Right. My point was that it is not correct to say “DA’s have a list”, when, per the article, “many” refused to disclose the names or even number of cops on their list. So, just to be clear, some DA’s/CA’s do not have any list at all. None. There is no list and it is intentional that they do not have one. A few prosecutors will know about a “bad Apple” and not take cases from them…for a while…time goes on with some turnover in the office and all of the sudden, that cop’s history is forgotten and then it’s like nothing ever happened. So, to say that some choose not to use the list isn’t totally accurate, since some do not have a list at all. * I haven’t even begun to discuss how trial court judges bend over backwards in A LOT of jurisdictions to keep “bad stuff” about cops from coming into evidence at trial. For example, I can not count how many times I’ve seen trials where a cop’s disciplinary history related to false reports is excluded from evidence completely.