Prosecutor Misconduct No. 1681326743 - 83510266

David Prater
320 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, #505
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102

Date of Offense

January 8, 2021

Reporting Authority

This complaint has been forwarded to the Oklahoma Bar Association

Statement

Former Oklahoma County District Attorney, David Prater, failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to defense counsel and independent investigators for the Richard Glossip case.

Defense Counsel in the Richard Gossip Case made a written request for discovery on or about January 8, 2021 to then Oklahoma County District Attorney, David Prater. The request was made after DA Prater told defense that he would personally review the file prior to making a decision on whether or not to allow defense access (contrary to Oklahoma's "Open File Policy"). The 2021 letter served as follow up to defense's earlier requests. (See attached 2021 Letter).

District Attorney Prater initially sent a written response declining to turn over any requested materials incorrectly citing enforcement/investigative file privileges and referred us to other governmental agencies. March 10, 2022 Letter from District Attorney David Prater to Reed Smith denying its request for the Glossip case file, declined in its entirety, in part because the District Attorney’s office stated that the records defense and investigators were seeking were available from other agencies, including law enforcement. (See attached 2nd Supplemental Report).

In summer of 2022, DA Prater gave dominion and control of the seven(7) boxes to the then Oklahoma Attorney General, John O'Connor, who also continued to withhold the brady material incorrectly citing a "work product" exemption.

More State Officials connected to the Glossip case, See Also: John O'Connor, Scott PruittJoshua L. LockettJennifer Miller, Jennifer Crabb, Hon. Robert Hudson, Robert H. MacyWes LaneFern L. SmithConnie SmothermonGary AckleyPatricia "Pattye" High

Definition of Offense(s)

Evidence that is favorable to the defendant (exculpatory) and could impact the outcome of the defendant’s case (material) is often called “Brady material” because of the seminal 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland.