New Jersey

Overview

New Jersey offers one of the most robust and structured frameworks for tracking and disclosing law enforcement misconduct that could impair credibility under Brady and Giglio. Unlike many states, New Jersey has taken affirmative steps to standardize disclosure obligations through statewide directives, mandatory internal tracking systems, and centralized oversight. These reforms are largely attributable to the state's unique prosecutorial structure—where the Attorney General has supervisory authority over all 21 County Prosecutors and local law enforcement agencies. In 2019 and 2020, a series of landmark Attorney General Directives fundamentally reshaped how officer misconduct is recorded, reported, and disclosed. Still, despite these reforms, challenges remain—especially around union resistance, patchy transparency, and the public’s limited access to internal data.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

New Jersey’s criminal justice system is centralized relative to other states. The New Jersey Attorney General not only oversees state-level prosecutions and appeals but also exercises direct policy authority over county prosecutors and municipal police departments through Attorney General Directives.

Disclosure obligations are governed by court rule and state ethics laws:

• New Jersey Court Rule 3:13-3(b): Requires the state to provide discovery—including exculpatory and impeachment material—at the pre-indictment and pretrial phases.

• RPC 3.8(d): Reflects the Brady rule by requiring prosecutors to disclose evidence that tends to negate guilt or mitigate the offense.

New Jersey’s system distinguishes itself with Attorney General Directives 2019-5, 2020-5, and 2021-6, which require the development of internal “Giglio systems,” set rules for disclosing officer misconduct, and mandate the publication of certain disciplinary records. Law enforcement officers are certified by the Police Training Commission (PTC), which has limited disciplinary power but plays a key role in certification and basic training.

Historical Context

The modern era of disclosure reform in New Jersey began after public scandals involving officer misconduct and nondisclosure. One watershed moment was the revelation that Newark police officers—despite histories of abuse or dishonesty—had continued to testify in criminal cases without disclosure to the defense. Pressure from civil rights groups and litigation by media outlets like NJ Advance Media led to sweeping changes under Attorney General Gurbir Grewal.

In 2019, Grewal issued Directive 2019-5, creating a policy framework for tracking and disclosing Giglio material statewide. In 2020, further reforms (Directive 2020-5) required agencies to publish the names of officers who received major discipline and to develop internal databases of sustained misconduct findings. These changes marked a radical shift from secrecy to conditional transparency.

Still, public access to misconduct files remains limited, and many disclosure decisions remain discretionary—particularly when a prosecutor chooses not to call an officer as a witness, thereby avoiding triggering a disclosure duty.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

New Jersey’s Constitution mirrors federal guarantees under Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 10 (due process and confrontation). The statutory and regulatory framework includes:

• N.J. Court Rule 3:13-3(b)(1): Mandates timely disclosure of evidence that is material to guilt, punishment, or witness credibility.

• N.J.S.A. § 47:1A-1 et seq. (Open Public Records Act - OPRA): Governs public access to government records but includes exemptions for internal affairs and personnel files.

• AG Directive 2019-5: Requires each law enforcement agency to develop and maintain a “Giglio system” and obligates prosecutors to notify the defense if a testifying officer’s credibility is in question.

• AG Directive 2020-5: Requires agencies to publicly release names of officers receiving major discipline (suspension of more than 5 days) and mandates internal reporting systems.

• AG Directive 2021-6: Standardizes internal affairs procedures and creates a centralized tracking system known as the “Internal Affairs Dashboard.”

New Jersey’s legal infrastructure thus includes both formal discovery rules and executive policy mandates—a dual system that creates a strong, if still imperfect, foundation for candor.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

• State v. W.B., 205 N.J. 588 (2011): Affirmed that the failure to disclose impeachment evidence—such as promises made to cooperating witnesses—violates due process under Brady.

• State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86 (1982): Emphasized that the State’s obligation to disclose extends to evidence in the possession of law enforcement, not just the prosecutor.

• North Jersey Media Group v. Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541 (2017): Although not a Giglio case per se, it expanded the public’s right to access law enforcement records, which influences transparency in credibility matters.

Courts have largely deferred to the Attorney General’s office in defining standards for disclosure, reinforcing the importance of statewide directives.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

Every law enforcement agency in New Jersey is now required to develop a “Giglio system” under Directive 2019-5. This includes designating personnel responsible for tracking sustained findings of misconduct that may affect officer credibility—such as perjury, falsification of records, bias, or excessive force.

These internal systems are reviewed by County Prosecutors, who are required to inform defense counsel if a testifying officer appears on the list. However, if a prosecutor chooses not to call that officer, disclosure is not required—creating a loophole.

The Police Training Commission (PTC) provides initial and continuing education for law enforcement but does not enforce Giglio tracking or disclosure policies. Still, Giglio obligations are now part of legal training for recruits and prosecutors alike, reflecting growing institutional awareness.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

New Jersey's disclosure framework is enforced primarily through the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability (OPIA) within the Attorney General’s Office. OPIA monitors internal affairs procedures and audits police and prosecutorial conduct. It also oversees the Internal Affairs Dashboard—a centralized database that includes data on serious disciplinary actions.

Disciplinary decisions are partially public: as of July 2020, departments must publish annual lists of officers who received major discipline. However, details of the misconduct are often vague, and access to full internal affairs records remains limited under OPRA exemptions.

Prosecutorial misconduct is reviewed by the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Ethics, but discipline for Brady violations is rare, and systemic audits of prosecutorial disclosure are not regularly conducted.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Newark Police Department DOJ Findings (2014–2016)
   A DOJ investigation found widespread constitutional violations, including reliance on officers with known misconduct histories. These officers testified in court without disclosure of their records. The findings accelerated state-level reforms, including the expansion of Giglio policies under AG oversight.

2. Elizabeth Police Department Misconduct Records (2019)
   An OPRA request revealed that officers with sustained findings of excessive force were testifying in court without defense attorneys being informed. While these officers were later added to internal Giglio systems, their prior testimony went unchecked.

3. Paterson Police Department Use-of-Force Cases (2020–2021)
   Investigative journalists uncovered a pattern of nondisclosure involving officers repeatedly accused of abuse. The exposure triggered reforms within the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office and highlighted the importance of centralized tracking.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases show that despite its strong framework, New Jersey’s system remains dependent on compliance and oversight. Where prosecutors fail to apply the directives uniformly—or where officers are not flagged properly—the promise of full candor breaks down. Public trust has been partially restored through greater transparency, but loopholes and gaps still allow credibility-impaired officers to operate under the radar.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• Discretion Still Governs Disclosure: Prosecutors can avoid disclosure by not calling officers to testify, creating a “silence by omission” risk.

• Limited Public Access: While annual discipline disclosures exist, full internal affairs records remain protected from public view under OPRA.

• Patchy Implementation in Smaller Departments: While large agencies have formal systems, smaller or rural departments sometimes lack resources or training to comply fully with Giglio mandates.

• No Defense Access to Centralized Lists: The internal Giglio databases are not accessible to defense attorneys except via case-by-case disclosure.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Efforts to make misconduct records fully public have been opposed by police unions, which have filed litigation to block portions of the 2020 disclosure mandates. The lack of statutory mandates—outside of AG directives—means future Attorneys General could weaken the framework. Additionally, the Internal Affairs Dashboard remains incomplete in its coverage and underutilized by the public.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Codify AG Directives into Statute
   Ensure continuity and accountability by passing legislation that requires Giglio tracking and disclosure systems across all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies.

2. Mandate Defense Access to Redacted Giglio Lists
   Create a secure platform for defense attorneys to verify whether a testifying officer has credibility issues—modeled on prosecutor-accessible databases.

3. Close the Testimony Loophole
   Amend AG Directive 2019-5 to require disclosure of Giglio material regardless of whether the officer will testify in a particular case.

4. Standardize Training Requirements
   Require Giglio-focused training as part of POST certification and continuing legal education for all prosecutors and investigators.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Expand the Internal Affairs Dashboard
   Mandate real-time publication of all sustained findings involving dishonesty, bias, or use-of-force—not just annual summaries.

2. Establish a Giglio Compliance Auditor
   Create an independent unit within OPIA to conduct annual audits of prosecutorial compliance and issue public reports.

3. Eliminate OPRA Exemptions for Sustained Misconduct
   Amend the Public Records Act to allow full public access to sustained internal affairs findings relevant to courtroom integrity.

4. Facilitate Interagency Alerts
   Require prosecutors and law enforcement to notify neighboring counties and jurisdictions when an officer is flagged for Giglio purposes.

Conclusion

New Jersey has laid the blueprint for a functioning, statewide Giglio system—but has not yet fully enforced or opened it. Through AG directives, it has acknowledged that justice requires more than ethical aspirations; it requires operational infrastructure. Still, as long as key data remain hidden and disclosure depends on individual choices, the risk of concealment and constitutional harm endures. New Jersey has gone further than most—but it must go all the way. Truth must be not only tracked, but shared.