In April, Gothamist/WNYC reported that all five borough prosecutors were maintaining databases flagging police officers with potential honesty problems. In the ensuing months, we secured partial releases of lists from the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan DAs. These disclosures revealed potential credibility issues with hundreds of NYPD officers, many of which were previously unknown to defense attorneys.
Internal emails show that New York City’s special drug prosecutor has a similar in-house database. According to the communications, memos, and correspondence, obtained through the Freedom of Information Law, the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor’s database contains judges’ assessments of officers’ testimony, NYPD disciplinary records, and notes about officers made by prosecutors themselves.
But unlike the DAs from the five boroughs, the office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, which has been led by an unelected official for over twenty years, is refusing to release all but a handful of officer names directly from its database. In response to a FOIL appeal by attorney Gideon Oliver on behalf of Gothamist/WNYC, the office, led by Bridget G. Brennan, who is appointed by the five DAs, justified the response by citing a recent court ruling that blocked the disclosure of similar records in Manhattan and other public records exemptions.
Janos Marton, a Manhattan DA candidate who has called for the abolition of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, criticized the office’s response to the records request.
“Any other district attorney is going to have to face voters and put their record before voters, but this office does not have to face voters, so they’re able to continue with a culture that doesn’t promote accountability for police officers, and that’s likely reflected in the disclosures they’re providing now,” he said.
In a statement, the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor said it places “great value on transparency,” and insisted it would turn over more records, particularly public ones such as judicial findings, were it not for technical problems.
“Currently, the way we maintain our records would require a case by case review to isolate publicly available documents,” said spokesperson Kati Cornell. “Going forward, we plan to work to develop the technical systems to facilitate such a search.” The office also noted that its case volume and staff are far smaller than those of other DAs’ offices, thus partially explaining the limited response.
In an attempt to comply with Gothamist/WNYC’s records request, the agency released nine disclosure letters, which they said, after this story was published, represent a portion of the database. The letters, which have already been shared with defense attorneys, reference judges’ findings challenging officers’ testimony. While other DAs have turned over the names of dozens of officers, including from disclosure letters such as these, the documents name just six officers.
One February 2018 letter references a Manhattan Supreme Court judge’s refusal to believe that a detective had witnessed a drug transaction between 70 and 100 feet away across a crowded street in Harlem.
Letters from three separate cases last year point to a federal judge’s finding discrediting the testimony of another detective, who claimed that a Bronx man launched into a “spontaneous” confession about a friend’s weed deal right after police approached him. The judge noted that the detective did not record the alleged admission in his arrest report, and that police did not take any steps to investigate or stop the deal.
The office said that in response to the FOIL appeal, they conducted “a survey of current Assistant District Attorneys,” which resulted in the nine pages of judges’ findings.
An email from 2018, previously obtained by Gothamist/WNYC, shows that Special Narcotics prosecutors have been instructed to share such findings with two designated office supervisors, who track such records (we have redacted their names).
2018 email released to Gothamist/WNYC via FOIL.
The NYPD did not respond to a request for comment.
According to a spokesperson for the Legal Aid Society, public defenders will begin a case review to identify potentially tainted past cases based on the released officer names.
This story has been amended to reflect that the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor states that the letters represent a portion of the database. In its initial letter denying the release of the full database, the office did not state that the letters were contained in the database.
If you have a tip, or if you work or have worked in a prosecutor's office, a law enforcement agency or the courts, email reporter George Joseph at [email protected]. You can also text him tips via the encrypted phone app Signal, or otherwise, at 929-486-4865.
