Filed
`
`D.C. Superior Court
`03/12/2024 21:39PM
`Clerk of the Court
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`Criminal Division — Felony Branch
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`V.
`
`CALVIN REID
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`Case No. 2021 CF2 0965
`
`Hon. Judge Salerno
`
`Next Hearing: March 22, 2024
`
`NOTICE OF FILING
`
`The government requests that the attached CADRPTS Disclosure Letter, dated March 12,
`
`2024, be madepart ofthe recordin this case.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Matthew M. Graves
`United States Attorney
`
`By: /s/ Jasmine Dohemann
`JASMINE DOHEMANN
`Assistant United States Attorney
`U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia
`601 D St., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20530
`Jasmine.Dohemann@usdoj.gov
`202-809-0475
`
`

`

`
`
`Counsel Steve Polin
`
`U.S. Departmentof Justice
`
`Matthew M. Graves
`United States Attorney
`
`District of Columbia
`
`Patrick Henry Building
`601 D Street. N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20530
`
`March 12, 2024
`
`Re:
`
`United States v. Calvin Reid
`Case No. 2021 CF2 0965
`
`Dear Counsel:
`
`The government hereby provides you with potential impeachmentinformation regarding
`officers employed by the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”). As a general proposition, the
`governmentis only required to provide impeachment material for those witnessesit calls at trial.
`See Thompson v. United States, 45 A.3d 688, 693 (D.C. 2012) (because witness did nottestify as
`a government witnessat trial, the “government was not obliged to disclose information that could
`be used to impeach him”); accord Porter v. United States, 7 A.3d 1021, 1026 (D.C. 2010).
`However, this Office has expanded the scope ofits disclosures related to material contained in
`MPD’s Personnel Performance Management System (““PPMS”).! The government does not
`concedethat disclosing impeachment information for non-testifying officers is constitutionally or
`statutorily required, and some PPMS materials may not qualify as impeachment material.
`However, the government will seek to conduct PPMSchecks for officers who meet the following
`criteria:
`
`1. All officers the government maycall to testify in a suppression hearing or the government’s
`case-in-chiefattrial;
`2. All officers the governmentanticipates that it may call in rebuttal;
`3. All chain-of-custody officers for any physical evidence that the governmentanticipates it
`may introduce in a suppression hearingorattrial;
`4. All officers who personally authored reports that the governmentintendsto introduceat a
`
`! Additional information about the PPMSis contained in the government’s motion for a protective order.
`
`2 Absent a specific request from the defense, in misdemeanorcasespriority will be given to identifying PPMS
`information for officers who meetcriteria one or two.
`
`Rev. March 2024
`
`

`

`suppression hearing ortrial, or that its witnesses may rely upon during their testimony at a
`suppression hearing or trial; and
`5. Any other officer who, in the estimation of the prosecutor, played an essential role in the
`investigation or prosecution of the case. (e.g. a lead detective who may not be called as a
`governmentwitnessattrial).*
`
`Accordingly, the government is providing information from the PPMSto you regarding
`the following Officers:+
`
`Officer Jonathan Gonzalez*
`Officer Christian Valdez*
`Officer Karen Valentin-Aponte*
`
`The government is disclosing to you information from the PPMSthatis in its actual
`possession related to the disciplinary history of the above-referenced officers. In addition to the
`disciplinary information from the PPMS, the government has also checkedits internal Lewis
`database for potential impeachment information and either has completed, or will complete, a
`Giglio questionnaire with each officer.
`
`the government has reviewed the PPMS to identify
`For those officers listed above,
`potentially disclosable information including the following:
`
`1. Any sustained administrative finding of misconduct, even if the administrative
`investigation involved unintentional conduct such as the loss of MPD owned
`property or involved a “preventable” motor vehicle accident while on duty.
`
`2. Any discipline imposed by MPDthat is identified in the PPMS.
`
`3. Any administrative investigation that was pending during the officer’s assignment
`to the criminal
`investigation in this case, regardless of the outcome of that
`administrative investigation. However, the government notes that any theory of
`admissibility for such pending matters would hinge on: (1) whether the officer was
`aware of the administrative investigation;> and (2) whether the officer was aware
`
`> However, absent a specific and supportable demand,this Office will not review an officer’s disciplinary history or
`conduct a Lewis check on an officer merely because he or she waspresent at the scene of a crime, arrest or search, or
`otherwise did not play an essential role in the investigation or prosecution of this case.
`
`‘ Please note that an “*” following the officer’s name indicates that this Office has not had the opportunity to fully
`review any available source documentation related to the officer. However, in order to provide prompt disclosure of
`this information, the government is providing you with electronic information from the PPMSthat is in its actual
`possession, and that meets the disclosure criteria discussed below. Counsel is encouraged to review the information
`on the attached report, and to prioritize any requests for source documentation.
`
`> Tfelowo v. United States, 778 A.2d 285, 295 n.13 (D.C. 2001) (‘Impeachmentevidenceis not material if the witness
`does not have knowledgeof the underlying fact.”) (quoting Williams v. Scott, 35 F.3d 159, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal
`quotation marks and citations omitted)).
`
`

`

`of the administrative investigation at a time he or she was actively involved in the
`investigation of this criminal case.°
`
`In making the attached disclosures, the governmentis not agreeing that this information is
`even disclosable, let alone relevant or admissible at trial. The proponent of a particular piece of
`evidence bears the burden of demonstrating its admissibility. Best v. United States, 66 A.3d 1013,
`1017 (D.C. 2013). Even a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to cross-examine adverse
`witnesses “is not without limits,” Reed v. United States, 452 A.2d 1173, 1176 (D.C. 1982), and
`any proposedline of cross-examination must be relevant to the issues involved in the case. See
`Gibson v. United States, 536 A.2d 78, 82 (D.C. 1987) (“[t]here is no constitutional right to present
`irrelevant evidence”). Additionally, even where a proposed line of inquiry is relevant, the trial
`court “retain[s] wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose
`reasonable limits on .
`.
`. cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things,
`harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive
`or only marginally relevant.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986). See also United
`States v. McCallum, 885 F. Supp. 2d 105, 119 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding that officer’s bias to curry
`favor due to several pending complaints before the Office of Police Complaints was“slight where,
`as here, the facts alleged in the open complaints do not demonstrate any credible threat of. .
`.
`discipline”).
`
`The government’s Brady obligations apply only to information in the government’s
`possession. See Guest v. United States, 867 A.2d 208, 211 (D.C. 2005). The government has a
`“duty to learn of any favorable evidence knownto others acting on the government’s behalfin the
`case,
`including the police.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995) (emphasis added).
`Critically, this duty extends only to agencies “closely aligned with the prosecution.” United States
`v. Brooks, 966 F.2d 1500, 1503 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Thus, where an independent agency is not
`involved in the underlying criminal
`investigation,
`the government
`is not deemed to be in
`possession oftheir records. See Myers v. United States, 15 A.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. 2011) (finding
`that where WMATAand Metro police were not involved in criminal investigation, they were not
`a memberof the prosecution team, and the governmentdid not possess WMATAvideos pursuant
`to Rule 16). Accord O’Brien v. United States, 962 A.2d 282, 316 (D.C. 2008). As a result, when
`an outside agency, including the Office of Police Complaints (“OPC”) or the Office of the Attorney
`General, is involved in the investigation or prosecution of a case, this Office is not in possession
`
`® Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 317 (1974) Gury should have learned that at the time a witness madea pretrial
`identification of the defendant he was under probation in order “to show the existence of possible bias .
`.
`. causing
`him to makea faulty initial identification . .. which in turn could haveaffected his later in-court identification”). See
`also Tabron v. United States, 444 A.2d 942, 943 (D.C. 1982) (defense wasentitled to potential bias information where
`several government witnesses “had a relationship with the court, such as probation, at the time the governmentwasin
`touch with them during the investigation, prosecution, and trial of the crime” (emphasis added)). Accord Lewis v.
`United States, 10 A.3d 646, 653 (D.C. 2010) (witness had a pending case whenhefirst implicated the defendant and
`cross-examination was proper to determine how that pending case affected his testimony); Artis v. United States, 505
`A.2d 52, 54 (D.C. 1986) (because witness was pending sentencing in two matters when he first implicated the
`defendant, bias cross-examination would be proper even though the witness was sentenced before defendant’s trial
`(citing Tabron) (emphasis added)).
`
`

`

`of their records and has no duty to search their records.’
`
`to the previously authorized
`Consistent with the foregoing guidelines, and subject
`protective order in this matter, the government has attached a disclosure chart for each officer
`listed above. The disclosure chart contains verbatim information from the PPMS, and where
`known, supplemental information from this Office. The verbatim information from the PPMS
`includes the following:
`
`e
`e
`
`IS No. — The incident number(using the prefix “CS”in older cases).
`Secured — Indicates that the investigation is an Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”)
`investigation and that the officer may not be aware ofthe investigation.
`In certain
`situations, such as use-of-force investigations or when the officer has already been
`disciplined, the member should know of the investigation even if it is indicated
`“secured.”
`Incident Date — The date of the conduct leading to the administrative investigation.
`e
`e Disposition Date — Generally, the date that the Assistant Chief of the Internal
`Affairs Bureau ortheir designee approved theinvestigative report.®
`e DRD Date — Where applicable and entered into the PPMS, the date that the
`discipline was imposed in cases referred to the Disciplinary Review Division
`(“DRD”).’
`Incident Type — The allegation(s) subject to investigation. The Incident Typeis
`listed first, followed by the Allegation entry. The Allegation entry, when entered
`into the PPMS, is usually more specific than the Incident Type.
`Incident Disposition — Lists resolution of the incident referenced in PPMS. Where
`an incident
`involves multiple allegations or multiple officers the incident
`disposition may notreflect the actual finding against an individual officer.'°
`e MemberDisposition — The finding against the individual officer for one or more
`
`e
`
`e
`
`7 OPCis recognized as an independent agency. McCallum, 885 F. Supp. 2d at 110. By design, OPCis an independent
`agency that conducts investigations into allegations of police misconduct independently of MPD andthis Office. See
`generally, D.C. Code §§ 5-1102 — 5114 (describing structure and goals of OPC). If OPC believesthat an allegation of
`misconduct may involve criminal conduct, OPC has the authority to refer the matter to this office, and regains
`jurisdiction only whenthis office declines prosecution in writing. 7d. § 5-1109. Because of OPC’s independence,this
`office is generally not in possession of OPC’s files, and has limited access to them. In a small numberof cases where
`OPCsustains an allegation against a police officer following an investigation, a copy of their investigative file is sent
`to MPD. OPC also notifies MPD whenthey open an investigation, but OPC doesnot transfer its investigative file to
`MPDunlessthereis a sustained finding.
`
`8 The IAD factually investigates only certain types of allegations of misconduct. Other factual investigations are
`carried out at the chain-of-command level. MPD General Order 120.20(B) (Nov. 22, 2022). IAD does not recommend
`discipline. Sustained allegations are referred to the Disciplinary Review Division (“DRD”) for review and
`recommendation of discipline. See MPD General Order 120.21(1I)(B)(6-8), (C). The chain of command may impose
`discipline up to a certain severity; cases that may result in more serious penalties are referred to the DRD. Seeid.
`
`° References to DRD materials also apply to materials from the Disciplinary Review Board (“DRB’”).
`
`10 The chart does not include cancelled IS cases.
`
`

`

`e
`
`e
`
`e
`
`e
`
`e
`
`individual allegations.
`Investigative Body Action — Generally, this is the final action of the body tasked
`with investigating or reviewing the incident; this body can be IAD, the Chain of
`Command, OPC, Crash Review Board, Use of Force Review Board, or another
`body. Always check the member disposition and investigative notes block for
`officer-specific information in multiple officer cases. |"
`Final Disposition — Where applicable and entered into the PPMS, information
`relating to MPD’s final decision concerning an individual officer for one or more
`allegation.
`Final Disposition Notes — Where applicable and entered into the PPMS, further
`information regarding the final discipline imposed on anofficer.
`Synopsis — The verbatim information from the PPMSdescribing the incident. Any
`redactionswill appear as a black box.”
`Investigation Notes — Additional verbatim information from the PPMSregarding
`the outcomeof an investigation, may include officer-specific information.
`
`The supplemental information provided by this Office may be foundin the following
`locations, where applicable:
`
`e
`
`designated
`
`the
`
`investigation
`
`as
`
`has
`IS No. Column - This Office
`“Sustained/Disclosed,” “Pending,” or both.
`is disclosing the
`this Office
`that
`o
`“Sustained/Disclosed”
`indicates
`investigation because there is a sustained finding against an officer or for
`other reasons.
`“Pending” indicates that the investigation may have been pending during
`the time that the officer was assigned to the investigation of this case. The
`dates this Office identified to conduct this search are included at the top of
`the chart. Because of inconsistencies with the PPMS data particularly in
`older cases, the list of pending cases may include older investigations that
`havelong since been closed.'*
`
`o
`
`1! Three common types of discipline are a “Dereliction Report” (PD-750), a “Letter of Reprimand” (formerly a
`“Letter of Prejudice”), or an “Official Reprimand.” Each form of discipline can result in increased penalties for similar
`misconductfor a limited period of time. Absent information to the contrary, increased discipline for similar conduct
`is generally limited to 1 year for a PD-750; 2 years for a Letter of Reprimand; and 3 years for an Official Reprimand.
`See MPD General Order 120.21(I)(A)(2). Accordingly, if the period for increased penalties for similar misconduct
`expires before an officer testifies at trial, and that period did not coincide with the officer’s active involvementin the
`case, there is no colorable claim of bias. See Burgess v. United States, 608 A.2d 733, 736 (D.C. 1992); Artis, 505 A.2d
`at 54. MPD can also instead impose Education-based Development with the officer’s consent as an alternative to
`certain other sanctions. See MPD General Order 120.21dD(A)(3), (B)(). This program allowsfor training in lieu of
`punishment, butit is still considered discipline becauseit arises only after a sustained finding by MPD.
`
`© The size of the black box does not represent a set numberof characters or words, but merely indicates that some
`information has been redacted by this Office from the synopsis.
`
`13 The disclosure charts exclude from the “pending” category any unsustained cases before 2007. This category of
`cases was excluded because of missing closure dates in most pre-2007 cases. If your case involves a crime or
`Cont. ...
`
`5
`
`

`

`=
`
`"
`
`e
`
`oO
`
`oO
`
`“Pending — Open”indicates that the investigation wasstill open as
`of the date the PPMSdata waslast uploaded;
`“Pending — Closed”indicates that the investigation may have been
`pending during the timethe officer was assignedto the case, but was
`closed by either IAD or DRD bythelisted disposition date.
`If an officer is currently appealing a sustained finding to DRD orto the
`Chief of Police, that pending appeallikely will not appear as pendingin the
`PPMS, and instead should appearas “sustained”in the Incident Disposition
`field. As part of the government’s standard Giglio questionnaire, officers
`are asked if they are currently appealing any findings by any agency.
`e Case Description — In the synopsis, a black bar will appear where this Office has
`redacted the names ofcivilian witnesses, other officers, or third parties, along with
`any personal identifying information or similarly sensitive information.
`e Additional Information — This Office has included any clarifying or supplemental
`information that
`this Office has
`identified through its
`review of source
`documentation or investigation of a particular PPMSentry.
`IS-Related Documents — This Office has indicated when it has received documents
`from MPD relating to the investigation. In general, the following file-naming
`conventions apply:
`oO
`“1S12003456”- Includes underlying source documentation from the entity
`tasked with factually investigating the allegation, e.g., IAD or COC;
`“1$12003456 - Last Name” — Includes underlying source documentation
`received from DRD for the named officer, which may include information
`that DRD received from the investigating entity;
`“1S12003456 - NR” — Includes a response from IAD that they do not have
`records for that investigation;
`“T$12003456 - NR DRD Last Name” — Includes a response from DRD that
`they do not have records of an investigation or discipline for the named
`officer. DRD recordsare officer-specific;
`“1$12003456 - OPC” — Includes underlying source documentation from
`OPC, where such documentation has previously been obtained by this
`Office
`
`At the end of the disclosure chart you will also find a section titled “Officer Supplement.”
`The Officer Supplement section contains information about other matters that are not contained in
`the PPMSsystem for an individual officer. This may include civil lawsuits, matters that predate
`the PPMSsystem,or adverse judicial findings knownto this Office.
`
`If you believe that the information provided in the attached disclosure chart is insufficient
`for any individual entry, please contact the undersigned AUSAto request source documentation,
`and to prioritize any requests.
`
`investigation that occurred prior to 2007, please contact the assigned AUSAto identify any additional cases that may
`be subject to disclosure under the “pending”category.
`
`6
`
`

`

`If you have any questions about the information providedin the attached disclosure chart,
`feel free to contact me.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Matthew M. Graves
`United States Attorney
`
`By: /s/_ Jasmine Dohemann
`JASMINE DOHEMANN
`Assistant United States Attorney
`U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia
`
`