When someone is arrested, it can come down to their word against an officer’s in court. But what happens when the officer’s own conduct is in question, or when they’re under investigation themself?
Experts told TCR that Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke, who took office in 2024, has weakened policies in place to ensure transparency in courts, and keep crooked officers off the witness stand.
Laws dating back to a 1963 Supreme Court decision mandate that prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to disclose information that could undermine the credibility of the officer as a witness.
Chicago officers with a history of dishonesty and ethics violations—including extracting false confessions and framing civilians—can be placed on “disclosure lists.”
These lists, previously maintained by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (CCSAO), have contained as many as 200 names of current and former Chicago Police Department (CPD) officers as of 2023.
What are Brady and Giglio lists?
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland established prosecutors’ duty to disclose material evidence favorable to the defense. Giglio v. United States extended that obligation to evidence that could undermine the credibility of government witnesses.
A “Brady (or Giglio) list” is a catch-all term for information prosecutors maintain about law-enforcement witnesses who may have credibility problems, according to Rachel Moran, law professor and founder of the Criminal and Juvenile Defense Clinic at the University of St. Thomas.
Prosecutors cannot simply wait for police departments to volunteer incriminating information about officers. In Kyles v. Whitley, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors have a duty to learn of favorable evidence known to police and other government actors.
In practice, Moran said, many prosecutors’ offices rely heavily on self-reporting by law-enforcement agencies and do not maintain comprehensive Brady lists, instead tracking narrower categories such as criminal convictions.
Changes in Cook County
Criminal-justice advocates say Cook County has weakened its system for tracking potential police credibility problems. Austin Segal, director of research at Appleseed Chicago, which advocates for social and racial justice in the legal system, said the Burke administration’s new policy gives prosecutors fewer avenues for uncovering evidence that could undermine a witness’s credibility.
Under former State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, the office maintained two lists: a public “Do Not Call List” of law-enforcement witnesses whom prosecutors had determined they would not use, and a separate internal Disclosure List identifying witnesses with potentially impeaching information that prosecutors may have been required to disclose to the defense.
State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke, who took office in December 2024, eliminated both lists under her December 2025 policy.
They were replaced by an internal Officers Relieved of Police Authority List and confidential Brady/Giglio files.
The new policy also requires prosecutors to document potential impeachment information, including misconduct, dishonesty, credibility findings and social-media activity.
The change represents a shift from Foxx’s public identification of problematic witnesses to a more internal, case-by-case process. Criminal-justice advocates say that could make it harder to determine whether prosecutors are identifying credibility problems in the first place.
Wrongful convictions
Duke law professor Brandon Garrett said prosecutors and police need systems capable of identifying misconduct before it reaches the courtroom.
“If police are not telling the truth in court, then the jury needs to know that,” Garrett said. “We’ve had serious strings of wrongful convictions in this country because of officers and other types of witnesses that have lied repeatedly in cases.”
Segal said his Appleseed Chicago’s analysis of Burke’s policy suggests the office has fewer mechanisms for uncovering potential credibility problems.
“Under Brady and Giglio, the office is required not only to disclose evidence it has, but to actively determine whether evidence exists that could undermine a witness’s credibility,” Segal said.
A weakening system
Under Foxx, Segal said, the State’s Attorney’s Office sought information from the Chicago Police Department’s Bureau of Internal Affairs and the Civilian Office of Police Accountability, in addition to relying on police departments and officers to report misconduct. Under Burke, he said, the process relies more heavily on officers’ own responses to a standardized Brady/Giglio questionnaire.
“Relying heavily on officers to self-report their own misconduct does present an obvious conflict of interest,” Segal said.
Arthur Haynes, program director at the Illinois Justice Project, a Chicago-based criminal-justice reform nonprofit, also said the current system relies heavily on police departments being forthcoming. He said the previous policy more actively sought information from outside agencies.
Haynes said the problem is particularly acute when information does not move between agencies. Officers who are stripped of their police powers or accumulate misconduct findings in one jurisdiction can move to another department, he said.
A public list of officers with serious credibility concerns would enable defense attorneys and other agencies to cross-reference information, Haynes told TCR.
“It’s just in the best interests of transparency,” Haynes said. “It also sort of provides an opportunity for people at the Cook County Public Defender’s Office and other outside agencies to cross-reference that data.”
Tracking credibility beyond the Brady List
Moran cautioned that a public Brady list is not itself constitutionally required. The central purpose of a list, she said, is to help prosecutors identify information that must be disclosed. She supports making officers’ names and basic reasons for their inclusion public, while maintaining a more comprehensive internal database for prosecutors.
The distinction matters because the underlying constitutional obligation has not changed. Whether or not an office maintains a formal list, prosecutors remain responsible for identifying and disclosing material impeachment evidence.
Garrett said that information also needs to be tracked consistently. Prosecutors may be best positioned to identify credibility findings made in court, while police agencies are more likely to possess records of other misconduct.
Choosing between a speedy trial and a fair trial
Sharlyn Grace, deputy public defender for policy at the Cook County Public Defender’s Office, said defense attorneys are increasingly receiving disclosures late in the process, sometimes as late as the morning of trial. That can leave them choosing between delaying a case to investigate newly disclosed evidence or proceeding without adequate time to review it.
“We have a right to receive discovery and the ability to review it and prepare,” Grace said. “When we receive these disclosures the day of the trial, it puts our clients in a position of, ‘Am I going to ask for more time? […] Or are we going to proceed but we’re going to have to scramble?’”
Grace said Burke’s policy requires disclosures to be made “as soon as practicable,” but that standard has not necessarily been reflected in practice.
The consequences of secrecy
Beyond trials, Grace said defendants who maintain their innocence may accept plea agreements rather than remain incarcerated while fighting their charges. When Brady information is not disclosed, defendants may make those decisions without knowing that a key prosecution witness has credibility problems.
“It means that our attorneys cannot fully test the evidence against our clients,” Grace said. “So I think when we fail to see disclosures reliably, that’s what’s at stake is the integrity of the court system and the public’s trust in law enforcement and the criminal courts.”
Chicago attorney Jon Loevy, who represents people in wrongful-conviction and police-misconduct cases, said Brady violations can play a role in wrongful convictions alongside false confessions and unreliable eyewitness testimony.
Loevy said he has rarely seen Brady material disclosed before trial in his decades practicing in Illinois courts.
“But it’s not fair to the criminal defendant to withhold it,” Loevy said. “The prosecutors are competitive people. They’re trying to win. They view themselves on the same team as the police.”
Segal acknowledged that Foxx’s system was not foolproof. Officers who had been stripped of their police powers or had histories of misconduct were not necessarily placed on either list.
Garrett said officers should receive notice when they are placed on a Brady list and have an opportunity to contest their inclusion, while emphasizing that those protections must be balanced against defendants’ rights. Under Foxx’s policy, Cook County officers were notified of their placement on either list and given 90 days to challenge the designation.
The debate over Cook County’s system ultimately reflects a larger tension: how to protect officers from erroneous or unfair designations while ensuring that defendants receive information that could affect whether a jury believes a police witness.
Garrett said many agencies still lack the training and systems needed to consistently identify Brady material.
“If the jury isn’t actually hearing the real information about who to believe, then that’s an unfair trial,” Garrett said. “And it was unlawful to conceal that information.”