Ever since 1963, a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have ruled out that in criminal cases, it is mandatory for the prosecutors to disclose to the defense alibi that is genuine to the defendant. This includes relevant information that may be referred to when impeaching the credibility or ethics of government witness. Like in this case the gross misconduct of the law enforcement officer who was caught miss using the office laptop must be put legal justice. In other words, officers who have highest record of lying of filed evidence on their official duties in any way may become serious liabilities to their working station since their legibility cannot be trusted.

The style of solving this case can apply to the similar one involving Brady vs. Maryland. The condition states that the suppression by the prosecution of alibi legitimate to an accused upon request interferes with the due process the crime is a material to either punishment of equal measure or guilt. As a result of this example, (Judge, Lisa A, 2005) illustrated that in a situation where the defendant claimed responsibility of his wrong doing the way police office accepted. In that case the Chief of Police should disclose to the officer`s lawyer or prosecution about the defendant`s confession if the matter had already been transferred in court.

Another method that can be used involves applying the same concept that was used in Giglio vs. United States. Under this category the Supreme Court allowed more time for the prosecutors to share the obligation exculpatory information with the defendant. This should also include relevant information majoring on the credibility of the government witnesses. Therefore, as a Chief Police before making a rush decision you should give the officer under the scrutiny to explain what made him or her to committee such a crime. However, the law further states that when the reliability of the present witness testifying against the officer may be determinative of innocence or guilt. The court further wrote that failure of disclosing truthful evidence affects the credibility that falls within the general stipulated rule.

In United States v. Agurs the Supreme Court expanded the rule further by recognizing a duty to disclose exculpatory information even in the absence of a specific request for it.3 The female defendant was convicted of second-degree murder in the stabbing death of a male acquaintance. The defendant had claimed self-defense. After the trial, the defendant learned that the prosecutor had failed to disclose the victim’s previous guilty pleas to assault and weapon possession charges. The Court held that the prosecutor’s failure to disclose material exculpatory evidence violated due process.

In 1976 United States expanded rules by adding duties to recognize the discloser of exculpatory information even if the idea has not been requested. Using the same rule the Police Officer should disclose material exculpatory evidence to convince the prosecutor. By the fact that the officer`s logon password was used to access the authorized website needs no further evidence for the prosecutor to determine the status of the defendant.

The case involving United States vs. Bagley which in 1985 can still refer to the present case where material evidences are mandatory. (Serpas, Ronal, & Hagar, Michael, 2010). Illustrated that the presented evidence should have a reasonable probability of offering a different results relating with the case in sentencing or trial. In other words, the law also allows the impeachment evidence to be presented to the defense team. For instance in the above case, Police Officer had enough evidence to impeach the officer. The officer in question have worked with agency for the last 15 years unfortunately, he has been involve in two counts of malicious misconduct. In the first act, the officer was involved in an at fault traffic accident 10 years ago while, the second case using the agency laptop to access the pornographic websites.

The final step of approaching include using the Court`s decision in Kyles vs. Whitley. This kind of law is imposed upon the prosecutor as an affirmative to give them a comfortable ground to learn or investigate any eligible evidence that are also common to other legal experts acting on behalf of the government such as the police. The evidence can also be disclosed to the defense due to the resulting duty.

According to Copyrights held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, it was discussed that the defendant can always have a second chance if wrong prosecution is made. This can only happen if the prosecutor forgets to divulge exculpatory alibis. The court further stated that procedures and regulations can be implemented in favor of the prosecutor. In addition, it also ensures that communication of all vital evidence and information involving each case to every lawyer representing those cases.

The bottom line of this case is basically to test your professional skills as a Chief Police on how to handle different cases having in mind 1963 laws of United States of the Supreme Court. In a prosecution process the prosecutors are not supposed to be blamed since they sourly depend on the information from law enforcement to provide with useful information to help in determining the case. This is the main reason why untruthful office should not be allowed to practice their profession since it makes them inadequate, untrustworthy, and incompetent and most importantly less liabilities to their agencies.