LoginAlready flagged for integrity concerns, a Milwaukee police officer lied under oath – and kept patrolling
Wearing his Milwaukee police uniform, Gregory Carson Jr. stepped into the witness stand, raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth.
Two years earlier, a man had been shot in an alley. His girlfriend said police pressured her to allow a search of the duplex as she held her infant. That search had turned up five guns, and now her boyfriend faced a federal charge.
On the stand that afternoon, a public defender asked Carson if he recalled making inappropriate statements to the girlfriend. Commenting on seeing her underwear on the floor? Reaching out to her hours later? Texting her?
Carson’s answer under oath to each question was the same.
No.
A few witnesses later, the girlfriend swore to tell the truth and read screenshots of text messages she had received.
Hey, it’s me. Honestly it was seeing your thong on the floor that had me like damn lol.
The woman replied to ask who was contacting her. She read the response in court: Hey it’s Carson from yesterday and I understand.
The officer had been caught in a lie.
At the time, Carson already was on the Milwaukee County district attorney’s list of officers with a history of credibility, integrity or bias concerns, commonly referred to as a “Brady/Giglio” list.
He also was under internal investigation for those same text messages. None of that was known to the defense attorney who questioned him.
After that court hearing, Carson remained on the Milwaukee Police Department payroll for more than two years. In that period, he came under internal investigation three more times.
His nine-year career illustrates the risk of keeping such officers on the force and interacting with the public after their credibility and integrity have come under question. At least a dozen officers, including Carson, kept their jobs after landing on the Brady list, then ended up on the list again for another incident, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch found.
Reached in April, Carson declined an interview request.
Police Chief Jeffrey Norman said Carson faced several allegations that overlapped in time and that the officer had due process and collective bargaining rights. Internal investigations can take months or even years to complete, the chief added.
“But we still have to remember, just as a court case, you are innocent until proven guilty,” Norman said in an interview in January.
Officers’ rights are important, but so is protecting public trust, said Justin Nix, associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha.
“Officers can arrest us, they can use force on us, and along with that comes a lot of responsibility to uphold certain values and to be honest,” Nix said in June.
“When officers fail to meet those standards, in my mind, it’s unacceptable.”
Officer lands on Brady list after domestic violence arrest but keeps his job
Carson wanted a long career with the Milwaukee Police Department.
He started as a police aide.
He had relatives who were cops and he wanted to make a difference in his community, “busting down drug houses, getting guns off the streets,” he wrote to a supervisor in 2015.
“I am striving for success, and 25 years plus on the job,” he added.
He became a sworn officer in 2018. Two years later, his own department arrested him on a domestic violence allegation.
A woman had called for help, saying she wanted Carson to leave their shared residence. She had confronted him over infidelity suspicions, and then he held her against the couch and bit her cheek, she said.
Police separated the two. Officer Roy Caul asked the woman about domestic violence incidents that had occurred at any time, not just that night in 2020.
“Just because he’s a cop doesn’t mean that he’s free to do this to you,” Caul said, according to transcripts from body camera footage.
The woman said she just wanted Carson out of the house.
The officer asked if anything occurred that night or within the last 28 days to cause her pain or make her fear for her safety. The woman replied no.
Officers arrested Carson, already in uniform for his next shift, and took him to the training academy for further questioning. He denied hurting the woman.
The department referred the case to the district attorney’s office. Assistant District Attorney Nicolas Heitman declined to charge Carson. In a recent email to the Journal Sentinel, Heitman said the office did not feel it could meet the burden of proof with the available evidence.
Three months later, the woman told Internal Affairs she had not feared for her safety. Carson told Internal Affairs nothing physical happened.
“I feel that I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said, according to department records.
Norman, the chief, disagreed and gave Carson a three-day suspension.
