New York

Overview

New York’s approach to Brady and Giglio obligations is at once progressive and incomplete. The state has taken major steps toward improving transparency—most notably with the 2020 repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a, which had long shielded police disciplinary records from public scrutiny. Additionally, the New York State Attorney General’s Office and some large District Attorney offices (especially in New York City) have developed internal tracking systems for law enforcement misconduct and implemented disclosure protocols. Yet, the state lacks a unified, statewide Giglio database or mandatory interagency reporting structure. Most of New York’s 62 counties still rely on local policy and prosecutorial discretion to determine what misconduct is tracked and disclosed. The result is a patchwork system that delivers accountability in some jurisdictions and opacity in others.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Criminal prosecutions in New York are managed by independently elected District Attorneys in each county, supported in some cases by the New York State Attorney General, particularly in matters involving statewide criminal enforcement or civil rights violations. New York’s criminal discovery law underwent a landmark overhaul in 2019 with the passage of CPL § 245, which expanded and clarified disclosure requirements.

Relevant legal authorities include:

• Criminal Procedure Law § 245.20(1)(k): Requires disclosure of "all evidence and information... that tends to impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness," including law enforcement officers.

• New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(d): Obligates prosecutors to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence even absent a defense request.

• Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Article 6 of the Public Officers Law: Grants public access to police disciplinary records following the repeal of § 50-a.

Law enforcement certification is decentralized: New York has no POST-style certification board. Officers are trained by the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and employed by departments that handle discipline and internal affairs independently. No state law mandates reporting sustained misconduct to prosecutors or courts, and disclosure is generally left to local practices.

Historical Context

For decades, Civil Rights Law § 50-a allowed police departments to deny access to disciplinary records, shielding even sustained findings of perjury, bias, and excessive force. This shield obstructed both defense access and prosecutorial awareness of officer credibility issues. The repeal of § 50-a in June 2020, amid mass protests following the murder of George Floyd, was a pivotal moment. It enabled the release of thousands of records, though departments and unions have continued to resist compliance via litigation and redaction practices.

Simultaneously, the overhaul of discovery laws in CPL § 245 in 2019 transformed New York into one of the most progressive states on paper, requiring expansive and early disclosure. Yet implementation has been inconsistent, particularly in rural counties, where resources, training, and political will vary widely.

Major jurisdictions such as Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Bronx DAs have developed internal “Do Not Call” lists and centralized discovery units. However, these practices are not mandated statewide, and smaller counties often lack parallel infrastructure.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

New York’s Constitution guarantees due process and confrontation rights under Article I, Sections 6 and 12, which closely track the U.S. Constitution.

Key statutes and rules include:

• CPL § 245.20(1)(k): Specifically lists impeachment material—including misconduct findings, prior inconsistent statements, and bias—as mandatory discovery items.

• CPL § 245.10(1): Establishes a strict timeline for disclosure—15 days after arraignment, with possible extension to 30 days.

• Rule 3.8(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Creates an independent ethical obligation for prosecutors to disclose exculpatory and impeachment material.

• FOIL: Following the repeal of § 50-a, police disciplinary records are presumptively public, though subject to redactions for privacy and safety.

There is no statutory requirement that prosecutors maintain Giglio lists, nor are police agencies required to report sustained findings to prosecutors unless they choose to do so.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

• People v. Garrett, 23 N.Y.3d 878 (2014): The Court of Appeals held that prosecutors are responsible for disclosure failures even if the information is only known to police, affirming a broad Brady obligation.

• People v. Ulett, 33 N.Y.3d 512 (2019): The court found a Brady violation where the state failed to disclose internal affairs records affecting a testifying officer’s credibility.

• People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56 (1986): An early recognition that suppression of impeachment material—including promises of leniency—violates due process.

New York courts broadly recognize the Brady-Giglio doctrine but generally defer to prosecutorial discretion regarding what is material, unless prejudice is shown.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

There is no unified law enforcement oversight body responsible for certification or misconduct tracking across departments. Each agency handles internal investigations autonomously, and results are inconsistently shared with prosecutors—even in serious misconduct cases.

Despite the repeal of § 50-a, many departments—including the NYPD—have continued to resist full transparency by heavily redacting disciplinary records or contesting their release in court. A notable example is the NYPD’s “sealed cases” doctrine, which has been used to conceal findings involving perjury or fabrication under the guise of officer privacy.

Some prosecutors, especially in New York City, maintain internal databases of officers with known credibility issues. These “No-Call Lists” or “Adverse Witness Lists” help mitigate risks, but there is no requirement to share them statewide or to disclose them to the public unless the officer testifies in a given case.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

There is no statewide prosecutorial oversight commission. Ethical complaints are handled by the Attorney Grievance Committees, but discipline for Brady violations is rare and typically confidential. Even in cases where convictions are reversed due to non-disclosure, consequences for the responsible attorneys are minimal.

The New York State Inspector General can investigate criminal justice misconduct, but its scope is limited, and it rarely initiates systemic reviews.

Several DA offices have created Conviction Integrity Units (CIUs) that investigate past wrongful convictions and review officer misconduct. The Manhattan DA and Brooklyn DA have used these units to address non-disclosure cases and have exonerated dozens of individuals—often based on the prior use of officers later found to be untruthful.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. NYPD Officer Joseph Franco (2021)
   Franco was indicted for perjury after allegedly fabricating drug charges against dozens of defendants. At least 90 convictions were later vacated. Franco’s misconduct had not been disclosed to defense attorneys in many of the cases, and prosecutors were slow to notify the courts after learning of his indictment.

2. People v. Ulett (2019)
   The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction after finding that prosecutors failed to disclose an internal affairs investigation involving the testifying officer—who had a sustained complaint for use of force and dishonesty. The ruling reinforced that prosecutors must actively seek out and disclose such material.

3. Queens DA “No-Call” List Leak (2020)
   A leaked document revealed that dozens of NYPD officers were flagged internally for credibility concerns but continued to testify. The list included officers with histories of excessive force, racial bias, or falsified evidence.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases illustrate the systemic dangers of fragmented disclosure systems. Officers with known integrity issues continued to testify—sometimes in hundreds of cases—because no mechanism existed to track or flag their misconduct consistently across counties or time. Moreover, the lack of a centralized registry meant defense attorneys remained unaware unless they happened to discover the information independently or through civil litigation.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Central Giglio Database: Each DA maintains its own system (if any); there is no unified, statewide platform.

• No Mandatory Interagency Notification: Police departments are not required to inform prosecutors of sustained misconduct findings.

• Opaque and Inconsistent Public Access: FOIL requests often lead to redacted or incomplete information, and litigation is frequently necessary.

• Limited Oversight of Prosecutors: No agency conducts regular audits of Brady/Giglio compliance or enforces penalties for non-disclosure.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Despite progressive reforms, union resistance and the decentralized nature of both prosecution and policing in New York have stalled efforts at standardization. Proposed bills to establish a Giglio registry or enhance defense access have failed to advance in the legislature. Institutional reluctance to share sensitive disciplinary records—especially in cases where officers are still on active duty—remains a formidable barrier.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Create a Statewide Giglio Registry
   Require all District Attorneys to maintain and contribute to a centralized database of officers with sustained credibility-impairing misconduct.

2. Mandate Law Enforcement Reporting
   Enact legislation requiring all police departments to report sustained disciplinary findings involving dishonesty, bias, or constitutional violations to prosecutors within 30 days.

3. Integrate Disclosure into POST-Like Certification
   Create a centralized oversight body to certify officers, track misconduct, and coordinate with prosecutors on Giglio compliance.

4. Amend CPL § 245.20 to Include Automatic Disclosure of Officer Misconduct
   Require that all impeachment material, including non-testifying officers involved in investigations, be disclosed affirmatively without defense request.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Make “No-Call” Lists Publicly Available
   Require DA offices to publish redacted versions of their Giglio lists and adverse witness disclosures for accountability.

2. Establish a Prosecutorial Disclosure Oversight Commission
   Independent of the judiciary, this body would audit Giglio practices and recommend discipline for failures.

3. Empower Defense with Giglio Verification Tools
   Create a secure database accessible to defense counsel to check whether an officer in their case has Giglio-impairing history.

4. Require Judicial Review of Officer Testimony
   In any criminal proceeding involving a flagged officer, require the court to conduct an admissibility hearing regarding the scope of disclosure and potential prejudice.

Conclusion

New York has made enormous progress—particularly with discovery reform and the repeal of 50-a. But systemic disclosure still falls short of full candor. Prosecutorial discretion, institutional inertia, and local variation continue to determine whether a defendant receives a fair trial or faces a witness with an unspoken record of deceit. Justice should not depend on geography or guesswork. For candor to be complete in New York, truth must be tracked, shared, and enforced—across every case, every county, and every courtroom.