Individuals that were victims of Boyce Hamlet's failure to make legal notifications that he was a Brady officer, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, are considering taking legal action against him and his former employers.
The Brady case requires that to ensure a fair criminal trial, prosecutors are obligated to notify criminal defendants about exculpatory evidence, which includes evidence that could be used to challenge the credibility of a material prosecution witness. This is especially significant to the ability to effectively prosecute cases because an officer is often the only witness to the charged criminal act or the incriminating statements or conduct, and criminal defendants often dispute the officer's account of evidence (See our previous post).
The potential legal actions could involve multiple jurisdictions in two states and go back to 2004 when Hamlet was employed by the Arkansas Department of Community Correction as a parole officer, or 2000 if you use Hamlet's fake employment history he provided to employers and the Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards & Training violation of Arkansas laws.
An advertisement has appeared in various newspapers and on internet message boards that asks individuals that had a criminal court case in which Boyce Hamlet testified against them or one that Hamlet was involved in the investigation and prosecution, to contact them about important information.
As the news media has reported, there appears to be an organized effort by Republican office holders and their appointees to cover up Hamlet's misdeeds and criminal acts. These are the players:
If Hamlet had any sense at all, or if he would listen to the advice of his attorney wife, you would think that he would just resign and seek employment outside of law enforcement to make this nightmare go away. Surely his pals at Diamond State Consulting could find something for him to do.