Oregon

Overview

Oregon’s legal landscape regarding Brady and Giglio obligations reflects a growing institutional awareness of disclosure duties—but one marred by fragmentation, weak enforcement, and an overreliance on prosecutorial discretion. Although state law requires the disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment material, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement to maintain a Giglio list or “Do Not Call” list of officers with credibility-impairing misconduct. Worse, despite multiple high-profile incidents of dishonesty by law enforcement officers, no centralized system exists to track, verify, or enforce consistent disclosure statewide. District Attorneys, law enforcement agencies, and certification bodies operate in silos, resulting in systemic failures that erode the integrity of courtroom proceedings. While Oregon has begun to improve public access to police misconduct records, it has yet to build the infrastructure necessary to ensure complete candor.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Criminal prosecutions in Oregon are handled by 36 elected District Attorneys, each with independent authority over their jurisdictions. The Oregon Department of Justice, led by the Attorney General, plays a limited role in criminal trials but may intervene in appellate or statewide matters.

Key sources of disclosure obligations include:

• Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8(d): Requires prosecutors to disclose all evidence that tends to negate guilt or mitigate punishment, including impeachment material.

• ORS 135.815: Codifies the state’s obligation to disclose any “material or information... favorable to the defendant.”

• ORS 181A.640–681: Governs police certification and the authority of the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) to decertify officers for misconduct.

Despite these provisions, there is no statutory requirement for District Attorneys to track Giglio-impairing misconduct, and law enforcement agencies are not required to report sustained findings of dishonesty or bias to prosecutors. Disclosure is often ad hoc, reactive, and inconsistently applied across jurisdictions.

Historical Context

Oregon’s struggles with disclosure failures have drawn attention in recent years through media investigations, civil lawsuits, and public records battles. The case of Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson, and more recently Sheriff Kent Vander Kamp, illustrates how officers with documented histories of dishonesty can continue to testify without systematic oversight.

In 2023 and 2024, multiple officers across Oregon—including in Bend, Portland, and Eugene—were revealed to have been subjects of sustained internal affairs findings or credibility reviews, yet these findings were not shared with prosecutors or disclosed in court until uncovered by journalists or defense attorneys.

Although some District Attorneys have begun keeping internal “Brady” or “Giglio” lists, these lists are informal, nonpublic, and not required by law. The Oregon Department of Justice has not issued binding guidance on how DAs should comply with Giglio, and the DPSST, while capable of decertifying officers, does not coordinate with prosecutors to prevent impeached officers from testifying in criminal proceedings.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

The Oregon Constitution guarantees due process under Article I, Section 10, and confrontation rights under Section 11, consistent with federal interpretations.

Key legal authorities include:

• ORS 135.815(1): Requires the state to disclose any material or information “tending to show that the defendant is not guilty.”

• Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8(d): Establishes ethical obligations for prosecutors to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence.

• ORS 181A.640–681: Provides for the decertification of officers who violate conduct standards, including those involving dishonesty or bias—but does not require sharing findings with DAs.

Notably, Oregon law does not:

• Require police agencies to notify prosecutors of internal discipline that may affect an officer’s courtroom credibility.

• Require prosecutors to create or maintain Giglio lists.

• Provide defense attorneys with automatic access to sustained police misconduct records unless specifically requested or disclosed.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

• State v. Caldwell, 241 Or. App. 279 (2011): Held that failure to disclose material impeachment evidence could constitute reversible error.

• State v. Koennecke, 274 Or. 169 (1976): Established that the state must disclose all material evidence favorable to the defense, even without a request.

• State v. Peterson, 251 Or. App. 321 (2012): The court emphasized the duty to disclose even when the information resides with police, reinforcing that prosecutors are responsible for learning of and sharing Giglio material.

Despite these rulings, Oregon courts have not required a systemic solution to disclosure failures, leaving compliance to the discretion of individual prosecutors and their relationships with police departments.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

Law enforcement agencies in Oregon vary widely in their internal policies, and most do not have standardized procedures for reporting sustained misconduct to prosecutors. While some urban departments (e.g., Portland Police Bureau) may conduct rigorous internal affairs investigations, smaller agencies often lack the resources or motivation to proactively communicate disciplinary findings.

The DPSST maintains certification records but does not notify prosecutors when officers are decertified or suspended for dishonesty. It also does not maintain a Giglio or Brady notification system.

Most law enforcement training in Oregon does not include detailed instruction on Brady/Giglio implications, and officers may not understand the potential impact of misconduct on courtroom testimony.

