Rhode Island

Overview

Rhode Island is the smallest U.S. state by land area but reflects challenges familiar across the country: a justice system where Brady and Giglio obligations are constitutionally enshrined but procedurally underdeveloped. The Ocean State lacks a statutory requirement for law enforcement to notify prosecutors of officer misconduct, and no legal obligation compels prosecutors to maintain a Giglio list or “Do Not Call” database. Public access to disciplinary records is limited, and disclosure practices are mostly governed by internal discretion rather than enforceable rules. Rhode Island’s highly centralized criminal justice system—anchored by a single Attorney General’s Office—offers a unique opportunity for reform. Yet as of 2025, the state has not implemented structural systems to track, share, or proactively disclose credibility-impairing misconduct. The result: justice by discretion, not by design.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Rhode Island prosecutes nearly all felony and many misdemeanor cases through the Rhode Island Department of the Attorney General. While police departments investigate crimes and initiate charges in lower courts, the Attorney General’s Office assumes a leading role once cases are bound over for prosecution.

Disclosure obligations derive from:

• Rhode Island Rule of Criminal Procedure 16: Requires the prosecution to provide the defense with evidence “favorable to the accused,” including impeachment material.

• Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8(d): Obligates prosecutors to disclose all known information that tends to negate guilt or mitigate punishment.

• Rhode Island Access to Public Records Act (APRA), R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2: Allows public access to some government records, but shields most internal police disciplinary files as “personnel records.”

The Rhode Island Police Officers Commission on Standards and Training (POST) oversees law enforcement certification and training, but does not publish records of decertification or share disciplinary information with prosecutors. There is no mechanism to ensure that prosecutors are aware of sustained misconduct findings involving officers testifying in court.

Historical Context

Rhode Island has experienced several high-profile law enforcement scandals that have tested the limits of its disclosure obligations.

In 2012, the Providence Police Department was rocked by a corruption scandal involving officers accused of falsifying reports, planting evidence, and abusing overtime systems. Despite public outcry, most internal affairs records remained confidential, and the state made no structural changes to how prosecutorial disclosures are managed.

In 2017, the shooting of a suspect by an off-duty officer in West Greenwich led to further scrutiny of how the Attorney General’s Office reviewed police conduct and whether all relevant credibility information was disclosed in associated criminal cases. Investigations revealed that even officers with sustained misconduct were permitted to testify without defense attorneys ever being informed of their histories.

Despite these incidents, Rhode Island has not adopted formal Giglio tracking mechanisms. Prosecutorial decisions about disclosure are largely governed by internal policies that vary by assistant attorney general or case team. Defense attorneys often report difficulty obtaining disciplinary information about officers, particularly in misdemeanor or lower-level felony cases.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

Rhode Island’s Constitution guarantees due process under Article I, Section 10 and confrontation rights under Section 9, both of which align with federal protections under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Key statutes and rules include:

• Rule 16, R.I. R. Crim. P.: Requires the state to disclose “all material or information within the possession, custody, or control of the state, that tends to negate the guilt of the accused.”

• Rule 3.8(d), R.I. Rules of Professional Conduct: Affirms the prosecutorial duty to disclose mitigating or exculpatory material, even without a defense request.

• R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(A)(I)(b): Excludes personnel records from public records unless the public interest outweighs the privacy interest—making sustained misconduct findings difficult to access.

Notably, no law or court rule mandates that law enforcement notify prosecutors of sustained disciplinary findings, nor does any rule require that the Attorney General’s Office track which officers are impaired for testimonial purposes.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

• State v. Wyche, 518 A.2d 907 (R.I. 1986): Reaffirmed the principle that suppression of exculpatory evidence, including impeachment material, violates due process under Brady.

• State v. Chalk, 816 A.2d 413 (R.I. 2002): Confirmed that a defendant is entitled to information that could impeach a testifying state witness, including promises of leniency.

• State v. Briggs, 886 A.2d 735 (R.I. 2005): Emphasized that the state must disclose any evidence that may affect the credibility of a witness, including a police officer.

Rhode Island courts have not, however, mandated systemic procedures for compliance, leaving prosecutors to determine what counts as “material” and whether it merits disclosure.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

There is no uniform policy among Rhode Island’s police departments requiring the disclosure of disciplinary records to the Attorney General. Internal affairs files are generally maintained within departments and classified as confidential personnel records. Only in rare cases where criminal charges are filed or civil litigation reveals records are they made accessible to defense attorneys.

