The Denver Sheriff’s Department has failed to identify its law-enforcement personnel with past criminal convictions or discipline cases so severe that their testimony might be suspect during a criminal trial, a deficiency city officials are moving to rectify.

Denver officials announced on Tuesday afternoon reforms similar to those put in place at the Denver Police Department in 2008.

The changes will allow defense lawyers to eventually receive alerts when a sheriff’s department employee with significant past discipline issues or criminal convictions is listed as a witness in a criminal trial.

The city also plans to review any past criminal trials with testimony from sheriff’s employees to determine if those cases were tainted by undisclosed past criminal convictions or relevant discipline.

“We believe that there is going to be somewhere between 40 and 70 former and current deputies that this could affect,” said Troy Riggs, Denver’s public safety director, acknowledging that the number could change with further investigation.

Because sheriff’s deputies in Denver don’t have the power to patrol the streets like Denver police do, the number of cases that will be impacted is likely slight. Sheriff’s personnel don’t have investigative powers like Denver police, and therefore they likely would only be called to testify during criminal proceedings in cases of wrongdoing in the city’s jail system or in a use of force case that triggered criminal charges.

Still, just one case could have dramatic impact. The lack of identifying for defense lawyers any sheriff personnel with credibility problems puts the city out of compliance with the requirements of a 1963 court case, Brady vs. Maryland. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors are required to divulge evidence favorable to a criminal defendant.

The Gazette could not immediately identify any criminal cases that would be impacted by the overhaul.

Current sheriff’s employees also likely will be required to undergo a criminal background check to ensure they haven’t been convicted of criminal charges that have gone undetected by city administrators, according to a city official familiar with the reforms who briefed The Gazette.

The lack of a system to identify personnel with witness credibility issues surfaced when the city moved to create a new public integrity division. That new division, headed by former Arapahoe County Sheriff David Walcher and lodged in the Denver Safety Department, now is in charge of conducting internal affairs investigations in the sheriff’s department.

Riggs said Walcher will be given “total authority” to review all aspects of those investigations that touch Brady disclosure requirements. Those investigations, Walcher said, number in the thousands.

“My sole role is to look back and establish who should be on a Brady list to be sent to the City Attorney’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office,” Walcher said. “It’ll be up to them ultimately to determine what, if any, impact there is.”

Two recent cases prompted concerns that resulted in safety officials realizing in September that changes were needed.

In one, a sheriff’s employee failed to notify officials of criminal charges in another jurisdiction, according to a city official.

In another, a recently retired sheriff’s employee applied for a permit to carry a concealed gun. The city’s review of the application revealed the retired employee had been convicted of a domestic violence charge decades ago. That conviction would have made it illegal for the employee to carry a service firearm but the employee had been allowed to do so while working in the sheriff’s department.

In 2014, The Denver Post reported that sheriff’s department officials said they conduct criminal background checks every year to determine whether employees were convicted of breaking the law, but at that time the city acknowledged those background checks weren’t part of the department’s formal policies. Sheriff’s employees are required to tell the city when they are charged criminally.

The city recognized in 2008 that it needed to put in place a system that would alert defense lawyers when police officers with credibility problems were listed as witnesses in criminal cases but neglected to expand that system to sheriff’s personnel.

Denver prosecutors maintain what is commonly referred to as the “asterisk list” for Denver police officers who have committed violations, such as lying while under oath, breaking the law, accepting bribes or making false reports.

Now, Denver sheriff’s employees with similar violations will be placed on that list as well. Anytime one of those sheriff’s employees is listed as a witness for a criminal trial, defense lawyers will receive a notification.

The defense lawyers then can use those notifications to ask a judge to make available any evidence about the criminal conviction or discipline finding against the officer. That information, if released by the judge, can then be used by the defense lawyer to call into question the credibility of the officer’s testimony.

Riggs said he “fully expects” other issues to arise in the review process, but said the public safety department will be forthcoming with its findings and stands “determined” to fix them.

The review is expected to be completed by the first quarter of 2020.