The arrest resulted in the district attorney’s office placing Carson on its list of officers with credibility or integrity issues, often called a “Brady/Giglio” list, named after two landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
These lists are maintained to help prosecutors fulfill their legal obligations to share information favorable to the defense. Often, criminal cases come down to the word of an officer against a defendant. Judges and juries must weigh the credibility of both.
With Carson’s name added to the list, prosecutors would need to disclose his criminal referral and integrity violation to defense attorneys if he appeared on their witness list.
Then it would be up to a defense attorney, and later a judge, to determine if it was relevant to bring up in court.
Carson kept his job, his badge and his ability to testify.
Wisconsin does not have statewide standards for Brady lists, leaving it to each county to track material
Until recently, the county’s full Brady list was kept secret.
After months of pressure from media organizations, the district attorney’s office released the entire list last September. It was inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch found.
As a result of reporters’ questions, District Attorney Kent Lovern removed officers and added others. His office released a corrected and updated list of nearly 200 officers in February, which was published by the Journal Sentinel and media partners.
Who gets on a list – and whether counties even have a list – varies widely in Wisconsin, where there are no statewide standards. Officers can testify in multiple counties or in federal court, depending on the case and where an investigation leads.
Federal prosecutors, however, have standardized U.S. Department of Justice guidelines. Prosecutors are supposed to ask law enforcement witnesses directly about potential Brady material and check with officers’ home agencies.
“This process is designed to identify information that is even broader in scope than what is legally required and what might trigger being on a list in another jurisdiction,” said Kenneth Gales, a spokesman with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Milwaukee, in an email.
Gales maintained the office followed all proper procedures prior to Carson’s testimony in the federal hearing.
Even if a formal list is not shared by prosecutors, state and federal public defenders in eastern Wisconsin often exchange information between their offices about the credibility of law enforcement witnesses.
Criminal defense attorneys in Wisconsin say inconsistencies in disclosing Brady material can lead to injustice and wrongful convictions.
Such information is crucial for an effective defense, said Bridget Krause, trial division director for the State Public Defender’s Office.
“Our clients have liberty at stake,” she said.
In shooting case, a witness says officer made inappropriate comments in person and through texts
In late 2021, the Milwaukee Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division received a letter from a prisoner at Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution.
In it, a man accused officers of illegally searching his house during a shooting investigation.
It was the call involving Carson.
Internal Affairs opened an investigation and notified Carson, saying he was accused of taking part in an illegal search and failing to activate his body camera.
A third allegation read that “while on scene, you made inappropriate comments to a female citizen as well as sending her an inappropriate text message,” according to paperwork served on Carson on March 1, 2022.
Seven days later at the court hearing, Carson denied knowing anything about the texts.
He also defended his decision to turn off his body camera, saying he had switched off the device to speak with other officers, who did the same. No one recorded the conversation detectives had with the woman about searching the home.
“My role in the investigation was over once the detectives were on scene inside the residence,” Carson said, according to a court transcript.
When the man’s girlfriend testified, she said she felt pressured to allow the search after an officer mentioned child welfare. She feared her baby would be taken away. She also said that Carson had flirted with her in the house.
When the prosecutor asked her to elaborate, she quoted Carson as saying: “Oh, you might as well kiss your man goodbye, because you ain’t never going to see him again.”
She also remembered this comment: “I’m going to come back and see you later, okay? You going to let me in? It’s just going to be me and you.”
As the hearing closed, Joshua Uller, a federal public defender, sharpened his argument that officers had acted improperly and their search was not lawful.
Carson and others violated department policy when they didn’t record their interaction with the woman as she signed the consent form. They treated a shooting victim as a suspect without evidence to do so, and Carson had acted completely inappropriately, he said.
“Turning a woman with a newborn child whose boyfriend was just taken away in an ambulance into a romantic objective is really beyond the pale,” Uller said, according to a transcript.
Later that month, Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries issued his report and recommendation. Though he chided officers for failing to record the woman signing the form, he concluded they had properly gotten her consent and the search was legal.
Carson’s testimony on the text messages, he said, was not credible.
