Chair Brooks-Powers questions supplemental discovery and certificate of compliance issues

One issue raised by defense providers is that after the 2025 amendments to the discovery laws, they've seen an increase in circumstances where the prosecution files

a certificate of compliance with discovery obligations months into the life of a case, but without

actually turning over all of the relevant material and then relying on their ability to serve supplemental discovery at a later date.

Is this something you've also identified as problematic and a cause of case delays?

Yes.

I mean, I'm not trying to come to the defense of the prosecutors in this case, but given sometimes prosecutors don't come across this information until later on.

So I think the defense is right about that.

There are it's sort of a continuing process.

And we've been encouraging the district attorney's offices to actually start giving over discovery that they have right away.

Like, forget about the deadlines.

If you have discovery that you think.

That is clearly discoverable, why not just start providing it to them without certifying that you've

completed the, because that gives the defense sort of a head start and they're not dumped on at the, I don't use that word derogatory,

It's not a criticism, but the statute gives a date, and then it could be hundreds of documents, maybe thousands of documents that they're given at the last minute.

So if there could be a piecemeal approach by it being given over earlier, I don't really– we've been encouraging that.

Sometimes documents take a little longer and then a supplemental disclosure has to happen.

And, of course, that causes delays.

The question is whether the supplemental documents that were later turned over, whether there was good cause or good reason why they didn't have it at the time that it was required.

I understand.