Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (the “Laurie List”)

See RSA 91-A:5, IV, Exemptions.

See RSA 105:13-d, Exculpatory Evidence Schedule.

"We [the United States Supreme Court] now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution."

"Petitioner was convicted of passing forged money orders and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. While appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, defense counsel discovered new evidence indicating that the Government 151*151 had failed to disclose an alleged promise made to its key witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified for the Government. We granted certiorari to determine whether the evidence not disclosed was such as to require a new trial under the due process criteria of Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)."

"In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that "suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." This rule applies where no request for information was made and where a general request for exculpatory information was made. The rule also applies to impeachment materials. ... In New Hampshire, criminal defendants have an explicit right "to produce all proofs that may be favorable to [them]." N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 15. … We hold that the New Hampshire constitutional right to present all favorable proofs affords greater protection [than the federal standard] to a criminal defendant. Upon a showing by the defendant that favorable, exculpatory evidence has been knowingly withheld by the prosecution, the burden shifts to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the undisclosed evidence would not have affected the verdict. This standard does not require that the prosecutor disclose everything that might influence a jury, or that the defendant be permitted a complete discovery of all investigatory work or an examination of the State's complete file."

"The petitioners argue that their placement on the “Laurie List” affects significant constitutional liberty and property interests, inasmuch as a “Laurie” designation can tarnish their reputations and damage their careers. The respondent acknowledged during the hearing before the trial court that “the Laurie list is considered a kind of a death list” for the officers on it or “is given that stigma.” Although the “Laurie List” is not available to members of the public generally, placement on the list all but guarantees that information about the officers will be disclosed to trial courts and/or defendants or their counsel any time the officers testify in a criminal case, thus potentially affecting their reputations and professional standing with those with whom they work and interact on a regular basis."

"After we granted the criminal defendant in Laurie a new trial due to the prosecution’s failure to disclose information found in a police detective’s employment files and records, New Hampshire law enforcement authorities began developing “Laurie Lists” to share information about officer conduct with prosecutors. ... [I]n early 2017, the attorney general updated the “Laurie List” procedure and, for the first time, created the state-wide EES maintained by the DOJ. ... We uphold the trial court’s determinations that the EES is neither “confidential” under RSA 105:13-b nor exempt from disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law as an “internal personnel practice” or a “personnel file.” Nonetheless, we vacate the trial court’s decision and remand for it to determine, in the first instance, whether as the DOJ contends, the EES constitutes an “other file[] whose disclosure would constitute invasion of privacy.” RSA 91-A:5, IV."

See Article VI, Witnesses

See Rule 3.8. Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor.