A Simple Solution to a Complicated Problem: Giglio Disclosures in Iowa Criminal Cases.

"What mama doesn't know won't hurt her" does not apply in the criminal justice system. To the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court's holdings in Maryland v. Brady and Giglio v. United States make clear that what criminal defendants do not know may very well hurt them. The Supreme Court has held that criminal defendants are constitutionally entitled under the Sixth Amendment to favorable, material information about government witnesses that may be used to impeach those witnesses. This includes information that may impeach a police officer's credibility. This criminal due process right is crucial because law enforcement officers are routine witnesses at trial; they are often the first on the scene of a crime, have direct access to victims and witnesses, and are usually--if not always--the actors gathering the evidence that will form the foundation of the prosecutor's case. The police's control over criminal investigations gives them great control over the facts of a defendant's case, and therefore great control over what the prosecutor tells or does not tell the defendant. Thanks in part to social media, instances of police misconduct in America have taken on a life of their own and reignited conversations about what kinds of credibility information about police officers criminal defendants may be entitled to under the Sixth Amendment and Supreme Court case law. Iowa is not immune to police misconduct nor criminal behavior, yet Iowa does not have a consistent, statewide procedure for disclosing this information to criminal defendants. Prosecutors in large counties have formed lists of historically dishonest officers--"Giglio lists"--to keep afoot of their constitutional obligations, while it is doubtful that small counties ever disclose police misconduct information. And as it currently stands, the Iowa legislation directed at police misconduct disclosures--otherwise known as "Giglio disclosures"--appears to render this disclosure procedure optional. To remedy these disparities, this Note proposes an amendment to Iowa's existing Brady-Giglio statute that clarifies the prosecutor's constitutional obligation to disclose police officer credibility material, regardless of how they chose to collect their information. Finally, this Note proposes that in the counties which opt not to create a formal list, defense attorneys should be required to participate in the camera review process with the judge who evaluates a police officer's disciplinary record to inform the judge of the types of information sought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]