In the midst of United States v. Clanton, a criminal trial, the State of New York identified substantiated allegations by the Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) against several law enforcement witnesses that did not involve any adverse credibility findings. The State filed a motion to preclude cross-examination of these potential law enforcement witnesses regarding specified administrative findings and civil lawsuits that the government disclosed to Defendants pursuant to its obligations under Giglio. These findings included:
Officer JL: A 2019 substantiated allegation that Officer JL made an unauthorized radio transmission; and a 2019 substantiated allegation that Officer JL failed to properly search a police department vehicle where controlled substances were found.
Officer AZ: A 2024 substantiated allegation that Officer AZ failed to properly voucher prisoner property.
Trooper VP: A 2020 substantiated allegation that Trooper VP, while employed as an officer with the NYPD, failed to turn on his body camera during a vehicle search; and a 2020 substantiated allegation that Trooper VP, again while employed as an officer with the NYPD, failed to properly search a police department vehicle where controlled substances were found.
The State further identified at least four civil lawsuits involving its law enforcement witnesses, though none a credibility finding, and all were pending, dismissed, or settled.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the motion to preclude cross-examination of the substantiated IAB findings, as well as the motion to preclude cross-examination of Officer JL as to one specified administrative finding by the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). Finally, the Court granted the motion to preclude cross-examination as to the aforementioned civil lawsuits as well.
With respect to the IAB findings, counsel for the defendant did not oppose the motion. The Court found that none of the conduct noted in the IAB findings was probative of the witnesses’ truthfulness or untruthfulness because none of the underlying conduct involves dishonesty.
As to the prior finding of adverse credibility for Officer JL, “the Court first notes that the CCRB did not find that Officer JL lied, but instead questioned his credibility. The CCRB is not a court and does not conduct judicial proceedings, and its investigations and determinations are made in non-adversarial proceedings during which the officer is not under oath, is not given an opportunity to confront his accuser, and is not represented by counsel.” Weighing seven factors set forth under controlling precedent, the Court found for the State.
Finally, with respect to the civil suits, the Court relied on the fact that the suits “have settled, been dismissed, or are pending without the government’s knowledge of any adverse credibility finding. It is well settled that such lawsuits are not ‘probative of the witness’ truthfulness’ and are inadmissible under Rule 608(b).”
United States v. Clanton, 763 F. Supp. 3d 261 (E.D. N.Y. 2025).