A Sarasota County Sheriff deputy’s termination in June after a judge found he had given misleading testimony has led to Brady notices being made in almost 80 separate cases.
In April, Sarasota Judge Maryann Uzabel found former deputy Matthew Ackley’s testimony in a DUI case from 2023 included misleading information with various inconsistencies that almost rose to the level of fraud on the court.
The ruling came after the prosecutor attempted to rehabilitate Ackley’s character after an initial ruling found Ackley had committed fraud on the court, according to court records.
Read the full investigation: Sarasota County sheriff’s deputy fired for misleading court. Now other cases are at risk.
The former deputy was the lead investigator for a two-car crash in Englewood in April 2023 and thus a witness in the DUI case. When asked why Ackley hadn’t utilized a breath test on the defendant at the Englewood Hospital, he testified that every time he’d used breath test equipment at a hospital, specifically in Venice and Sarasota, he received radio interference or an RFI notification, making the test null and void.
At later hearings, the defense provided evidence showing they couldn’t find any breath test conducted by Ackley at a hospital that had radio interference, according to court records. Ackley told the court he had not prepared for the previous hearings, basing his testimony on memory. There was also video evidence that Ackley had been present when another deputy gave a breath test at Sarasota Memorial Hospital and didn’t receive an RFI error.
Ackley also acknowledged he’d received a subpoena to produce copies of breath test affidavits where RFI was detected but said he didn’t produce the records because he didn’t know how to obtain them.
The judge’s order declaring Ackley had given misleading testimony and his subsequent firing from the department following an internal affairs investigation affected multiple cases in which he was listed as a witness.
A ripple effect: Ackley’s misleading testimony in one case could now affect more
As a result of the judge’s ruling, the State Attorney’s Office had to issue Brady notices following Brady v. Maryland.
In total, it appears that Ackley at the time was involved in approximately 80 other cases, according to an email by Assistant State Attorney Andrew van Sickle containing a spreadsheet of the cases and forwarded to a Herald-Tribune reporter.
Here’s what to know: Trial for former Manatee County ballerina accused of killing husband
In case you missed it: Sarasota hotel sues former employee and competing restaurant for defamation
Van Sickle did not return calls or emails by a Herald-Tribune reporter asking to speak about the impact Ackley’s situation has had on the other cases.
Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Evan Keats in an email stated that the credibility of any witness in court, including law enforcement, is always relevant in any type of court proceeding. He added that van Sickle testified during a Career Service Board hearing for Ackley that juries rely on subjective law enforcement testimony and there were concerns about Ackley testifying in future cases and how a jury may see his credibility.
“While every position at SCSO has the possibility of needing to testify under oath, the DUI/Traffic Unit members have arguably the highest probability of testifying in administrative, civil, and criminal hearings on a regular basis,” Keats responded in the email.
During the Career Service Board hearing, Sgt. Charles Flint, who was Ackley’s former supervisor from November 2020 to January 2023, testified that he wholeheartedly believed Ackley’s actions “tarnished the DUI unit’s reputation” that Flint worked so hard to build up.
Investigation: Hundreds of police officers have been labeled liars. Some still help send people to prison.
Trial concludes: Sarasota woman found guilty of murder in fatal 2022 New Year’s Day shooting
‘Crossed the line’: Manatee deputy resigns after texting woman ‘lewd’ texts, misused computer
What is a Brady notice?
A Brady notice, or Brady disclosure, was established in the landmark 1963 case, Brady v. Maryland, which established that the State is obligated to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense, said local Sarasota defense attorney Elizabeth Loeffler, the president of the Sarasota Chapter of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. Exculpatory evidence is any evidence that could help the defense with their case.
“We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution,” the ruling in Brady v. Maryland states.
If a prosecutor fails to disclose favorable evidence to a defense attorney, affecting the outcome of a trial, a Brady violation occurs.
Loeffler expanded that when the law refers to the State, it means both the prosecution and law enforcement. If law enforcement knows of evidence in a case that could be exculpatory and doesn’t turn it over, and the defense learns of the information, it could be considered a Brady violation.
