This FOIA record contains a May 16, 2025 email from Kate Harrell to Mikayla LeRette, Robert Powell, and Richard Gondik. The subject is “Re: Brady Consideration.” The email discusses whether Douglas County District Attorney Mark Fruehauf had made a Brady or Giglio determination about LeRette.
The thread follows LeRette’s May 15, 2025 message. She asked for clarity about what the district attorney needed before clearing her of any Brady witness concern. She referenced an internal report, a rebuttal report, and a written warning from the mayor. She also questioned whether similar time-entry conduct by others would receive the same scrutiny.
People and Agencies Involved
The main people named in the record are Mikayla LeRette, Kate Harrell, Robert Powell, Richard Gondik, and District Attorney Mark Fruehauf. The email also references the City Attorney, Human Resources, the mayor, and a California organization retained by the City.
Harrell reported that she spoke with Fruehauf on May 16, 2025. According to her email, Fruehauf called the matter “complicated.” He had not made a final Brady determination. His office had told defense counsel that there “may” be a Brady or Giglio issue involving LeRette.
Internal Investigation Questions
The email raises a serious government accountability issue. LeRette’s rebuttal reportedly raised questions about the integrity of the internal investigation. Fruehauf did not view those issues as his responsibility to resolve. He instead placed that duty with the City Attorney and Human Resources.
Harrell wrote that Fruehauf had asked those city officials to address the concerns. She also wrote that nothing had been done to date. That detail matters. A public employee’s credibility status can affect criminal cases, careers, and public trust. Delayed review leaves both the employee and taxpayers in uncertainty.
Follow-Up and Outcome
The email states that LeRette was not considered a Brady cop at that time. But Fruehauf still considered his review ongoing. The result could depend on whether the California organization examined the investigation and LeRette’s claims.
Harrell also wrote that the mayor’s letter had done LeRette “a disservice.” The thread ends without final closure. It leaves the Brady question unresolved, while pointing back to city officials who had not yet addressed the disputed internal investigation.
FEDERAL COURT – Brady Status Email – LeRette Case
This FOIA record contains a May 16, 2025 email from Kate Harrell to Mikayla LeRette, Robert Powell, and Richard Gondik. The subject is “Re: Brady Consideration.” The email discusses whether Douglas County District Attorney Mark Fruehauf had made a Brady or Giglio determination about LeRette. The thread follows LeRette’s May 15, 2025 message. She asked for clarity about what the district attorney needed before clearing
SPD Decoder Ring: Leadership Swaps That Lawyers Love
Federal Court Is a Soap Opera With Footnotes You know what never lies?A calendar. Federal court cases love two things: dates and who had authority on those dates. So here’s your Superior PD Promotion & Retirement Decoder Ring—built for anyone tired of “We take this seriously” while your tax bill quietly weeps. How to Use This Ring When a complaint says any of this, grab the
FEDERAL COURT : LeRette Duty Return – DA Fruehauf Warning
Email Shows Officer LeRette Returned To Duty This email thread dates from November 18–19, 2024. It centers on Officer LeRette’s return from administrative leave. Douglas County District Attorney Mark Fruehauf asked City of Superior officials for an update on the internal process involving LeRette. He wrote that he had heard she was restored to active duty. He also stated his understanding that the internal process
FEDERAL COURT – Superior’s 50k OIR Report Clears Pope in LeRette Claims ?
OIR Group report reveals misconduct claims against Superior PD’s Michelle Pope, detailing allegations of discrimination and investigative findings.
FEDERAL COURT – Union Letter Accuses City of Blocking Grievance
Union disputes city grievance handling, demanding timely responses and accountability in a labor dispute. Taxpayer interests at stake.
