Henry County Deputy challenges County Attorney in court over Brady-Giglio list placement

MT. PLEASANT — Henry County Sheriff’s Deputy Carlos Lopez has filed a court petition challenging his placement on the Brady-Giglio list.

This legal action raises questions about how Iowa Code is applied to hold law enforcement accountable and oversee prosecutors' decisions.

  Buy Photo

The petition, filed on Dec. 4 by Lopez’s attorney, Charles Gribble, seeks judicial review, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief against Henry County Attorney Darin Stater, who placed Lopez on the Brady-Giglio list in December 2023.

The Brady-Giglio list derives its name from two pivotal U.S. Supreme Court cases, Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. These rulings mandate that prosecutors must disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence that could affect a defendant's trial. Iowa Code 80F.1 defines the inclusion criteria for such lists, stating that officers may be placed on the list if they have “sustained incidents of untruthfulness, criminal convictions, candor issues, or some other type of issue which places the officer’s credibility into question.”

With the passage of House File 2592, effective July 1, 2024, Deputy Carlos Lopez gains a new avenue to challenge his placement on the Brady-Giglio list. Previously, officers could only contest their inclusion through an internal process involving written notice, input to the County Attorney, and a request for reconsideration, which the attorney was required to address within 45 days.

The new law allows officers to appeal their placement to a district court. The court has jurisdiction to perform an in-camera review of the evidence, which it may hold as a closed hearing upon request of the officer or prosecuting agency or on its own initiative. Evidence presented in these proceedings will be sealed and confidential unless otherwise ordered. It can affirm, modify, or reverse the agency’s decision and provide relief, including removal from the list, “as justice may require.”

For Lopez, this means an expanded opportunity to clear his name and challenge the grounds for his inclusion.

Timeline of events leading to the petition

According to court filings, the sequence of events unfolded as follows:

Oct. 31, 2023: County Attorney Stater notified Lopez in writing about his potential placement on the Brady-Giglio list, initiating procedural safeguards as required under Iowa Code 80F.1(24)(a), which mandates written notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Dec. 5, 2023: Lopez and Stater held a meeting to discuss the matter. Lopez’s petition contends that evidence presented during this meeting failed to meet the “preponderance of evidence” standard outlined in Iowa Code 80F.1(25).

Dec. 13, 2023: Stater formally placed Lopez on the Brady-Giglio list, citing an incident from April 21, 2023, as the basis.

Dec. 28, 2023: Lopez requested reconsideration under Iowa Code 80F.1(24)(c)(1), which allows officers to appeal their designation. Stater upheld his decision, leaving the matter unresolved.

Dec. 4, 2024: Lopez filed his petition to the district court.

The case underscores the complexity of the Brady-Giglio process and its implications for both officers and public trust.

Legal arguments in the petition

Lopez’s includes three main requests.

Petition for Declaratory Judgment and injunctive relief: Lopez argues that his inclusion on the Brady-Giglio list violates Iowa Code Chapter 80F.1(25), which requires sustained findings of disqualifying behavior. He seeks a court order to have his name removed from the list and prevent future placement based on incidents before April 2023.

Lopez asserts in his petition that "County Attorney Stater has not established conduct on the part of Lopez that would justify placing him on the Brady-Giglio list" and requests a declaratory judgment to settle this matter.

Additionally, Lopez seeks injunctive relief to prevent further damage to his reputation. Injunctive relief is a legal remedy that asks the court to issue an order requiring the defendant (in this case, County Attorney Stater) to stop certain actions, or to take specific actions, to prevent further harm. Lopez argues that the continued placement of his name on the Brady-Giglio list will result in "greatly and irreparably injury" to his career and reputation, and that financial compensation alone would not adequately remedy the harm.

By seeking injunctive relief, Lopez is asking the court to step in and remove his name from the list immediately, stopping the continued harm before it escalates any further.

Judicial Review: Lopez invokes Iowa Code 80F.1(25), the amendment which took effect July 1, which gives officers the right to review any action that affects their employment. He argues that the decision to place him on the Brady-Giglio list was made without sufficient grounds.

As stated in the petition, Lopez’s lawyer claims on his behalf that "a substantial and justifiable controversy exists" because "Stater cannot show by a preponderance of evidence that Lopez has engaged in incidents of untruthfulness, criminal convictions, candor issues, or other type of issue" that would justify his inclusion on the list.

Damages and Legal Costs: Lopez is seeking reimbursement for his actual damages, court costs, and his attorney fees under Iowa Code Chapters 80F.1(13) and 80F.2.

He emphasizes that being placed on the Brady-Giglio list has caused significant harm to his reputation and career, particularly since "placement on the Brady-Giglio list is disclosed to others in the law enforcement community and at minimum implies that Lopez is neither credible nor truthful."

Through these claims, Lopez is asking the court to rule that his placement on the Brady-Giglio list was not warranted, order his removal from the list, and provide appropriate legal remedies for the damage caused.

Impact on Lopez and broader implications

Lopez’s petition highlights the significant career consequences of Brady-Giglio placement, particularly the restriction on testifying in court. His legal team argues that the placement was arbitrary, violating Iowa Code 80F.1, which demands clear and compelling evidence of misconduct.

What comes next?

The court will review whether Stater’s decision adhered to Iowa law, weighing the evidence and the procedural safeguards stipulated in Iowa Code Chapter 80F.1. The outcome could have far-reaching implications, not only for Lopez’s career but also for how accountability and transparency are balanced with officers’ rights in Iowa.

Henry County Attorney Darin Stater declined to comment while the case is pending.

Comments: AnnaMarie.Kruse@southeastiowaunion.com