Utah

Overview

Utah presents an increasingly proactive, though still incomplete, model in fulfilling its constitutional obligations under Brady and Giglio. While the state has implemented several reforms in recent years—including the establishment of a Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) public misconduct database and increased attention to officer discipline—systemic gaps remain. There is no statewide mandate requiring prosecutors to maintain Giglio or “Do Not Call” lists, nor any law obligating law enforcement to report credibility-impairing misconduct to prosecutors. Prosecutorial practices vary significantly across the state’s 29 counties, and public access to internal disciplinary records continues to be limited. Utah has taken some steps toward transparency, but the full infrastructure necessary to guarantee candor and uniform courtroom integrity is still lacking.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Prosecutions in Utah are led by elected County Attorneys (or District Attorneys in a few urban counties like Salt Lake) who handle the majority of criminal cases. The Utah Attorney General can prosecute cases with statewide significance but generally defers to local authority.

Disclosure obligations are grounded in:

• Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16: Requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence and other material relevant to guilt or punishment.

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

• Utah Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA), Utah Code § 63G-2-101 et seq.: Governs public access to government records, including law enforcement files, though internal affairs and personnel records are often withheld as protected or private records.

Police officers are certified through the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training Council (POST), which can suspend or revoke certification for misconduct. In recent years, POST has increased transparency by publishing decisions and sanctions, including some that relate to dishonesty—though not necessarily flagged for Giglio purposes.

Historical Context

In 2019, a Salt Lake Tribune investigation revealed that officers with known credibility issues were continuing to testify in courtrooms across the state, with little or no disclosure to defense attorneys. The report identified inconsistencies in how counties handled Brady and Giglio material and highlighted the absence of a uniform state-level disclosure policy.

Following the report, POST began publishing more detailed decertification and suspension summaries on its website. These now include officer names, agencies, and the conduct that led to disciplinary action—including lying, tampering with evidence, and abuse of authority. However, POST does not notify prosecutors, nor is there any cross-referencing system between POST records and prosecutorial databases.

Some jurisdictions, such as Salt Lake County, have developed internal disclosure systems, but these are not shared statewide and are not subject to external review. In rural counties, prosecutors often rely on word-of-mouth or voluntary notifications from law enforcement—a system vulnerable to omissions, political interference, or simple neglect.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

Utah’s Constitution provides due process under Article I, Section 7 and confrontation rights under Section 12, mirroring federal protections.

Relevant disclosure-related laws and rules include:

• Utah R. Crim. P. 16: Requires disclosure of material evidence but does not explicitly mandate disclosure of internal police discipline records.

• Utah R. Prof. Conduct 3.8(d): Requires prosecutors to disclose known impeachment or exculpatory information.

• Utah Code § 63G-2-302: Exempts certain personnel records from disclosure under GRAMA, but allows for release when the public interest outweighs privacy concerns.

There is no statutory requirement for law enforcement to report officer misconduct to prosecutors, nor is there any obligation that prosecutors maintain a Giglio list or coordinate disclosures with POST.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

• State v. Pliego, 1999 UT 8, 974 P.2d 279: Reaffirmed that suppression of material evidence favorable to the defense violates due process.

• State v. Bakalov, 1999 UT 45, 979 P.2d 799: Emphasized the duty of prosecutors to ensure evidence disclosure even when held by police.

• State v. Pinder, 2005 UT 15, 114 P.3d 551: Held that failure to disclose material impeachment evidence may justify reversal if it undermines confidence in the verdict.

Utah courts acknowledge the full scope of Brady and Giglio, but have not required systemic enforcement mechanisms or established a standard for how prosecutors must track and disclose officer credibility impairments.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

Law enforcement agencies in Utah vary widely in size and capacity. While the Salt Lake City Police Department and some larger agencies have formal internal affairs units and track sustained misconduct, smaller agencies may handle discipline informally or without documentation.

There is no legal obligation to report sustained findings of dishonesty or misconduct to prosecutors. Even in high-profile cases, unless law enforcement voluntarily discloses information—or unless a defense team makes specific discovery requests—officer credibility concerns often go unnoticed.

Training on Brady/Giglio obligations is not uniformly provided to officers. POST certification courses include general ethics modules but do not mandate detailed instruction on the legal consequences of testifying with a history of misconduct.

