Wyoming

Overview

Wyoming is a state where the constitutional duties imposed by Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States exist in theory but are almost entirely unsupported in practice. There is no state law requiring prosecutors to maintain Giglio or “Do Not Call” lists, no mandate for law enforcement to disclose credibility-impairing misconduct to prosecuting attorneys, and no public access to decertification or disciplinary data. The state’s rural nature, small population, and decentralized law enforcement structure exacerbate the problem. Prosecutorial and police agencies often operate without formal internal affairs processes or consistent recordkeeping. With limited infrastructure and virtually no oversight, truth in the courtroom in Wyoming depends more on personal relationships than institutional safeguards.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Criminal prosecutions in Wyoming are handled by County and Prosecuting Attorneys, elected in each of the state’s 23 counties. The Wyoming Attorney General does not supervise county-level prosecutors and has limited involvement in criminal prosecutions outside of state agency representation or appellate work.

Key legal obligations related to disclosure include:

• Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 18: Incorporates discovery obligations, including exculpatory and impeachment evidence.

• Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(d): Requires prosecutors to disclose all information known to them that tends to negate guilt or mitigate punishment.

• Wyoming Public Records Act (W.S. § 16-4-201 et seq.): Allows public access to many government records but broadly exempts personnel files and internal investigation materials.

Law enforcement officer certification is governed by the Wyoming Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST). While POST has the authority to decertify officers for certain misconduct, there is no public database of decertified officers, and no formal mechanism connects POST actions to prosecutorial duties.

Historical Context

Wyoming’s small population and rural geography have resulted in a criminal justice system that relies heavily on informal communication and personal trust. But this informality comes at the cost of transparency and consistency. In numerous counties, prosecuting attorneys have no formal system for tracking officers with credibility impairments, and many small police departments lack the internal resources to conduct meaningful disciplinary investigations, let alone share them with prosecutors.

In 2020, local media highlighted a case in which a sheriff’s deputy was allowed to resign following a misconduct investigation related to falsified reports. No criminal charges were filed, and the incident was not reported to POST or the prosecutor’s office. The deputy later served as a witness in a separate criminal trial, and the defense was not informed of the prior findings. The matter only came to light after civil litigation was filed in federal court.

Despite these incidents, Wyoming has not adopted any statewide policy requiring law enforcement agencies to report sustained misconduct findings to prosecutors or mandating that prosecutors track Giglio material. Efforts to reform police transparency in other states have found little traction in Wyoming’s legislative or judicial bodies.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

Wyoming’s Constitution guarantees due process and confrontation rights under Article 1, Sections 6 and 10, mirroring the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

Disclosure rules include:

• W.R.Cr.P. Rule 18(a)(1)(E): Requires prosecutors to disclose material favorable to the defense, which includes impeachment information under federal precedent.

• W.R. Prof. Conduct 3.8(d): Requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory and mitigating evidence, whether or not it has been requested.

• W.S. § 16-4-203(b)(i): Exempts personnel records from disclosure if they would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Notably absent are any statutes that:

• Require law enforcement to notify prosecutors of sustained misconduct findings;

• Mandate that prosecutors maintain Giglio or “Do Not Call” lists;

• Create a statewide system for recording or reviewing officer disciplinary histories relevant to courtroom testimony.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

• Wilkening v. State, 2003 WY 127, 78 P.3d 1103: Confirmed that due process under Brady requires disclosure of evidence favorable to the defendant, including evidence affecting credibility.

• Lamb v. State, 2001 WY 111, 34 P.3d 1216: Reiterated that prosecutors are responsible for learning of and disclosing material held by police agencies.

• Pendleton v. State, 2008 WY 36, 180 P.3d 212: Addressed procedural timeliness of discovery but underscored the lack of systemic enforcement tools for disclosure duties.

Wyoming courts have applied Brady and Giglio principles correctly in individual cases, but no systemic doctrine or case law mandates proactive practices or disclosure infrastructure.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

Wyoming’s law enforcement agencies are often small and independently managed. Some agencies have as few as two or three officers and may lack the capacity or experience to conduct formal internal investigations. Even in larger departments, there is no legal obligation to inform prosecutors of sustained misconduct, even when it directly implicates testimonial credibility.

The POST Commission may decertify officers for felony convictions, dishonesty, or other serious infractions. However:

• There is no public database of decertified officers;

• There is no process for POST to notify prosecutors of decertification actions;

• There is no mechanism for defense attorneys to check POST status or disciplinary records;

• POST actions are rarely cross-referenced with courtroom testimony.

