photo by: Contributed Photos

Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister, left, and Douglas County District Attorney Suzanne Valdez.

A dispute between the Douglas County district attorney and the sheriff is continuing, with the DA issuing more subpoenas seeking testimony about the credibility of officers in the sheriff’s department.

Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister continues to object to those subpoenas as an overreach on the part of the district attorney. All this comes after a Douglas County District Court judge late last month declined to require Armbrister to comply with previously issued subpoenas, but also declined to cancel — or quash, in legal terms — the subpoenas. Instead, Judge Sally Pokorny urged the two elected officials to cooperate.

Now, more subpoenas have arrived, Armbrister told the Journal-World.

“There have been four new subpoenas issued to myself and the Undersheriff (Stacy Simmons) since the judge’s ruling with 20 active subpoenas. To our knowledge, the Sheriff’s Office is the only agency in the county where the head and second-in-command have both received subpoenas,” Armbrister said in an email.

The subpoenas are related to a new Brady/Giglio policy adopted by Douglas County District Attorney Suzanne Valdez and her office. Brady/Giglio policies, named after two U.S. Supreme Court cases, address the evidence that the state must turn over to a defendant to prepare a criminal case, including evidence favorable to the defendant and evidence affecting the credibility of witnesses for the state. That can include any evidence about past actions related to truthfulness or other such issues involving arresting officers.

Valdez has asked law enforcement to fill out Brady/Giglio checklists prior to any court proceedings to prevent possible credibility issues from coming up during a trial, but Armbrister holds that the checklist is too broad and if he fills out the checklist and an officer does have one of the questions marked “yes,” then that document will follow the officer for the rest of his or her career.

Armbrister told the Journal-World on Wednesday that he thought Pokorny’s ruling in December and her additional comments in October had resolved the matter — that is, until he received the new subpoenas.

“We do believe Judge Pokorny’s direct and unambiguous statements in the October hearing as well as her recent ruling were very clear,” Armbrister said.

With new subpoenas arriving, Armbrister continues to file legal motions asking the court to rule that he doesn’t have to comply with the subpoenas. Armbrister filed a motion to quash one of the new subpoenas that was issued for a trial this week for Chastleton Malone, who is accused of raping two women. In that motion filed on Jan. 9, by Leslie Miller with Stevens and Brand on Armbrister’s behalf, Armbrister renewed his complaints with the subpoenas, saying that they were issued in haste and do not give him a reasonable amount of time to comply. He also argues the subpoena is not for material relevant to the case.

Court records indicate that the subpoena for Armbrister in the Malone case was filed on Nov. 28 and it commanded him to be ready to testify between Jan. 9, 2023, and Jan. 13, 2023, and to bring with him the personnel files of two officers from the sheriff’s office who worked on the case. Valdez has said that she wants officers’ files to be reviewed by a judge to help determine whether there are issues that could disqualify an officer from testifying.

But, as the Journal-World reported in December, Judge Pokorny balked at that idea. In her December ruling, she said that judges do not have a duty to supervise the disclosure of Brady/Giglio information because such supervision would necessitate a complete review of the state’s entire investigation. That duty rests with the executive branch, she wrote, not with the judicial branch.

At issue in the case is how much access the district attorney should have to a law enforcement officer’s personnel file. Valdez has argued that her policy will allow for an appropriate amount of access. In response to Pokorny’s ruling, Valdez said that “a review of law enforcement personnel files would only be triggered by a “yes” answer to one of 10 questions on the (Brady/Giglio) checklist. Even then, the District Attorney’s review would be confined to the specific personnel materials that resulted in a “yes” answer. Thus, the District Attorney is not demanding unfettered access to personnel materials.”

But whether Armbrister or other law enforcement officers are legally obligated to answer the questions on the district attorney’s checklist remains unclear. In October, Pokorny ruled that the sheriff’s office must present any relevant Brady/Giglio evidence to the district attorney’s office but did not order the sheriff to comply with the checklist.

After the December ruling was issued, Armbrister said that he was pleased with Pokorny’s ruling and that he felt it validated his standpoint on the issue. But the ruling also did nothing to stop Valdez from filing more subpoenas demanding personnel information from the sheriff’s office. In a statement late Thursday afternoon, a spokeswoman for Valdez said the district attorney felt she had no choice but to continue issuing subpoenas.

“When the sheriff’s office intentionally refuses to help the State meet its disclosure obligations, the District Attorney’s Office has no way of knowing if the State is in compliance with its legal and ethical obligations. Without disclosure by law enforcement leadership, we have no choice but to subpoena law enforcement to appear at hearings with the personnel records of each officer who would serve as a witness in the case,” Cheryl Cadue, a spokeswoman for the DA’s office, told the Journal-World.

The issue of whether Armbrister must comply with the subpoenas now will rest with several judges in Douglas County District Court. Each judge presiding over a case with a Brady/Giglio subpoena issue now will have to rule on whether Armbrister must comply.