POST Role and Limitations

POST has emerged as a partial mechanism for public accountability. Since 2020, it has regularly published decertification and suspension reports, which include officer names, misconduct summaries, and final actions. Some of these cases involve lying on police reports, falsifying certifications, or abuse of power—all issues directly relevant to Giglio disclosure.

However:

• POST does not notify prosecutors when a decertified officer has testified in prior criminal cases.

• There is no integration between POST data and any prosecutorial tracking system.

• There is no requirement that prosecutors or defense attorneys review POST’s public reports.

As such, even a highly relevant POST sanction may go unexamined in criminal trials unless discovered independently.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Officer Shaun Cowley – West Valley City (2012–2014)
   Involved in the fatal shooting of Danielle Willard, Cowley was later fired for mishandling evidence. Despite the firing, his role in earlier prosecutions raised concerns about whether Giglio material had been disclosed in time. The Salt Lake County DA reviewed several of his cases, but the process was voluntary and reactive.

2. Utah POST Disciplinary Actions (2020–2024)
   Several officers were suspended or decertified for lying in police reports, falsifying timesheets, or using excessive force. Despite public availability of these decisions on POST’s website, no statewide effort was made to link these findings to pending or past prosecutions.

3. Salt Lake County DA’s Office Internal Review (2021)
   The DA’s office created a limited “Disclosure Review Panel” to assess officers with potential Giglio issues. However, the process is internal, not public, and its effectiveness is unknown due to lack of transparency and state-level coordination.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases underscore the precariousness of Utah’s approach to prosecutorial candor. While some prosecutors may take initiative to review or limit officer testimony, there is no legal requirement, no centralized tracking, and no enforcement. This allows officers with sustained credibility issues to testify in one jurisdiction while being blacklisted in another—without public knowledge or defense access.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Giglio Lists Required: Most county prosecutors do not maintain formal Giglio tracking systems.

• No Law Enforcement Reporting Requirement: Agencies are not required to report disciplinary findings to prosecutors.

• Personnel and Internal Affairs Records Protected: Under GRAMA, most internal discipline remains inaccessible unless a strong public interest overrides.

• No Audit or Oversight: Neither POST nor the Attorney General audits prosecutorial compliance with Brady/Giglio obligations.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Attempts to improve transparency often run into resistance from law enforcement associations. Additionally, Utah’s cultural emphasis on local control discourages uniform, top-down mandates. There has been no legislative push to establish a statewide Giglio registry or disclosure enforcement mechanism, despite growing evidence of its necessity.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Mandate Prosecutorial Giglio Lists
   Require every County Attorney’s Office to maintain and update lists of officers with sustained misconduct affecting testimonial credibility.

2. Require Law Enforcement Notification of Prosecutors
   Enact legislation obligating agencies to notify prosecutors within 30 days of any sustained finding involving dishonesty, bias, or unlawful conduct.

3. Integrate POST with Prosecutorial Systems
   Develop a secure data-sharing agreement between POST and the Utah Attorney General or County Attorneys to flag relevant misconduct in real time.

4. Expand Rule 16 to Include Misconduct Disclosure
   Amend Utah’s Rules of Criminal Procedure to require the pretrial disclosure of sustained internal affairs findings relevant to witness credibility.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Make POST Reports Searchable and Indexed
   Improve the POST misconduct database with keyword search, filtering by department, and case linkage options for use by prosecutors and defenders.

2. Create a Statewide Prosecutorial Oversight Unit
   Establish a disclosure compliance task force under the AG or judicial branch to audit Giglio compliance, issue public reports, and enforce standards.

3. Require Annual Giglio Training
   Mandate statewide continuing education for prosecutors and officers on Brady/Giglio law and ethical obligations, tied to certification or bar renewal.

4. Revise GRAMA for Sustained Misconduct
   Amend the public records law to permit defense and limited public access to sustained findings of dishonesty or constitutional rights violations.

Conclusion

Utah has taken meaningful steps toward improving transparency, particularly through POST’s public reporting. But disclosure of officer misconduct remains largely decentralized, discretionary, and vulnerable to omission. Prosecutorial offices operate without uniform standards, law enforcement agencies are not required to share internal findings, and defense access to critical impeachment material often depends on luck or litigation. For truth to thrive in Utah’s courtrooms, candor must be codified, coordinated, and enforced—not just expected. The structure exists. The obligation is clear. What remains is action.