecutors on officer credibility. When officers with known integrity concerns move between jurisdictions, they often do so undetected due to the lack of a statewide notification or tracking system.

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office lacks supervisory authority over local prosecutors and has not issued statewide standards for disclosure or transparency in law enforcement testimony.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Lamar Johnson (1995–2023)
   Wrongfully convicted of murder in St. Louis, Johnson’s case was built on withheld exculpatory evidence, perjured testimony, and the failure to disclose a deal made with a key witness. Despite years of litigation, it took special legislation and a new evidentiary hearing for his conviction to be vacated.

2. Jonathan Irons (1998–2020)
   Convicted of burglary and assault in St. Charles County, Irons was exonerated after it was revealed that police failed to disclose fingerprint evidence that excluded him from the crime scene. The prosecutor’s office had not maintained any record of the officer’s prior misconduct.

3. Michael Brown Case (2014)
   The killing of Brown by Officer Darren Wilson exposed systemic failures in transparency and misconduct accountability within Ferguson PD. Although Wilson was not charged, the DOJ investigation revealed widespread constitutional violations by the department and a culture of secrecy. No Giglio-style system was ever implemented in response.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases demonstrate the cost of failing to institutionalize disclosure. In each instance, the suppression of impeachment material or failure to disclose known credibility issues contributed to miscarriages of justice or eroded public trust. And yet, Missouri has failed to enact a legal framework ensuring that such violations are prevented going forward.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Statewide Giglio List or Disclosure Protocol: No uniform mechanism exists to track, share, or disclose officers with sustained findings of dishonesty or bias.

• Discretion Over Duty: Prosecutors are under no legal obligation to memorialize or share Giglio material beyond the minimum requirements of Rule 25.03.

• Opaque Personnel Records: Internal affairs findings are not disclosed and often shielded from defense counsel and the public.

• Lack of Training and Communication: Law enforcement agencies do not routinely train officers on Brady/Giglio and do not notify prosecutors of sustained misconduct findings.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Lawmakers have historically deferred to local control, resisting efforts to centralize law enforcement oversight or impose disclosure mandates. Prosecutors and law enforcement associations have successfully lobbied against expanded public records access and resisted calls for a statewide Giglio tracking mechanism. Without external pressure, Missouri’s decentralized legal culture discourages reform.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Mandate Prosecutorial Giglio Tracking
   Require all prosecuting attorneys to maintain a Brady/Giglio list and disclose it to defense counsel whenever relevant.

2. Establish Law Enforcement Reporting Requirements
   Enact legislation requiring police agencies to report sustained misconduct involving dishonesty, civil rights violations, or bias to prosecutors within 30 days.

3. Expand POST’s Role in Disclosure
   Direct POST to maintain and publish a database of decertified and disciplined officers, with a flag for Giglio-impairing conduct.

4. Integrate Disclosure Training
   Require both prosecutors and officers to undergo annual training on Brady, Giglio, and testimonial integrity.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Reform the Sunshine Law
   Remove broad exemptions that currently shield law enforcement disciplinary records from public and defense access.

2. Create an Independent Disclosure Oversight Body
   Establish a statewide commission to audit compliance with disclosure obligations and investigate prosecutorial misconduct complaints.

3. Develop a Cross-Jurisdictional Giglio Portal
   Build a secure, shared portal for prosecutors and defense attorneys to identify officers with credibility impairments across counties.

4. Judicial Review of Officer Testimony
   Require judges to review officer disciplinary histories in pretrial hearings when requested by defense counsel and decide whether testimony should be limited or excluded.

Conclusion

Missouri cannot continue to treat truth-telling as an optional virtue in its courtrooms. The absence of a formal Brady/Giglio disclosure system, combined with opaque disciplinary processes and unchecked prosecutorial discretion, has made the state a high-risk environment for wrongful convictions and systemic injustice. The legal foundation exists; the constitutional standards are clear. What Missouri lacks is the infrastructure—and political will—to make candor mandatory. Until that changes, the courtroom will remain a place where the truth too often waits in silence.