The flawed Brady/Giglio List
By Lloyd Harting, a former federal and local law enforcement officer who lives in Purcellville
On April 4, 2025, a Purcellville Police Department police officer was terminated from employment by Purcellville Police Department Acting Chief of Police Sara Lombrana, citing alleged “unsuitability” for continued service. Simultaneously, Acting Chief Lombrana reported an unproven allegation—that the police officer had improperly used accrued sick leave—to Loudoun County Commonwealth Attorney Robert Anderson. What happened next was not only unprecedented, but deeply disturbing because without a criminal charge, without a hearing, and without clear explanation, Commonwealth Attorney Anderson then placed the former police officer on the Loudoun County Brady/Giglio List.
To date, the former police officer has received no explanation from Commonwealth Attorney Anderson’s office for this adverse decision. No evidence of criminal wrongdoing has been presented. Yet his name is now among those deemed untrustworthy to testify in court—his reputation damaged and his law enforcement career possibly over.
Fundamentally, the Brady/Giglio List is intended to protect the rights of criminal defendants by ensuring that any material fact that could call into question the credibility of a law enforcement officer witness—such as past dishonesty or misconduct—is disclosed to defense attorneys. This mandate stems from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases Brady v. Maryland (1963) and Giglio v. United States (1972), which held that prosecutors must share exculpatory evidence, including credibility issues of law enforcement officer witnesses, with the defense attorneys.
In principle, this safeguard is a vital part of a fair justice system. In practice, however, when misused or applied without clear standards, it becomes a powerful weapon that can be abused to end careers and reputations without due process.
Virginia law provides no specific, objective criteria for placing a law enforcement officer on a Brady/Giglio List. While documented instances of dishonesty—such as a perjury conviction—would clearly justify inclusion, the legal standard for placement is ambiguous at best. Instead, prosecutors are given wide discretion to label a law enforcement officer as untrustworthy based on little more than internal administrative actions, unresolved allegations, or subjective judgments.
This unchecked authority allows a Commonwealth Attorney to place a law enforcement officer on the list based on nothing more than an accusation whether substantiated or not. Worse, there is no established appeal process, no impartial hearing, and no formal review. Officers are left to navigate a system where their futures are decided behind closed doors.
For the dismissed Purcellville police officer, the implications are devastating. Placement on the Brady/Giglio List essentially blacklists him from future law enforcement work—not just in Loudoun County, but across Virginia. No department will risk hiring a law enforcement officer whose credibility has been officially questioned by a prosecutor, regardless of the lack of evidence or due process.
This situation begs the obvious question: what precedent has been set when a law enforcement officer can be labeled unfit to testify based on an unproven and unrelated administrative issue such as alleged sick leave abuse? If this so-called “standard” holds, then nearly any dispute between a police chief and a police officer, or between a sheriff and a deputy, could become the basis for permanent professional exile.
This is not accountability. This is vindictive persecution masquerading as justice.
There must be a clear distinction between legitimate grounds for Brady/Giglio List placement such as dishonesty, perjury, or evidence tampering versus administrative or disciplinary matters that are irrelevant to courtroom testimony. Without that distinction, the Brady/Giglio List loses its legitimacy, and with it, the trust of both the public and the law enforcement officers who serve them.
Behind every name placed on a Brady/Giglio List is a human being—someone who has honorably served their community, often with distinction, and who now finds themselves professionally adrift without recourse. In this case, the former police officer is not just fighting for his job—he’s fighting for his public reputation, his dignity, and his professional future.
Clearly there is an urgent need for reform: for transparency in the Brady/Giglio process, for clearly defined standards, and for a fair and impartial appeal mechanism. Justice demands no less for law enforcement officers and the communities that they serve.
Until then, the outcome of the legal actions taken by this former Purcellville police officer may provide the only hope for correction. It may answer the uncomfortable question facing all law enforcement officers across Virginia: ‘If it happened to him—could it happen to me?’
Comments
Any name-calling and profanity will be taken off. The webmaster reserves the right to remove any offensive posts.
I agree with every word.
Let us strip this situation down to brass tacks. What we are dealing with is not a thoughtful plea for justice. It is a self-serving screed cloaked in the language of constitutional concern, designed to blur the lines between misconduct and martyrdom.
First, the Brady Giglio List is not a criminal conviction. It is not a declaration of guilt. It is a disclosure tool, designed to ensure that the integrity of testimony offered by police officers in criminal trials meets the constitutional standard of trustworthiness. That is not an attack on law enforcement. That is a guardrail protecting the very legitimacy of law enforcement testimony in the judicial system. You do not get to wear the badge and carry the authority of the state while simultaneously arguing that your professional record is nobody’s business in court. That is not how due process works. That is not how credibility works. That is not how justice works.
The article says, “no evidence of criminal wrongdoing has been presented.” But Brady is not about criminal guilt. It is about whether the credibility of a law enforcement witness could reasonably be challenged in court. If the Chief of Police terminates an officer citing “unsuitability,” and simultaneously refers an issue, allegedly abuse of sick leave, to the Commonwealth’s Attorney, that is already a red flag. Whether it is criminal or not is irrelevant. The prosecutor has a duty to the defense bar, not the internal politics of the Purcellville Police Department.
Second, let us address the crocodile tears about career destruction. Look, we do not cry this hard when a private sector worker is terminated for cause. We do not write emotional manifestos when a teacher, EMT, or military member loses their clearance or professional license. But suddenly, when a police officer loses credibility in a courtroom, we are supposed to drop everything and view it as persecution? No. That is not equity. That is entitlement.
The article calls this “vindictive persecution masquerading as justice.” What it actually is, is accountability. For too long, some law enforcement officers have operated in a system where misconduct gets buried in internal files, where consequences are administrative wrist slaps, and where the badge acts like a shield against meaningful transparency. That era is over. The public has demanded, and rightfully so, that officers be held to a standard worthy of the power they are granted. If you cannot be trusted to tell the truth without question, you do not belong on the stand. And if you do not belong on the stand, you should not be enforcing the law.
Finally, let us talk about this hysterical “it could happen to anyone” scare tactic. No, it could not. This is not happening to officers who do their jobs with integrity. This is not happening to those who are transparent, ethical, and professional. This is happening to individuals whose conduct, even if not criminal, raises legitimate concerns about their trustworthiness in a courtroom. That bar is intentionally high because the consequences of dishonest testimony are catastrophic. Innocent people go to prison. Guilty people walk free. Justice collapses. So yes, the standard is high. And yes, it should be.
If the officer in question believes this was done in error, there is nothing stopping him from pursuing legal remedies. But we should not allow emotional rhetoric to muddy a system built to protect constitutional rights. Reform is always worth discussing, but let us not pretend that every hard consequence is evidence of a broken system. Sometimes, it is just evidence that accountability finally showed up.
So to those using the Brady List to portray themselves as martyrs, do not confuse your bruised ego with a breach of justice.
We are not buying it.
@JustinMorrow – Every officer should have the opportunity to understand why they are on the Brady List and have hearing before it becomes permanent. Unfortunately, law enforcement departments are unfairly placing officers on the list without due process.
A simple law (this was presented for law this year) that mandates an officer an opportunity for a hearing in court to dispute allegations would satisfy the due process for each officer.
Institutional corruption occurs, especially with top officials pressuring certain outcomes. Let the officers get their day in court, I guarantee most will be overturned. And the ones that don’t, will most likely be a fair outcome.