A Barnstable Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Cape and Islands District Attorney against the sheriffs of Barnstable County and Dukes County that sought to disclose confidential employee personnel records of the sheriffs’ staff members going back 20 years or more.
Barnstable County Sheriff Donna D. Buckley and Dukes County Sheriff Robert W. Ogden sought the dismissal of the case in Barnstable Superior Court Sept. 3. They claimed that the materials requested by the district attorney’s office go beyond what is legally required and should only apply in pending cases.
Both sheriffs were pleased with the ruling, but still questioned the purpose of District Attorney Robert Galibois’ efforts for more than a year.
In dismissing District Attorney Robert Galibois’ complaint last week, Judge Michael K. Callan agreed with the sheriffs’ interpretation of the Brady doctrine, which limits disclosure of personnel information to those employees directly involved in a criminal case at issue. Employees in the Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office, specifically, are responsible for collecting and securing evidence collected at crime scenes throughout the Cape and Islands.
The landmark decision, Brady v. Maryland, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963, held that, under the Fifth and 14th amendments, a prosecutor has a duty to disclose favorable evidence to defendants upon request, if the evidence is “material” to either guilt or punishment.
Sheriffs Ogden, Buckley respond
“Judge Callan understands the law and saw through whatever the ultimate goal of the district attorney was,” Ogden said, in response to the ruling by phone on Monday. He said he was confused about why the district attorney’s goal was to persecute his own law enforcement employees over something that was not required of them.
Ogden said he had supported Galibois’ campaign for office and considered him a colleague and a friend. His message to Galibois is, “Can you please stop being a persecutor and go back to being a prosecutor and doing your job?” Ogden said he and his employees “just want to get back to work” as the directives have taken a “lot of personnel time and money.”
Buckley responded to the ruling by phone, saying that Galibois’s effort, “defies logic” and his explanations “never made sense.” She said, “I hope this is an opportunity for us to move forward.” In a press release, she said, “For more than a year, this misguided effort by the district attorney has consumed valuable time and resources of the sheriff’s office.”
Callan’s ruling stated that Galibois “seeks to have the sheriffs provide exculpatory information in a new and different manner” than outlined in the Brady policy and that “alternative remedies exist for the district attorney to obtain potentially exculpatory information.”
Exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial, generally, justifies, excuses or creates reasonable doubt about a defendant’s alleged actions or intentions.
Judge: DA required to make reasonable inquires
“The district attorney is required to make reasonable inquiries on members of the prosecution team during criminal proceedings, which include the sheriffs’ officers when they are involved in a particular prosecution,” Callan said. But, he added, “In fact, the party who is entitled to the potentially exculpatory information is the defendant subject to prosecution, not the district attorney.”
Both sheriffs said they have always complied with the Brady obligations in individual cases. After the Sept. 3 hearing, Buckley told the Times, “I’m not violating the law. I make sure our office complies,” but she said that does not include personal information about any employees.
Ogden’s attorney, John Collins, said in the court hearing that no other district attorneys in the state or country are asking for the information that the Cape and Islands district attorney has been seeking.
Requests for Brady compliance started in 2023
The requests for Brady compliance go back more than a year and a half since Galibois took office in January 2023 and the office learned that it had not established written policies or protocols for obtaining and disclosing Brady information.
The district attorney’s office first provided copies of its new policies and procedures relating to Brady information to both sheriffs, then amended its policy on the issue to comply with a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in January of this year.
The DA’s office sent correspondence numerous times to both sheriffs, who repeatedly declined to comply. The basis stated for the directives in the affidavit for the court orders and at the court hearing was that the office could not fulfill its discovery obligations to a criminal defendant as a direct result of the sheriffs’ refusals to comply.
Assistant District Attorney Rose-Ellen El Khoury said in the Sept. 3 hearing, “It’s telling the sheriffs to allow us to do our job.”
This article originally appeared on Cape Cod Times: Sheriffs say time, money wasted on DA Galibois request, after ruling
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