Training on Brady and Giglio obligations is minimal in most police academies and departments. Officers are generally not taught about the implications of sustained misconduct on their future credibility or testifiability.

The POST Commission offers training on legal ethics, but there is no requirement that officers receive specific instruction on how misconduct findings may trigger constitutional disclosure obligations—or preclude them from serving as reliable witnesses.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

The Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office is the central authority in criminal prosecutions but does not maintain a public-facing or internal Giglio list. Individual prosecutors may informally avoid calling certain officers, but this is not tracked, audited, or reported. There is no policy requiring the AG’s Office to disclose officer misconduct unless the officer is directly testifying—and even then, whether impeachment material is disclosed depends on internal review.

Complaints of prosecutorial misconduct are handled by the Rhode Island Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, which oversees attorneys statewide. However, disciplinary action for Brady or Giglio failures is exceedingly rare, and the board does not conduct systemic reviews of prosecutorial practices.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Providence Police Overtime and Integrity Scandal (2012–2015)
   A group of officers were found to have falsified timecards and misused departmental resources. Despite administrative discipline and public controversy, no records of the officers' credibility impairments were made available to defense attorneys in unrelated cases.

2. West Greenwich Police Shooting (2017)
   An off-duty officer involved in a controversial shooting had prior sustained findings of excessive force. These findings were not disclosed in associated criminal proceedings, prompting criticism from civil rights advocates and legal observers.

3. State v. S.D. (Suppressed Evidence Case, 2021)
   A judge admonished prosecutors for failing to disclose internal affairs records involving a testifying officer, but ruled the evidence was not material enough to warrant a mistrial. The case revealed the absence of a standardized review process for officer credibility.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases underscore the inadequacy of Rhode Island’s informal disclosure practices. Officers with impaired credibility have continued to testify in court, sometimes without prosecutors or defense attorneys being aware of prior sustained findings. The lack of a Giglio framework makes disclosure a question of professional choice, not constitutional enforcement.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Giglio List or Disclosure System: The Attorney General’s Office does not track or publish a list of officers whose misconduct affects their credibility.

• No Reporting Requirement by Police Agencies: Departments are not obligated to notify prosecutors of sustained internal misconduct.

• Opaque Personnel Laws: The APRA shields internal affairs records unless a strong public interest is found, and even then, redactions are common.

• Lack of Oversight and Training: There is no body tasked with auditing disclosure practices, and training on Giglio obligations is inconsistent or nonexistent.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Attempts to increase access to police disciplinary records have been met with resistance from law enforcement unions and municipal leaders. Rhode Island’s small size and centralization offer an opportunity for statewide reform, but institutional inertia and the absence of legal mandates have slowed progress.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Create a Statewide Giglio List
   The Attorney General should maintain a confidential internal list of officers with sustained credibility-impairing misconduct and ensure this list is reviewed in every relevant case.

2. Mandate Police Notification of Prosecutors
   Enact legislation requiring all law enforcement agencies to report findings involving dishonesty, fabrication, excessive force, or bias to the Attorney General within 30 days.

3. Amend Rule 16 to Clarify Giglio Duties
   Include specific language in Rhode Island’s criminal procedure rules that mandates disclosure of sustained misconduct, even if the officer is not called as a witness but contributed materially to the investigation.

4. Require POST to Flag Decertified Officers
   The POST Commission should notify the Attorney General of any officers decertified for integrity-related issues and maintain a sealed, searchable database for prosecutors.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Amend the APRA to Permit Access to Sustained Findings
   Allow public and defense access to disciplinary records related to testimonial integrity, subject to redaction where necessary.

2. Create a Prosecutorial Disclosure Review Board
   Empower an independent entity to audit Brady and Giglio compliance, publish annual reports, and receive anonymous reports of noncompliance.

3. Standardize Giglio Training Across Agencies
   Require mandatory annual training for all law enforcement officers and prosecutors on disclosure obligations and the courtroom consequences of dishonesty.

4. Develop a Defense-Accessible Giglio Portal
   Build a secure platform where defense attorneys can request and verify whether officers in their cases have known credibility impairments.

Conclusion

Rhode Island has the advantage of centralization—but not the will, so far, to leverage it. The Attorney General’s Office is uniquely positioned to implement a statewide system of disclosure, accountability, and officer tracking. Yet in the absence of mandatory policies, disclosure remains a matter of habit, not law. To fulfill its constitutional promise, Rhode Island must build a system where truth is not just expected—but documented, tracked, and enforced. The state is small enough to do better. It only needs to choose candor.