Nevada

Overview

Nevada, known for its vast rural expanses and urban hubs like Las Vegas and Reno, maintains a bifurcated justice system that reflects both progressive reforms and persistent structural opacity. While Nevada courts and statutes acknowledge the constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, the state has no uniform requirement to track or memorialize credibility-impairing officer misconduct. Disclosure obligations remain largely discretionary, vary widely by county, and are frequently contested in litigation. Although efforts have been made to increase transparency in law enforcement decertifications and to strengthen open records laws, Nevada still lacks a centralized Giglio system, leaving its courtroom candor contingent on policy choices made by individual prosecutors.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Nevada’s criminal prosecutions are managed by 17 elected District Attorneys, one for each county, and supported in some cases by the Nevada Attorney General, particularly in state-level criminal appeals and complex matters. Criminal discovery is governed by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 174.235–174.295, along with court interpretations of constitutional due process requirements. While there is no specific statutory mandate requiring disclosure of impeachment evidence, Nevada courts have held that such disclosure is constitutionally compelled.

Police certification and discipline are overseen by the Nevada Peace Officers’ Standards and Training (POST) Commission, which has the authority to suspend or revoke officer certification for dishonesty or misconduct. However, there is no statute requiring law enforcement agencies to inform prosecutors of disciplinary actions or internal affairs findings, and POST does not maintain or share a list of officers whose credibility has been compromised for Giglio purposes.

Historical Context

Nevada’s justice system has long been shaped by the political power of local sheriffs, district attorneys, and police unions—particularly in Clark County (Las Vegas), which handles the vast majority of the state’s felony prosecutions. Despite this centralization, the state has lacked systemic safeguards to ensure the proactive disclosure of impeaching evidence.

The 1998 conviction and 2003 exoneration of Fred Steese highlighted failures to disclose exculpatory material and prompted criticism of the Clark County District Attorney’s Office. More recently, multiple lawsuits and investigative reports have exposed Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officers with sustained misconduct histories that were not disclosed in court, raising concerns about ongoing violations of Brady and Giglio.

In 2021, a new law (AB 58) authorized broader public access to sustained police misconduct records. However, implementation has been slow and inconsistent, and no state agency has been tasked with coordinating Giglio-related disclosures. Nevada remains without a centralized Brady or Giglio system, and defense attorneys must often rely on litigation or records requests to uncover material the prosecution should have disclosed as a matter of course.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

The Nevada Constitution guarantees due process and confrontation rights under Article 1, Sections 8 and 18, which mirror the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Relevant statutes and rules include:

• NRS § 174.235(1)(a): Requires the prosecution to disclose “any written or recorded statements… or any other evidence within the possession of the State which is material to the preparation of the defense.”

• Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(d): Mandates that prosecutors disclose all information that tends to negate guilt or mitigate the offense or punishment.

• NRS § 289.025–289.120 (Peace Officer Bill of Rights): Establishes procedures for officer discipline but has historically limited public access to misconduct records.

• AB 58 (2021): Amended Nevada’s public records law to require release of certain sustained misconduct records, particularly those involving dishonesty, bias, or excessive force.

There is no statute requiring prosecutors to maintain a list of Giglio-impaired officers, nor any requirement for law enforcement agencies to notify prosecutors when such findings occur.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

Nevada courts have addressed Brady and Giglio violations but generally apply a strict materiality standard and offer few remedies outside of post-conviction review:

• State v. Bennett, 119 Nev. 589 (2003): The Nevada Supreme Court reversed a conviction after finding that the prosecution failed to disclose a prior statement made by the key witness that contradicted trial testimony.

• Rippo v. State, 113 Nev. 1239 (1997): Emphasized the prosecution’s duty to disclose impeachment evidence, including any promises or inducements offered to witnesses.

• Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328 (1991): Established that Brady obligations extend to material impeachment evidence known to the police, even if not known to the prosecutor.

Despite these rulings, the courts have declined to mandate that prosecutors establish systems to track credibility issues or disclose officer misconduct absent a direct request or pending testimony.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

Nevada POST sets certification standards and can decertify officers for misconduct, including perjury and falsification. However, the agency does not publish a Giglio-specific database, and findings are not routinely shared with district attorneys. Law enforcement agencies retain control over their internal disciplinary records and are under no legal obligation to notify prosecutors when an officer’s credibility is compromised.

While some agencies, including LVMPD and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, may internally track misconduct, they do not systematically inform prosecutors of findings that would impair an officer’s testimony. The lack of a notification requirement means prosecutors often remain unaware of potentially impeaching information unless they affirmatively request it—an approach that violates the spirit, if not always the letter, of Giglio.

No formal training on Brady or Giglio obligations is required for police officers or detectives under POST certification rules. This gap contributes to the systemic failure to flag and share impeachment material.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

There is no independent state entity responsible for auditing Brady or Giglio compliance. Prosecutorial misconduct is handled by the Nevada State Bar’s Office of Bar Counsel, but complaints involving disclosure failures are rare and seldom lead to discipline.

District Attorneys’ offices in Clark County and Washoe County have begun adopting internal protocols to review police credibility—but these are not published, standardized, or legally binding. Rural counties lack even informal mechanisms, and prosecutors often rely on memory or personal relationships to assess whether an officer should be called as a witness.

While AB 58 created new rights for public access to sustained misconduct records, resistance from police unions and inconsistent agency compliance have undermined the law’s utility as a systemic Giglio safeguard.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Fred Steese (1992–2003)
   Wrongfully convicted of murder, Steese’s case was marked by the suppression of a confession by the actual killer and other exculpatory evidence. Clark County prosecutors denied wrongdoing, but the Nevada Supreme Court eventually vacated the conviction, citing Brady violations.

2. LVMPD “Do Not Call” Cases (2018–2022)
   Multiple officers involved in excessive force, racial profiling, or evidence falsification were found to have testified in criminal cases without disclosure of their disciplinary histories. These revelations came through civil suits and investigative journalism—not prosecutorial disclosure.

3. State v. Marvin Coleman (Clark County, 2020)
   The defense uncovered that the testifying officer had been disciplined for fabricating evidence in a prior case. The information was never disclosed, and the conviction was reversed. No policy changes followed.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases reveal a troubling pattern: Nevada prosecutors either do not know or do not disclose when their witnesses have been found to lie, falsify reports, or violate constitutional rights. Without a central system or legal obligation to track these findings, Giglio violations occur not as rare anomalies—but as systemic risks, especially in jurisdictions with overburdened public defenders and minimal external oversight.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Central Giglio List or Disclosure Mandate
  Prosecutors are not required to track or share officer credibility impairments across cases or jurisdictions.

• No Notification Requirement from Law Enforcement
  Police departments are not obligated to inform prosecutors of internal findings of dishonesty, perjury, or rights violations.

• Resistance to Records Access
  Despite AB 58, agencies continue to withhold records or delay release, citing ongoing investigations or contractual confidentiality.

• Lack of Oversight
  No agency is tasked with auditing or enforcing Brady/Giglio compliance statewide.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Police unions and some prosecutors oppose expanded disclosure mandates, arguing they would infringe on officer privacy or hinder prosecutions. Nevada’s local-control structure leaves key decisions in the hands of individual DAs, few of whom have implemented proactive systems. Courts have declined to enforce Giglio standards beyond the constitutional minimum, further entrenching inconsistency.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Mandate Giglio Tracking Across Counties
   Require all District Attorneys to maintain a list of officers with sustained findings related to dishonesty or bias and share this list within and across jurisdictions.

2. Enforce Interagency Notification Requirements
   Require all police departments to report sustained internal affairs findings to the appropriate District Attorney within 30 days.

3. Integrate POST and Prosecutorial Systems
   Amend POST regulations to require notification to prosecutors when officers are decertified or disciplined for testimonial misconduct.

4. Standardize Prosecutorial Training
   Require annual Brady/Giglio training for all prosecutors and include formal instruction for new law enforcement hires.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Strengthen AB 58 Compliance
   Create enforcement mechanisms—including penalties—for agencies that fail to release sustained misconduct records under public records law.

2. Create an Independent Oversight Body
   Establish a Disclosure and Integrity Commission with power to audit Giglio compliance, investigate complaints, and report publicly.

3. Launch a Public-Facing Officer Misconduct Registry
   Provide a searchable online database listing officers with sustained findings relevant to courtroom credibility.

4. Establish Judicial Oversight of Officer Testimony
   Require pretrial admissibility hearings when a testifying officer has a known credibility impairment.

Conclusion

Nevada’s justice system has the tools—but not yet the will—to ensure that truth is the default in its courtrooms. Without mandatory disclosure policies, formal tracking of misconduct, or enforceable transparency laws, the state continues to risk wrongful convictions and constitutional violations. Candor in prosecution must be more than a rhetorical value; it must be encoded into the structure of justice itself. In Nevada, that work remains unfinished.