The Laurie List: Why it Matters to Criminal Defendants
As the country grapples with its history of systemic racism, one question comes up again and again—how is it that bad cops remain on the force? Derek Chauvin, the officer that murdered George Floyd, had a lengthy history of misconduct and yet he was still employed. The problem, especially in NH, is that the current system is designed to conceal not punish misconduct.
In there is a secret list in New Hampshire that has the names and offenses of every police officer that has engaged in misconduct. Unfortunately, no one can get it, absent a complex process. It is maintained by the Attorney General’s Office using public funds and until now, it has been kept from the public that both foots the bill and is supposed to be protected by the Attorney General’s Office.
This sounds like a conspiracy theory. Surely, in a state that prides itself on government transparency, this cannot be possible. Unfortunately, it is absolutely true. The Attorney General’s Office, instead of protecting the public and being committed to government transparency, has, in the past, decide to act as though they are the lawyers for police officers.
But that might be about to change. When you see the forms of misconduct on the list, its staggering to think that not only are these officers still employed, their misbehavior has been swept under the rug and zealously protected.
Experienced defense lawyers know about the Laurie List, now called the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (in a classic governmental use of the euphemism treadmill—the Laurie List had become synonymous with bad behavior, so now it has a different name). Furthermore, they know officers that are on the list and the reasons for their inclusion.
The effect of being on the Laurie List is tremendous. Often strong State cases are weakened and weak cases are dropped altogether when it is revealed that an officer is on the Laurie List. Additionally, because of the many iterations of the list and the changing standards involved in placing an officer on the list, often successful litigation of misconduct issues requires personal knowledge. For example, two officers trashing the fire department in their town did not make the list according to this article. This conduct, however, still bears on the credibility of the officers involved and only lawyers with experience will know to look for these things.
Here is the stranger thing—courts in New Hampshire have long held that the State is obligated to disclose most misconduct. This has been the rule since at least 2006. See In re: Theodosopoulos. This is some of the most important and valuable information that exists in a case, probably as powerful for the defendant as a confession is for the state and yet it is not publicly available. Furthermore, effectively litigating these issues is complex and requires lots of experience.
If you have a criminal case and you believe one of the officers was involved in misconduct, contact us. We can help.
Additional Resources