AG Releases 90 Names on Dishonest Police List

Print More


Part of the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule released Wednesday. See whole list inside story.

Editor’s note: This story will be updated as tries to reach the people on the list to get their comments.

See the list here:

Updated story:

AG Hides Some ‘Laurie List’ Names Hours After Release

CONCORD – As required by a new law, Attorney General John Formella on Wednesday released the names of 90 current or former law enforcement officers with credibility issues from the secret Laurie List with more expected to be revealed in three months.

This first group included officers who were notified when the new law went into effect on Sept. 24 that they could file a lawsuit in Superior Court and had 90 days to try to have their names removed. Since they didn’t file in Superior Court, their names became public Wednesday.

There were 281 names on the list when the law went into effect but some may have been duplicates.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey Ward said 29 names have been removed through the 2018 attorney general’s protocol that is separate from the new law, which requires a judge to determine that the name shouldn’t have been on the list.

Half of those 29 names were removed by the attorney general’s process since the law went into effect, Ward said.

Other officers had 180 days to file in court seeking removal depending on when their names were placed on the list.

Criminal defendants are constitutionally guaranteed all exculpatory evidence, which is evidence that would be favorable to them, which could include a police officer’s discipline for dishonesty, use of excessive force or mental instability.

If such evidence is withheld, a conviction could be overturned even if it is discovered years later.

The Laurie List, now called the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule, is the tool prosecutors use to flag an officer’s name when there is sustained discipline in his or her personnel file that must be disclosed.

Keeping the list intact and making it public is critical to criminal defendants who were convicted but were not aware that an officer testifying against them had undisclosed exculpatory evidence in their personnel file.

If a criminal defendant finds out after their conviction that such evidence existed, even many years later, he or she can petition the court for a new trial or try to have the charges dropped altogether.

See’s archive of Laurie List stories here:

Ex-Nashua Cop Challenges Being Put On ‘Laurie List’ Years After Retiring

Comments are closed.