Baltimore prosecutors and public defenders clash over disclosure rules for police ‘Do Not Call’ credibility lists

A recurring dispute over police credibility records

Baltimore’s criminal courts continue to grapple with a high-stakes transparency question: how much information prosecutors must disclose about police officers whose credibility has been challenged, and how quickly that information must reach defense attorneys.

At the center of the dispute is the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office “Do Not Call” list—a tool used by prosecutors to flag officers whose histories could jeopardize prosecutions if they serve as key witnesses. The Maryland Office of the Public Defender has pressed for broader, more consistent disclosure, arguing that credibility-related information can be case-determinative for defendants deciding whether to fight charges, accept pleas, or seek post-conviction relief.

What the courts have already decided about public release

Maryland appellate precedent has addressed whether the list itself can be kept from public view under state open-records law. In litigation stemming from requests under the Maryland Public Information Act, the state’s intermediate appellate court concluded that a prosecutor-created “do not call” list was not exempt from disclosure as a police personnel record or as attorney work product, reasoning that the list consists of officer names designated by prosecutors and does not itself contain underlying internal affairs files. The ruling also drew a distinction between the list and supporting investigative material, which may be subject to different disclosure analyses and potential redactions.

The decision emphasized that the open-records dispute is separate from criminal discovery obligations. Even so, the court’s analysis highlighted why the list exists: to alert prosecutors that credibility concerns could undermine a case if an officer’s testimony or work is central to proving charges.

Why disclosure timing and scope matter in criminal cases

In day-to-day practice, the legal friction often shifts from whether a list can exist to what it triggers. Prosecutors have constitutional and ethical duties to provide the defense with exculpatory and impeachment material when it is material to guilt or punishment—obligations commonly associated with Brady and Giglio. For defenders, the practical issue is whether credibility concerns are surfaced early enough to investigate, litigate suppression issues, challenge warrants, or scrutinize officer narratives before decisions are locked in.

For prosecutors, the competing pressures can include protecting sensitive information, avoiding disclosure of materials outside legal requirements, and managing large caseloads while tracking officer histories that may change as new findings emerge.

Key facts about Baltimore’s “Do Not Call” list system

• The list is a prosecutorial tool used to identify officers whose credibility issues could threaten prosecutions if they are relied upon as witnesses.
• Prior litigation in Maryland held that a prosecutor-created list of officers is not automatically shielded from public release as a personnel record or attorney work product under the Maryland Public Information Act.
• The courts have recognized a legal distinction between the list of names and the underlying internal affairs or investigatory files that may inform a prosecutor’s decision to flag an officer.

The continuing clash is less about whether credibility problems exist in policing than about how disclosure is operationalized—what is shared, when it is shared, and whether the process is uniform across cases.

What comes next

As Baltimore’s justice system confronts ongoing questions of police accountability and courtroom reliability, the dispute over “Do Not Call” disclosures is likely to persist. The outcome will shape how quickly defendants learn about potential credibility problems in the evidence against them and how prosecutors document, update, and communicate those risks across thousands of cases each year.