Some prosecutors—such as in Deschutes, Multnomah, and Lane Counties—have taken steps to track or limit the courtroom testimony of officers with known credibility issues. However, these efforts are isolated, nonuniform, and rarely shared with neighboring jurisdictions. There is no statewide standard or audit mechanism to ensure disclosure practices are adequate or consistent.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

The Oregon Department of Justice does not enforce Brady compliance and does not audit the discovery practices of county District Attorneys. Prosecutorial misconduct complaints are handled by the Oregon State Bar, but sanctions for disclosure failures are rare.

There is no state-level oversight body responsible for integrating police certification data, prosecutorial obligations, and courtroom practices. As a result, officers may be decertified by DPSST but still testify without disclosure of prior misconduct—unless defense attorneys or journalists uncover it independently.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Sheriff Kent Vander Kamp (2024)
   Vander Kamp was placed on the Deschutes County DA’s Brady List after it was revealed he provided false or misleading testimony in a prior case. Despite his role as the county’s top law enforcement official, the process for disclosing his credibility issues was nonstandard, delayed, and contested, exposing the lack of clear enforcement mechanisms.

2. Brock Ameele and Ryan Fraker (2023)
   Two officers in Deschutes County were added to the DA’s Brady List following findings of dishonesty or procedural misconduct. Internal reviews were not promptly shared with defense counsel, and no clear criteria existed for when or how these officers should be removed or barred from testifying.

3. Portland Police Bureau Use-of-Force Investigations (2020–2022)
   Officers with histories of excessive force or sustained misconduct continued to testify in court without disclosures, despite civil settlements and public controversies. The DA’s office did not maintain a list of flagged officers, and defense attorneys had to seek misconduct records via FOIA or court orders.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases illustrate how Oregon’s lack of a systemic disclosure framework allows officers with impaired credibility to participate in prosecutions without transparency. Defense attorneys are left to investigate misconduct on their own, while prosecutors—without guidance or obligation—often rely on subjective judgments to determine what should be disclosed. The resulting inconsistency endangers defendants’ rights and public trust.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Statewide Giglio Lists or Policies: Disclosure is determined locally, with no formal coordination between prosecutors and police.

• No Mandatory Notification: Police agencies are not required to inform DAs of sustained misconduct.

• Opaque Internal Affairs Records: While Oregon has improved access to some misconduct records, sustained findings are still frequently shielded by union contracts or bureaucratic delays.

• Limited Training and Oversight: Prosecutors and police often lack formal training on Brady/Giglio compliance, and no agency audits or enforces statewide standards.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Efforts to increase transparency have encountered resistance from police unions and local governments. Attempts to formalize Giglio disclosure practices—such as through legislative mandates or DPSST reforms—have failed to gain traction. Without legislative action, prosecutors are unlikely to voluntarily relinquish discretion or commit to consistent interagency notification.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Establish Mandatory Giglio Lists
   Require every District Attorney to track officers with sustained credibility-impairing misconduct and to disclose this information when relevant.

2. Mandate Interagency Notification
   Require all law enforcement agencies to notify prosecutors of sustained findings of dishonesty, bias, or constitutional violations within 30 days.

3. Integrate DPSST Certification and Prosecutorial Systems
   Ensure that prosecutors are informed whenever an officer is decertified, suspended, or investigated for Giglio-relevant misconduct.

4. Amend ORS 135.815 to Include Officer Misconduct
   Explicitly require disclosure of sustained internal affairs findings and DPSST sanctions as part of mandatory pretrial discovery.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Create a Statewide Officer Misconduct Registry
   Publish a redacted, public-facing database of officers with credibility-impairing misconduct findings or decertifications.

2. Establish a Disclosure Compliance Unit
   Task the Oregon Department of Justice with auditing Giglio practices and publishing annual compliance reports by county.

3. Provide Standardized Giglio Training
   Mandate annual training for all prosecutors and law enforcement officers on constitutional disclosure duties and testimonial integrity.

4. Reform Union Contracts Blocking Transparency
   Limit contractual provisions that prevent disclosure of sustained misconduct findings relevant to criminal trials.

Conclusion

Oregon’s commitment to candor is incomplete. While laws exist to protect defendants’ rights and punish prosecutorial misconduct, they are undercut by a lack of operational systems. Without mandatory Giglio lists, notification procedures, and independent oversight, the duty to disclose remains fragmented, unenforced, and unreliable. Justice in Oregon demands more than acknowledgment of rights—it demands structural accountability. Until then, truth in the courtroom remains as precarious as the discretion of those who control it.