John Durham Case Update: Jury Finds Michael Sussmann NOT guilty of lying to the FBI

[meaner gene]

“The Special Counsel waited some eight months after it was aware of the privilege holders’ final position to seek court intervention,” added Cooper, who said that allowing the emails to be used in the trial “would prejudice Mr. Sussmann’s defense,” because his attorneys would need to devote time to reviewing and preparing for the prosecution’s use of them.[/I]

Thanks for further proving what a hack judge this was.

As I said, unlike in Perry Mason or Matlock, courts don't allow "surprise" evidence. Durham waiting too long, and too close to trial to use those e-mails.

I'm sure you would take the opposite view had they done the same to Michael Flynn.

 

[Nostra]

LOL

You moron, nothing in there speaks about evidence discovered after an indictment.

Hey shitferbrains, the Trial is AFTER the indictment.

What a dumbass.

Howsabout you show us where any evidence found after an indictment is automatically not admissible.

GO!

 

[Faun]

No it doesn't. Worst case they could end with a hung jury with ONE holdout.

But the judge refused to allow the key piece of evidence.


DURRRRRR

Holyfuckingshit! You really are too retarded to debate. Imbecile, we're talking about this trial. There was no hung jury. They entire jury unanimously decided to acquit.

 

[Nostra]

As I said, unlike in Perry Mason or Matlock, courts don't allow "surprise" evidence. Durham waiting too long, and too close to trial to use those e-mails.

I'm sure you would take the opposite view had they done the same to Michael Flynn.

A judge can allow evidence at any time. He just needs to give the other party time to review and prepare for it.

 

[meaner gene]

No it doesn't. Worst case they could end with a hung jury with ONE holdout.

But the judge refused to allow the key piece of evidence.


DURRRRRR

Then blame Durham for waiting too long to get that key piece of evidence.

It's no different than when the prosecution made O.J. put on the glove that wouldn't fit.

The prosecution didn't do their job. Live with it.

 

[Faun]

Hey shitferbrains, the Trial is AFTER the indictment.

What a dumbass.

Howsabout you show us where any evidence found after an indictment is automatically not admissible.

GO!

LOL

Retard, the key word is not "trial." It's "discovery."

I didn't merely challenge you to prove evidence can be presented in a trial, I challenged you to prove evidence "discovered" after an indictment can be presented in a trial.

Now g'head, rub your two remaining brain-cells together and see if you can generate enough of a spark to find that proof...

 

[westwall]

Holyfuckingshit! You really are too retarded to debate. Imbecile, we're talking about this trial. There was no hung jury. They entire jury unanimously decided to acquit.

[/wholesale.


Yeah, because the judge refused to allow the key evidence to be presented you fucking twit.

 

[meaner gene]

Hey shitferbrains, the Trial is AFTER the indictment.

What a dumbass.

Howsabout you show us where any evidence found after an indictment is automatically not admissible.

GO!

And the right to a speedy trial, means that in the federal court system it's about 9 months from indictment to trial.
Durham waited 8 months to get additional evidence.

18 U.S. Code § 3161 - Time limits and exclusions

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Nostra]

LOL

Retard, the key word is not "trial." It's "discovery."

I didn't merely challenge you to prove evidence can be presented in a trial, I challenged you to prove evidence "discovered" after an indictment can be presented in a trial.

Now g'head, rub your two remaining brain-cells together and see if you can generate enough of a spark to find that proof...

Still waiting for you to show us where evidence discovered after an indictment is inadmissible automatically.

I have shown you that evidence is admissible AT TRIAL, Dumbass.

 

[Nostra]

And the right to a speedy trial, means that in the federal court system it's about 9 months from indictment to trial.
Durham waited 8 months to get additional evidence.

18 U.S. Code § 3161 - Time limits and exclusions

www.law.cornell.edu

So?

 

[Faun]

Nice post.

 

[berg80]

 

[meaner gene]

A judge can allow evidence at any time. He just needs to give the other party time to review and prepare for it.

You are both right and wrong. The judge could have admitted the evidence, and thus delay the trial in violation of the speedy court act 1974, and been forced to dismiss the indictment,

18 U.S. Code § 3162 - Sanctions

www.law.cornell.edu

(2)If a defendant is not brought to trial within the time limit required by section 3161(c) as extended by section 3161(h), the information or indictment shall be dismissed on motion of the defendant.

 

[Faun]

Still waiting for you to show us where evidence discovered after an indictment is inadmissible automatically.

I have shown you that evidence is admissible AT TRIAL, Dumbass.

Dumbfuck, you weren't asked to show any evidence in general is admissible. I asked for specific evidence, that being evidence discovered after an indictment.

You failed by not answering the question asked.

 

[Nostra]

You are both right and wrong. The judge could have admitted the evidence, and thus delay the trial in violation of the speedy court act 1974, and been forced to dismiss the indictment,

18 U.S. Code § 3162 - Sanctions

www.law.cornell.edu

(2)If a defendant is not brought to trial within the time limit required by section 3161(c) as extended by section 3161(h), the information or indictment shall be dismissed on motion of the defendant.

You are wrong. According to your own timeline the defense would have a full month to review and prepare for the evidence. The judge sets the time allowed for review.

 

[Nostra]

Dumbfuck, you weren't asked to show any evidence in general is admissible. I asked for specific evidence, that being evidence discovered after an indictment.

You failed by not answering the question asked.

I already provided a link proving you are full of shit.

Run along, Sally.

 

[Faun]

You are wrong. According to your own timeline the defense would have a full month to review and prepare for the evidence. The judge sets the time allowed for review.

Have someone explain this to ya...

Special counsel John Durham did not have the text message when the charge was filed in September 2021, flush up against the statute of limitations. Consequently, in March 2022, when he obtained a copy of the text from James Baker (the FBI’s former general counsel who received the text from Sussmann), Durham could not go back to the grand jury to add a new charge or substantially change the indictment.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It appears the good Mr. Durham has milked his worthless appointment (meant to influence politics) for as much money and time as he can. One more pedantic show trial, and into the history books he goes as an excised tumor left over from the most unethical AG and president in modern history.

 

[Faun]

I already provided a link proving you are full of shit.

Run along, Sally.

LOLOL

Sadly, now you're lying as you never even answered my question. You answered a question I didn't ask. Nothing you posted shows evidence discovered after an indictment is admissible.

Tran v. State

If we allow evidence discovered after an indictment has been formed and served on a defendant to cure any prejudicial effect it had created, we defeat the constitutional protection afforded an individual to "ensure that criminal defendants have a fair and adequate opportunity to prepare for and defend against the charges brought against them by the government." Quang Thanh Tran , 962 So. 2d at 1241.​

 

[meaner gene]

You are wrong. According to your own timeline the defense would have a full month to review and prepare for the evidence. The judge sets the time allowed for review.

The judge ruled that he did not consider the time remaining to be sufficient for the defense to review the surprise discovery.

“The Special Counsel waited some eight months after it was aware of the privilege holders’ final position to seek court intervention,” added Cooper, who said that allowing the emails to be used in the trial “would prejudice Mr. Sussmann’s defense,” because his attorneys would need to devote time to reviewing and preparing for the prosecution’s use of them.[/I]