Officer, already on the Brady list, tries to dissuade a woman from filing a complaint against another officer
Two days after the hearing, an internal investigator questioned Carson about the text messages.
He admitted to sending them, contradicting his testimony.
He said he had a “weakness” and had contacted the woman in “romantic pursuit,” department records say.
“In no way shape or form did I ever intend to be inappropriate or disrespect her in that manner,” he said, according to the records. “It was honestly me trying to shoot my shot and that was it.”
He denied making inappropriate comments to her in person and denied using his position as a police officer as an advantage. He said he regretted it and had learned a lesson.
He never mentioned his false testimony. At this point, federal prosecutors had not notified the police department of any concerns.
About three months after that interview, Carson had another troubling interaction with a woman he met on duty when she and her ex-boyfriend walked into District 7 on the city’s north side.
The former couple had a heated property dispute. The woman also said the man had intentionally hit her head while closing a car door. The man said it was an accident.
Carson was one of four officers dealing with the situation.
The woman grew frustrated with an officer who implied she was lying about the car door injury and refused to write a report about the incident. Police cited the man for battery.
Hours later, the woman received a call from a blocked number.
It was Carson.
He explained who he was and said he was off-duty. He pleaded with her not to file a complaint against his co-worker who had implied she was lying, according to police records. All of the officers involved were “good guys” who could only do so much, she remembered him saying.
She also recalled Carson saying that he hoped she would leave her ex-boyfriend alone because he did not want the ex “popping up at her house” while Carson was there, which she believed to be a flirtatious comment.
The next day, she filed two complaints at District 7: one against the officer who implied she lied and one against Carson.
In a recent interview with the Journal Sentinel, the woman called the actions of the officers that day “extremely disheartening.”
“When you’re going through one of the toughest times of your life, the last thing you should have to deal with is them approaching you in a sexual manner or accusing you of lying when you’re literally crying out for help,” said the woman, who asked not to be named publicly for privacy and safety reasons.
Internal Affairs classified her complaint against Carson as potential misconduct in office and assigned a detective to investigate.
A federal prosecutor tells the Milwaukee Police Department an officer gave false testimony in court
That summer, the federal case involving the shooting victim and Carson’s texts continued.
The defense attorney asked another judge to weigh in on the legality of the search.
As prosecutors prepared for another hearing in July 2022, Assistant U.S. Attorney Megan Paulson reached out to Carson about his prior testimony.
She then wrote a memo summarizing their conversation, in which she said Carson admitted to sending the texts and not being truthful in his testimony, adding: “I’m human and I’m attracted to women.”
On July 6, 2022, Assistant U.S. Attorney Tim Funnell emailed Internal Affairs with concerns about Carson’s credibility. He followed up the next day with a transcript from the March hearing, the earlier judge’s report and the defense motion for a second evidentiary hearing.
Asked about the case and the length of time it took the U.S. Attorney’s Office to contact Milwaukee police, a spokesman for the office said prosecutors acted appropriately.
“The United States also timely satisfied all legal disclosure obligations to the Court and to the defense in the matter you have referenced,” Gales said in an email.
Carson was on the county’s Brady list of officers with credibility issues — he had been since 2021 — but Uller, the federal public defender, said he had never seen the county’s Brady list until the Journal Sentinel and other media partners published it in February.
“While I cannot comment on this particular case, I am not aware of any instance in which, prior to the publication of this list, a lawyer in our office was notified of an officer’s inclusion in this list,” he said.
The Journal Sentinel tried to contact the woman who received the texts but was not successful. Her then-boyfriend charged in the case died in a shooting two years ago.
After hearing from the federal prosecutor in July 2022, Internal Affairs opened an investigation into Carson’s false testimony.
Carson was now the subject of three pending internal investigations, had previously received a three-day suspension and was on the county’s Brady list.
Still, he remained on patrol.
“At the time, it’s an allegation,” Norman, the police chief, said in an interview.