Training on Brady/Giglio obligations is not mandated for law enforcement officers as part of POST certification. Ethics courses are included in basic academy training, but the link between dishonesty and courtroom disqualification is rarely emphasized.

Prosecutorial Practices

Each elected County Attorney operates with substantial discretion and minimal oversight. Most offices do not maintain Giglio or Brady lists, and in many cases, there is no written policy on how to handle officers with known credibility impairments. Disclosure is often reactive—triggered by defense discovery requests or media reports.

In a 2022 survey of county attorneys by the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, fewer than 20% of offices reported having a formal process for tracking Giglio material. None maintained a publicly accessible list, and most indicated they relied on voluntary reporting by law enforcement to learn of credibility issues.

Disciplinary actions against prosecutors for disclosure violations are extremely rare in Wyoming. The Wyoming State Bar does not maintain a record of any recent Giglio-related discipline, and no audit body exists to ensure statewide compliance.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Campbell County Sheriff’s Deputy Resignation (2019)
   An officer resigned following an internal finding of falsified testimony in a domestic violence case. The matter was not referred to POST, and the prosecutor was not notified. The officer later testified in another case without disclosure of the earlier misconduct.

2. Laramie County Officer Rehiring (2021)
   A patrol officer disciplined for dishonesty was rehired by a nearby agency. That agency never disclosed the officer’s history to the prosecutor’s office, and the officer was called as a witness in multiple DUI cases. The defense only learned of the prior issue through private investigation.

3. Carbon County Public Defender Complaint (2022)
   A public defender raised concerns that the prosecution had failed to disclose an officer’s sustained bias complaint from the year before. No review was initiated, and the prosecutor’s office claimed they had not been informed by the agency.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases reflect a larger pattern of systemic non-disclosure. Prosecutors and defense attorneys often operate in the dark about an officer’s disciplinary past. Without clear legal duties to report, maintain, or investigate misconduct related to credibility, Wyoming’s courtroom proceedings remain vulnerable to suppression of material facts that should be disclosed under Brady and Giglio.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Giglio Tracking System: Most counties do not track officers with known credibility issues.

• No Mandatory Police Reporting: Law enforcement agencies have no obligation to notify prosecutors of sustained misconduct.

• Closed POST Records: There is no public or prosecutor-facing database of officer decertifications or disciplinary actions.

• No Oversight or Enforcement Mechanism: The state lacks an entity tasked with auditing or enforcing disclosure obligations.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Efforts to improve law enforcement transparency in Wyoming are complicated by political resistance, a strong culture of local control, and limited resources. Police unions and county sheriff associations have historically opposed legislation mandating public access to misconduct records. The state’s rural legal environment fosters tight relationships between law enforcement and prosecutors, further discouraging independent scrutiny.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Require Prosecutors to Maintain Giglio Lists
   Enact legislation mandating that each County Attorney track and review officers with sustained findings of dishonesty or bias and consult this list before calling officers to testify.

2. Mandate Law Enforcement Disclosure to Prosecutors
   Require agencies to notify prosecutors within 30 days of any sustained internal finding affecting courtroom credibility.

3. Integrate POST with Prosecutorial Systems
   Create a secure system that allows prosecutors to review POST actions involving officer misconduct, especially decertification or suspension cases.

4. Amend Rule 18 to Include Explicit Officer Misconduct Disclosure
   Codify the requirement that prosecutors disclose sustained internal affairs findings or personnel issues that affect witness credibility.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Create a Public POST Disciplinary Database
   Require the Wyoming POST Commission to publish a searchable record of decertified officers, with redacted summaries of misconduct.

2. Establish a Statewide Disclosure Oversight Body
   Task the Attorney General or a Judicial Council committee with auditing Brady/Giglio compliance across the state.

3. Mandate Annual Giglio Training for Officers and Prosecutors
   Make it a condition of certification and employment that all criminal justice personnel receive annual training on disclosure obligations.

4. Improve Access to Internal Affairs Files through FOIA Reform
   Amend the Public Records Act to allow defense counsel and the public to access redacted records of sustained misconduct that bear on testimonial reliability.

Conclusion

Wyoming’s commitment to justice cannot rest on discretion and good faith alone. Without a system to track officer misconduct, ensure disclosure to defense counsel, or audit prosecutorial compliance, the constitutional rights of defendants hang by a thread. In a state that prizes independence and integrity, it is time for transparency to be institutionalized—not assumed. The law demands candor, and so must Wyoming’s legal system.