In the eyes of the court, Loeffler said, the State is the State. The State Attorney’s Office and law enforcement are presumed to know all the information that the other knows and the prosecution is expected to have good communication with law enforcement.
Brady v Maryland: the history behind the landmark case
When a 1958 murder of a 53-year-old man landed two men in jail, a confession that wasn’t disclosed by the prosecutor led to the case going all the way to the Supreme Court in 1963.
John Leo Brady, 25, was in love with Nancy Boblit McGowan in 1958, according to reporting by The Marshall Project. At the time, Brady was poor, and Boblit McGowan was married to someone else. But when Boblit McGowan became pregnant, Brady decided he would rob a bank with the help of Donald Boblit, Nancy’s brother, to provide for the woman he loved.
Brady and Boblit planned to steal a reliable, working car from William Brooks, who had known Brady for most of his life, to use in the robbery. However, in the process of stealing the car, Boblit strangled Brooks.
Brady and Boblit left Brooks’ body in the woods and took off with his car. Days later, Brady turned himself in after running to Cuba. He told investigators he had knocked Brooks out, and that he and Boblit had stolen the car, but did not mention that Brooks had been killed. Investigators later told Brady that Boblit confessed that Brooks was dead and that it had been Brady who killed him.
Brady told investigators it had been Boblit who had killed the man, and that he had confessed to hitting Brooks to protect his friend. Reporting by The Marshall Project indicates that Boblit gave police five statements; the first four placed the blame on Brady, but in the last statement, Boblit confessed to hitting and strangling Brooks.
During the case, the prosecutor only disclosed Boblit’s first four statements. A jury found Brady guilty of first-degree murder and he was sentenced to death.
While on death row, Brady got a new attorney who figured out that Boblit had given a statement admitting to the killing that the prosecutor withheld and filed an appeal. The Maryland Court of Appeals found in 1961 that the prosecutor had a duty to produce the confession and that his actions were a violation of Brady’s constitutional right to due process.
While the appellate court stated Brady was entitled to a new trial, it was only on the issue of punishment. In hopes of also reversing the conviction entirely, Brady and his attorney filed an appeal and in 1962, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
In case you missed it: Sarasota County OKs millions from opioid settlement for jail prevention, rehabilitation
More: Sarasota County deputy cruiser collides with cyclist
What happens when a Brady notice is issued in a case?
When asked what happens when a Brady notice is issued in a case, Loeffler said it depends on how the case has progressed.
During a trial, if the State learns about potentially exculpatory evidence for the first time and issues a Brady disclosure, it could lead to a mistrial. If the State knows about exculpatory evidence but doesn’t turn it over and the defense learns about it mid-trial, Loeffler said a judge should dismiss the case if the motion is raised.
If the notice is given on the eve of a trial or close to a trial date, the defense can make a motion to delay the trial to give them enough time to investigate the evidence themselves, Loeffler said.
In some cases, where the case is already after a trial, a post-conviction motion is filed in which the defense can argue that if they had had the newly discovered evidence before trial, there might have been a different outcome. If the case has been closed and the new evidence is brought forth, the case should be reopened and litigated based on the new evidence.
Judges can also decide whether prosecutors acted in bad faith, in which instance, the prosecutor knew of the evidence but didn’t turn over. On the other hand, judges can rule that there wasn’t misconduct if prosecutors can prove they hadn’t known about the evidence and turned it over as soon as they did know.
Gabriela Szymanowska covers the legal system for the Herald-Tribune in partnership with Report for America. You can support her work with a tax-deductible donation to Report for America. Contact Gabriela Szymanowska at gszymanowska@gannett.com, or on X: @GabrielaSzyman3.
This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: A Sarasota deputy misled the court. What’s the impact on other cases?
EMEA Tribune is not involved in this news article, it is taken from our partners and or from the News Agencies. Copyright and Credit go to the News Agencies, email news@emeatribune.com Follow our WhatsApp verified Channel
