this is quoted from the Notice of Brady disclosure and request for protective order
COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, and respectfully gives notice to Court and Counsel that the State has become aware of potential Brady/Giglio material related to one of the officers involved in the above-referenced case. That material, in the form of a confidential internal affairs investigation, is hereby submitted in camera to the Court. The State intends to disclose this information to defendant’s counsel but, because this information is confidential and exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Idaho Code 74-106(1) (personnel records), the State respectfully prays for the issuance of a protective order pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 16(1), prohibiting defense counsel from disseminating the information contained in the internal affairs investigation absent for the order of the Court.
en.wikipedia.org
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a
United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that
the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of
due process, requiring a new trial.
[1] This is the case even if the failure to disclose was a matter of negligence and not intent. The case extended the Court's holding in
Brady v. Maryland,
[2]requiring such agreements to be disclosed to defense counsel.
[3] As a result of this case, the term
Giglio material is sometimes used to refer to any information pertaining to deals that witnesses in a criminal case may have entered into with the government.
[4]
