The Florida House and Senate have now both passed the bill. Perhaps now Seventh Circuit Public Defender MATTHEW METZ can keep his campaign promise, the legislation being passed. METZ's response to my Open Records request earlier was quite underwhelming. Perhaps he'd rather be sailing. Our Public Defender and State's Attorney need to make sure we have an Accurate Brady List, so that we're not presenting unreliable testimony from unreliable witnesses.
Our State's Attorney, RALPH JOSEPH LARIZZA, has filed motions in criminal cases to attempt to prevent defense attorneys from cross-examining St. Johns County Sheriff's Deputy JEREMY BANKS about the death of Ms. Michelle O'Connell in his home, with his service weapon, on September 2, 2010.
Enough flummery, dupery and nincompoopery in the criminal injustice system in St. Johns County.
From Florida Politics and from the Florida State Senate website:
House passes bill to let cops challenge ‘Brady list’ designations
'There’d be no change to the underlying obligation to disclose that.'
Florida police officers placed on a list of law enforcement officials alleged to have given untruthful testimony by prosecutors would get a chance to dispute that designation under a bill passed by the House.
The bill (HB 95) would ban police agencies from using the placement on the list, known as a “Brady list” after a U.S. Supreme Court case requiring prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to defendants, as a reason to demote, suspend or fire an officer. The underlying behavior, though, that resulted in the placement on the list could still be used in employment decisions.
The vote was 93-17, with 15 Democrats joining Republicans in favor of the bill.
Under the bill, prosecutors must tell officers in writing when before they’re put on the Brady list and officers would have the right to challenge their inclusion. If the state attorney’s office opts to remove the officer, they must give written notice to his or her agency, as well as notify all parties in a pending criminal case involving the officer.
Also, an officer can petition the court to order a prosecutor’s office to remove their name if the state attorney doesn’t follow the procedures for removal. It would also allow state attorneys to remove an officer’s name from the list at any time.
Some Democrats expressed concern the bill would lead to defendants being uninformed when a potentially untrustworthy officer was giving testimony in their case.
Rep. Wyman Duggan, a Jacksonville Republican and sponsor of the bill, stressed that prosecutors would still be required to disclose to defense attorneys about an officer’s inclusion on the list.
“There’d be no change to the underlying obligation to disclose that,” Duggan said.
The Senate version of the bill (SB 618) has passed through two committees in that chamber by unanimous votes and has one more committee stop before making it to the floor.
CS/HB 95: Rights of Law Enforcement Officers and Correctional Officers
GENERAL BILL by Judiciary Committee ; Duggan ; Plasencia ; (CO-INTRODUCERS) Bankson ; Barnaby ; Garcia ; Hawkins ; Plakon
Rights of Law Enforcement Officers and Correctional Officers; Provides rights of law enforcement officers & correctional officers relating to Brady identification systems; provides that prosecuting agency is not required to maintain such system; provides requirements for employing agency of officer; provides requirements for prosecuting agency including minimum written policies, removing officer’s name under certain circumstances, & providing certain notice; authorizes officer to request reconsideration of inclusion of his or her name & information in such system; authorizes officer to petition for writ of mandamus.
- Fiscal Policy (FP)
Bill History
| DATE | CHAMBER | ACTION |
|---|---|---|
| 1/3/2023 | House | • Filed |
| 1/10/2023 | House | • Referred to Criminal Justice Subcommittee • Referred to Judiciary Committee • Now in Criminal Justice Subcommittee |
| 2/16/2023 | House | • Added to Criminal Justice Subcommittee agenda |
| 2/23/2023 | House | • Favorable by Criminal Justice Subcommittee |
| 2/24/2023 | House | • Reported out of Criminal Justice Subcommittee • Now in Judiciary Committee |
| 3/7/2023 | House | • 1st Reading (Original Filed Version) |
| 3/21/2023 | House | • Added to Judiciary Committee agenda |
| 3/23/2023 | House | • Favorable with CS by Judiciary Committee |
| 3/24/2023 | House | • Reported out of Judiciary Committee • Laid on Table under Rule 7.18(a) • CS Filed |
| 3/27/2023 | House | • Bill referred to House Calendar • 1st Reading (Committee Substitute 1) • Added to Second Reading Calendar |
| 4/10/2023 | House | • Bill added to Special Order Calendar (4/13/2023) |
| 4/13/2023 | House | • Read 2nd time • Added to Third Reading Calendar • Read 3rd time • CS passed; YEAS 93, NAYS 17 |
| 4/13/2023 | Senate | • In Messages |
| 4/14/2023 | Senate | • Referred to Fiscal Policy |
| 4/17/2023 | Senate | • Received |
| 4/27/2023 | Senate | • Withdrawn from Fiscal Policy -SJ 563 • Placed on Calendar, on 2nd reading • Substituted for CS/CS/SB 618 -SJ 563 • Read 2nd time -SJ 563 • Read 3rd time -SJ 563 • CS passed; YEAS 39 NAYS 0 -SJ 563 |
| 4/27/2023 | House | • In Messages • Ordered enrolled |
They're all in bed. It's a totalitarian religious police state.
ReplyDelete