CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Law enforcement officers are expected to uphold higher ethics standards than ordinary
citizens because they are placed in authority. The officer, under the circumstances, lied when he
was asked about the inappropriate use of the computers for official use at the patrol division. In
the world that we live in, the police have come under sharp criticism because of excessive force
indiscipline level, among other misgivings. It is now necessary that police bosses protect and
ensure that the people placed to guard society are integrity and practice good work ethics. The
type of action taken to discipline the office er who lies should be comprehensively considered.
On the one hand, it is important to note that the confession came after the officer
confronted the evidence against him. Were it not for the evidence by the analyst who determined
that the login password was used to access the sites, then the officer would probably not have
admitted to any wrongdoing. The criminal justice system in the conduct of criminal trials relies
on the honesty of the police, which is important when they testify before the court. Under the
collective knowledge doctrine, officers rely on other officers' information. Therefore, an officer
who lies is untrustworthy, and a simple lie could have negative consequences on the operations
of others. Secondly, supervisors make decisions using information obtained from their juniors.
When conducting cases, the prosecutor relies on the reports filed by police, and an affidavit is
sworn by them when conducting the trial. the members of the jury and judges, when making their
decision rely on the evidence collected by police officers their testimony in addition to other
documents. Therefore, the officer lying to investigators and superiors and continued insistence
that he in the celebrated case of Brady v Maryland, the court held that the prosecution suppressed
evidence that favoured the accused person violated the due process requirement because the
evidence was material. 1 In the case of United States v Bagley, the Supreme court ruling on the

1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
suppression of evidence reiterated the test of the Brady materials. The court held that the
condition of the material would only be traversed if the evidence was material, and suppression
of the same would have affected the outcome of the trial. 2 The court held that the non-disclosure
by the prosecution of evidence that might have been importantly inion-conducting cross-
examination would only be considered a constitutional error where the suppression could have
resulted in different results at trial.
In the case of United States v Agurs, the Supreme court held that the prosecution is duty-
bound to disclose any exculpatory information, even in cases where the defendant failed to ask
for it. 3 Similarly, in Kyles v Whitley, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution has an
affirmative duty to ensure that they know of any information that might be favourable to the
defendant. The information must be within the knowledge of the police and other people acting
on behalf of the state. It should ensure that they disclose such information to the defendant to
ensure a fair trial. 4 The decisions by the Supreme court cited above evidence the importance of
telling the truth and resulted in the creation of what was termed as the Brady List. The list
comprises of officers that have been untruthful in their official. Capacity and is used for
disclosure purposes. Therefore, such information should be availed to the defence, meaning that
the prosecution may refuse to conduct any criminal cases associated with an officer on the list.
The police officers in the conduct of their duty have a higher duty6 to maintain integrity
and honesty because they are responsible for the safety of people, and any person found to be

2 United States v. Bagley - 473 U.S. 667, 105 S. Ct. 3375 (1985)
3 United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976)
4 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995)
untruthful should have their services terminated. Suppose such an officer placed on the Brady
List continues with their work. In that case, it means that any evidence they collect, statement,
report, and any other official document they prepare might become inadmissible before the court
because their credibility might be questioned. 5 Such evidence before the court might also have
lesser probative value, negatively affecting the victim's attaining justice.
In answering the question, one of the policy recommendations that I would make is to
ensure a termination clause that allows for the immediat


Place your order