“We have, again, due process,” he added. “And so we need to make sure that there is, you know, the fairness of ensuring that there is credibility to everything, even from a prosecutor.”
A domestic violence victim calls for help, and an officer under internal investigation responds
Bobbie Lou Schoeffling called 911 for help on July 11, 2022.
Over the previous months, Schoeffling or her sister had repeatedly called police to report violence from Schoeffling’s ex-boyfriend, Nicholas Howell. Howell had not been arrested despite the multiple reports, having an open warrant for fleeing and being under the supervision of correctional agents for a past robbery conviction.
That night, Schoeffling called police twice to report threats from Howell. On the second call, she said he had threatened to burn down her house on Hampton Avenue. She had left the area, fearing for her safety, she added.
Carson and his partner were dispatched to the second call. They did not drive to her house. Instead, Carson spoke to her over the phone and failed to activate his body camera to record their conversation.
Carson and his partner — and the two officers who responded earlier that night — did not file any reports or make any arrests.
Schoeffling was found shot to death two weeks later, on July 26.
On Sept. 4, 2022, police leaders finally pulled Carson from patrol, stripped him of his police powers and assigned him to the stolen vehicle desk in the forensics division.
He did not routinely interact with the public in the role, and the job limited him from having to testify, a department spokesperson said in an email to the Journal Sentinel.
As internal investigations conclude, officer faces a suspension, then termination
As Carson sat at his desk job, his discipline piled up.
In February 2023, Norman suspended him for six days for the inappropriate texts and for failing to activate his body camera at the shooting scene.
Two months later, in April, the Journal Sentinel published an investigation into Schoeffling’s death. The article prompted Norman to order a review of every contact she had with the department, including the one involving Carson. The chief later suspended Carson for eight days for how he handled the call.
That same month, Internal Affairs interviewed Carson about the complaint filed by the woman at District 7. That investigation had slowed, in part, because it was difficult to reach the woman for follow-up interviews, records show.
The woman told the Journal Sentinel that she recalled speaking to an investigator once after filing her complaint and said she received several letters from the department.
Carson told the investigator, Sgt. Adam Riley, that when he called the woman, he did not say anything suggestive, only that she was worth more than her ex-boyfriend, according to department records. He acknowledged urging her not to make a complaint.
Riley pointed out the officer appeared to have a “pattern.”
Riley asked about Carson’s court testimony in the earlier case, pointing out he knew about the allegation related to the texts before his testimony. Carson said he thought he was truthful on the stand because he did not remember the text at the time.
Carson also said the federal prosecutor who wrote the memo had “misinterpreted” their conversation. Riley asked if Carson would have done anything differently.
No, he said.
Federal and state prosecutors declined to file criminal charges of perjury or misconduct against Carson.
But the district attorney’s office did add him to the Brady list for a second time — and the false testimony cost him his job.
Norman fired him for lying under oath and for discouraging the woman at District 7 from making a complaint.
Carson’s discharge date was Aug. 28, 2024, three years after he was first placed on the Brady list in the aftermath of his domestic violence arrest.
The woman who filed the complaint against Carson and the other officer at District 7 knew Carson had been fired. Still, she has concerns about how the department investigates misconduct allegations.
“I think it’s not handled appropriately or quickly enough,” she said.
Tia Schoeffling, Bobbie Lou Schoeffling’s sister, called it “ridiculous” that an officer arrested in such a case could then respond to domestic violence victims.
She thought of Carson on desk duty for two years, collecting nearly $80,000 in annual wages while he was the subject of several ongoing internal investigations.
She questioned if it would have taken that long to investigate a regular citizen for similar allegations.
“It’s mind-blowing that he was even allowed to respond to her call,” she said.
This story is part of Duty to Disclose, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch. The Fund for Investigative Journalism provided financial support for this project.
Already flagged for integrity concerns, a Milwaukee police officer lied under oath – and kept patrolling is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
