COLUMBUS, Ohio — A newly introduced Ohio bill would create a legal process allowing police officers to challenge their placement on prosecutor-maintained misconduct lists that can affect their ability to testify in court and continue their careers according to WCMH.

House Bill 975, introduced July 13 by state Reps. Cindy Abrams and Phil Plummer, would allow law enforcement officers to petition a county common pleas court for removal from what are commonly known as Brady-Giglio lists.

The lists are maintained by prosecutors to track law enforcement officers whose credibility may need to be disclosed to defense attorneys under constitutional requirements.

Under the proposed legislation, an officer who believes they were improperly placed on a list could ask a judge to review the decision. The court would hold a hearing where both the officer and the prosecutor who placed the officer on the list could present evidence before a ruling is made.

Abrams, a former Cincinnati police officer, said officers should have an opportunity to challenge placement if they believe the decision was unfair.

“I believe our police officers, if they are put on the Brady list, let’s say because the prosecutor doesn’t like them or they don’t like their politics or whatever it is, I think the police officer should be able to stand in front of a judge in the court of common pleas and state their case,” Abrams said.

Brady-Giglio lists are used by prosecutors to help meet legal obligations established through two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States.

Those rulings require prosecutors to disclose evidence that could help a defendant or information that could affect the credibility of a government witness.

In police cases, officers may be added to a Brady-Giglio list for issues such as alleged dishonesty during an internal investigation, falsifying reports or committing perjury.

Currently, Ohio does not have a statewide database of officers on Brady-Giglio lists and does not provide a formal appeals process for officers who believe they were improperly included.

The bill’s supporters say placement on a Brady-Giglio list can have serious professional consequences.

Michael Weinman, director of government affairs for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, said he has seen cases where officers were placed on lists unfairly.

The organization, which represents more than 24,000 law enforcement officers, brought the issue to Abrams, according to supporters of the legislation.

“We have a lodge president who spoke out against a prosecutor… and that lodge president got placed on a Brady list,” Weinman said. “So it was a form of retaliation.”

Weinman argued that being listed can effectively end certain law enforcement careers because prosecutors may avoid calling listed officers as witnesses or using cases where those officers are critical witnesses.

“Imagine being put on the list that basically says you’re a liar and that gets disclosed to defense attorneys every time you come up to testify,” Weinman said. “So if you’re a detective, you’re done.”

The proposed legislation would also require prosecutors to notify officers in writing when they are added to a Brady-Giglio list.

The bill has not yet received a committee assignment or a first hearing in the Ohio General Assembly.

Groups that advocate for police accountability were contacted for comment. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio declined to comment, while Ohio Families Unite for Political Action and Change said it was unable to provide a statement before publication.

Neither Abrams nor Weinman could provide the number of Ohio officers currently included on Brady-Giglio lists because individual prosecutors’ offices manage the lists locally and no statewide tracking system exists.

Supporters point to other states that have created appeal processes for officers challenging placement on misconduct lists.

Arizona passed a law in 2021 allowing officers to appeal placement on a Brady-Giglio list, and Iowa enacted a similar measure in 2024.

Abrams said HB 975 is intended to begin a larger discussion about balancing officer due process with the need for prosecutors to disclose credibility concerns during criminal cases.

“Policing shouldn’t be politicized,” Abrams said. “Sadly, that’s the road we’re headed down.”

The bill is awaiting further action in the Ohio legislature, though Abrams acknowledged that because it was introduced late in the legislative session, its chances of passing this year may be limited.