Building the case file: the prosecutor's file, discovery and charging

On the evening of February 20, after Marsh's interview ended, Ferreira sat down with Sergeant Haddad and the file. It held 47 numbered leads, 11 exhibits from the scene and 9 more from Marsh's apartment, four witness statements, two lineup records, two laboratory reports with a third pending, production records from a carrier and a payment app, 214 scene photographs, nine video files, and the notes of fourteen officers. Haddad asked her one question: 'If you were defending Marsh, what in here would you use?' Desjardins tells the class that every investigation ends in a file, and that the file is the investigation as far as the court is concerned. If it is not in the file, for legal purposes it did not happen. This lesson covers how investigators assemble the file, what must be disclosed to the defense, and how charging decisions are made.

The purpose of the case file

The case file has several readers. The prosecutor uses it to decide whether to proceed, what charges to pursue, and how to present the case. The defense uses it to understand the case against the accused and to look for weaknesses and evidence that helps the accused. The court may see parts of it when ruling on applications, such as challenges to a search or a statement. Supervisors use it to review the quality of the investigation. A good file is complete, organized, accurate and honest. It contains everything relevant, including evidence that does not support the theory of the case, and it allows a reader to follow every step of the investigation without needing to ask the investigator.

In Ohio, the file prepared for the prosecutor typically contains the incident and supplemental reports, a case summary, the complaint, the suspect's criminal history, all witness statements and officers' reports and notes, recordings of the suspect's statements, the property and evidence records, photographs and video, laboratory reports, and an index of every item, so that the prosecutor can meet discovery obligations under Criminal Rule 16.

The synopsis

The synopsis, or case summary, is a short narrative of the facts that the investigator believes the evidence can prove, written in plain language for the prosecutor. It should state the offense, the time and place, what happened, how the accused was identified, the key evidence for each element of the offense, the accused's statement if any, and any significant weaknesses or issues. It must be accurate: every fact in the synopsis should be supported by a statement, a report or an exhibit in the file, and inferences should be labeled as inferences. Prosecutors often use the synopsis to decide on bail positions and early resolution, so overstatement can cause real harm. Ferreira's synopsis described the glove DNA as 'a match to the accused's reference sample, confirmed by the laboratory', the shoe comparison as 'cannot be excluded', and Mehta's identification as 'fairly sure, not a hundred', in his words.

Discovery and Brady

In Brady v. Maryland (1963), the Supreme Court held that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment. Giglio v. United States (1972) extended this to evidence that could be used to impeach a prosecution witness, and Kyles v. Whitley (1995) held that the prosecutor is responsible for favorable evidence known to the police, even if the prosecutor never learned of it. That is why investigators must give the prosecutor everything. Ohio's Criminal Rule 16, revised in 2010, also requires broad reciprocal discovery, including witness statements, police reports and laboratory reports, and allows the prosecutor to designate some material for counsel only to protect witnesses. Many prosecutors' offices keep lists of officers with credibility problems, known as Brady or Giglio lists, and officers must report misconduct findings that could affect their testimony.

In both countries, the duty means that investigators cannot decide on their own that a piece of information is unhelpful or irrelevant and leave it out. Material that points away from the accused, such as another suspect, a witness who could not identify the accused, an inconsistent description or a failed laboratory comparison, is exactly what the defense is entitled to see. Withholding it can lead to a stay of proceedings, a new trial, or a wrongful conviction. Desjardins reminds the class of the wrongful convictions studied in lesson 1: in several, information that pointed to another person was in police files and never reached the defense.

What the Northgate file had to include

Haddad's question about what the defense would use produced a list. The anonymous tip naming Pelletier, the steps taken to check it and the alibi evidence that excluded him. Mehta's non-identification at the first lineup, with the video. Rao's estimate that the robber was about five foot ten; Marsh is six foot one. The doorman-style height markers on the door frame, which Rao had not been able to use. The insufficient fingerprint from the rack rail. The customer's fingerprint on the door, and his elimination. The gap in the scene log for Haddad's exit, and the supplementary notes explaining it. The fact that the gas bar video showed the car but not the driver. Marsh's claim that he lent the car to a friend, and the steps taken to check it. The neighbor's statement that a gray hatchback had been parked on her street in previous weeks. All of it went into the file and was disclosed.

Desjardins asks why the height discrepancy matters so much. Marco DiSanto answers that it is the kind of thing a defense lawyer would use to argue the robber was someone else, and that if it were hidden and came out later, it would make the whole investigation look dishonest. Desjardins adds that the honest answer to it is also in the file: Rao said herself she was not sure about height, the robber was crouched over the counter for most of the time she saw him, and research shows that witnesses' height estimates under stress are often inaccurate. The file does not need to win the argument; it needs to put everything on the table.

# Disclosure index for the Northgate file: items, pages and status
items = [
    ("synopsis", 4, "disclosed"), ("witness statements", 38, "disclosed"),
    ("officer notes (14 officers)", 96, "disclosed"), ("scene photographs", 214, "disclosed"),
    ("video files", 9, "disclosed"), ("lineup records and video", 12, "disclosed"),
    ("tip and Pelletier alibi checks", 17, "disclosed"), ("lab reports", 23, "disclosed"),
    ("phone extraction report", 61, "vetted"), ("carrier records", 14, "disclosed"),
    ("lab report: shoes", 0, "outstanding"),
]
from collections import Counter
status = Counter(s for _, _, s in items)
pages = sum(p for _, p, s in items if s == "disclosed")
print("items by status:", dict(status))
print("pages or files disclosed:", pages)
for name, p, s in items:
    if s != "disclosed":
        print("follow up:", name, "-", s)

items by status: {'disclosed': 9, 'vetted': 1, 'outstanding': 1}
pages or files disclosed: 427
follow up: phone extraction report - vetted
follow up: lab report: shoes - outstanding

The index shows two items not yet fully disclosed. The phone extraction report was being vetted to remove private information about third parties that was not relevant, such as photos of Marsh's family, with a note explaining the vetting and an offer to make the full report available for inspection; vetting decisions are made by the prosecutor, not the police, and must be justified. The shoe comparison report was still at the laboratory. Disclosure is a continuing duty: when the report arrived on March 9, it was disclosed within two days with an updated index. Desjardins notes that delays in disclosure are one of the main causes of delay in criminal cases, which can lead to charges being stayed. Ohio's speedy trial statute, Revised Code 2945.71, requires a person charged with a felony to be brought to trial within 270 days, with each day in jail counting as three.

Charging decisions

In Ohio, police may file a complaint charging an offense, and for felonies the prosecutor decides whether to present the case to a grand jury for indictment, which requires probable cause. Prosecutors also screen cases for whether the evidence can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and whether prosecution serves the interests of justice. Ferreira filed complaints for aggravated robbery under Revised Code 2911.01, because a deadly weapon was displayed, for the Northgate robbery and later for the gas bar robbery, and the Lucas County prosecutor presented both to a grand jury, which returned an indictment on March 4. The standard for laying a charge is lower than the standard for conviction, but investigators should not charge simply because they can. The question is whether the evidence, assessed honestly, supports the charge.

Desjardins tells the class that charging decisions also involve judgment about the right charge. Overcharging, laying the most serious possible charges in the hope of pressuring a guilty plea to a lesser one, is criticized by courts and commentators because it can pressure innocent people to plead and distorts the process. Charges should reflect what the evidence can prove. In September 2026, Marsh pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery under Revised Code 2911.02 as part of a negotiated plea, and sentencing is scheduled for December.

Notes, third-party records and the duty to preserve

Officers' notes are part of disclosure, and courts expect them to be complete. Notes that are vague, written long after the event, or missing for key steps invite the inference that something was not done or not recorded honestly. Rough notes, sketches, draft reports and text or email messages between officers about the case may also be disclosable, and officers should assume that anything they write about a case may be read by the defense and a judge. Investigators also have a duty to preserve evidence: an item that is lost, destroyed or overwritten before the defense can examine it may lead to a remedy for the accused, especially if the loss resulted from carelessness. In Arizona v. Youngblood (1988), the Supreme Court held that the failure to preserve potentially useful evidence violates due process only if police acted in bad faith, but Ohio and many other states have their own rules, and Ohio Revised Code 2933.82 requires agencies to preserve biological evidence in serious cases. Port Ardent keeps all exhibits from serious cases until the case and any appeal are complete.

Some relevant records are held by people outside the prosecution, such as hospitals, counselors, schools or employers. These are third-party records, and the prosecution does not usually have to disclose them because it does not hold them. The defense can seek them by subpoena, and courts may review sensitive records privately before deciding what the defense may see; records protected by privilege, such as counseling records, have additional protection. Investigators should not gather private records they do not need simply because they can, and they should tell the prosecutor when they know relevant records exist elsewhere.