Daniel Corbo, a police officer in East Pikeland Township, Pennsylvania, alleged that the District Attorney’s Office placed him on a Brady list that barred him from testifying in any court in Chester County, effectively jeopardizing his employment.
Corbo alleged that his inclusion on the list stemmed from a 2015 incident in which he improperly disclosed confidential investigative information to his ex-girlfriend, who then forwarded it to the subject of the investigation. During a subsequent interview with County detectives, Corbo made inaccurate statements about the timing and method of his disclosure. Years later, the District Attorney’s Office notified Corbo that he would not be called to testify in any proceedings for at least two years due to credibility concerns under Giglio, which requires prosecutors to disclose impeachment evidence about witnesses. Corbo argued that his placement on the list violated his procedural and substantive due process rights because the District Attorney acted as both prosecutor and adjudicator, provided no hearing, and failed to record the proceedings.
The trial court granted the District Attorney’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, accepting the argument that the decision to exclude witnesses fell within their prosecutorial discretion. The Court also found that Corbo was placed on “Do Not Use” status, not a formal Brady list, and could regain his ability to testify by complying with the District Attorney’s conditions.
The Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded, emphasizing that the trial court improperly disregarded Corbo’s well-pleaded allegations, including his claim that he was placed on a formal “Do Not Call” (Brady) list. The Court relied on its prior decision in Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 v. City of Philadelphia, which held that police officers have due process rights when placed on such lists, including notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an impartial tribunal. Here, the District Attorney’s process allowed Corbo to present evidence but left the final decision to the same office that placed him on the list, which the Court deemed insufficient.
The Court rejected the District Attorney’s arguments that their decision was immune from review or that Corbo’s claims were speculative. It noted that inclusion on a Brady list could effectively end an officer’s career, implicating a protected property interest in employment. The Court also dismissed an accompanying timeliness argument, finding Corbo’s challenge to the 2020 decision was filed within 30 days.
Finally, the Court remanded back to the trial court: “This Court has concluded police officers have certain due process rights associated with being included on these ‘Do Not Call’ lists, and thus, whether a police officer is on such a list is a material factual determination that must be made. Evidently, Corbo and the District Attorney contest the existence of such a ‘list.’ Therefore, we conclude the District Attorney’s right to succeed is not ‘certain’ or ‘so free from doubt that trial would be a fruitless exercise.’”
Corbo v. Chester County, 2025 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 70 * (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025).