Judge sides with sheriffs over Brady record suit

The Dukes and Barnstable county sheriffs have successfully rebuffed efforts by the Cape and Islands District Attorney that attempted to force them to turn over 20 years of officer disciplinary records.

On Wednesday, Judge Michael Callan of Barnstable County Superior Court dismissed D.A. Robert Galibois’ complaints against both sheriffs, suggesting that a policy to obtain records was excessive.

The dispute between Galibois and Ogden started in May as Galibois filed identical motions in 10 criminal cases in Edgartown District Court, asking judges to order Ogden’s compliance with a Brady materials policy. 

Court filings show a heated back-and-forth, and the recent decision comes as Galibois presses Ogden in a separate dispute to obtain the Sheriff’s potential recordings of defendants in the county booking room.

The Brady materials Galibois seeks are officer disciplinary records, named for a 1963 Brady v. Maryland Supreme court decision. Prosecuting attorneys, in this case from the DA’s office, are required by law to provide defendants with potentially exculpatory or exonerating information, including relevant Brady materials. For example, defense lawyers must be notified if an officer in their case has a history of excessive force or sexual harassment.

A key factor in the judge’s recent dismissal, however, was that Galibois’ policy asked law enforcement agencies for 20 years’ worth of Brady materials. While police departments complied with the 20-year policy, Ogden and Buckley refused, arguing in court filings that the request is excessive and places an undue burden on their offices.

The sheriffs also stated that they have always done their part by providing Brady materials when asked to do so in a specific case, and that Galibois — by requesting so many years of evidence — was attempting to force them to perform a discretionary action.

Callan sided with the sheriffs, arguing that the DA cannot compel them to perform a discretionary act or perform in a new and different manner. Alternate methods exist for Galibois to obtain Brady information, Callan added.

The judge laid out his reasons for dismissal, as the DA’s complaints “(1) do not establish that the District Attorney seeks to enforce a clear duty; (2) requires the Sheriff to act in a new and different manner; and (3) fails to allege that no alternative effective remedy exists. Thus, the mandamus claims must fail.“

Callan added that he could not force the Sheriffs to comply with the 20-year scope of the policy. “Instead of seeking exculpatory information from the Sheriffs in connection with a specific prosecution, the Policy seeks twenty years’ worth of information for all officers employed by the Sheriffs during that time. Thus, based on the allegations in the Amended Verified Complaints and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, the District Attorney seeks the Sheriffs to perform a discretionary function as opposed to a clear duty.”

Ogden welcomed the judge’s decision on Thursday. “Our position that the DA’s interpretation of the law was incorrect, and his request was far outside of the scope of the law was supported by a respected and experienced Judge. This decision reinforces our commitment to transparency and accountability within the criminal justice system,” he wrote. “We have always complied with lawful requests for information under the Brady-Giglio line of cases and will continue to do so.”

The Sheriff’s office also stated that the DA’s policy was outside of the norm. “Notably, the position adopted by the Cape and Island’s District Attorney is unique not only in Massachusetts but across the country,” their statement read.

“We are reviewing the judge’s decision to decide how we are going to proceed from here,” commented Galibois to The Times on Thursday.