Qanon shaman...likely to get a new trial considering the government withheld video evidence from the defense....

[Marener]

It's the "fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine"

C'mon, man. That's a reference to evidence obtained by illegal or improper search warrants. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Merely wanting something is not justification to getting it.

Brady v Maryland demands that anything potentially exculpatory be turned over. If it's not potentially exculpatory, it doesn't have to be turned over.

Except the defense requested ALL video and other evidence the prosecution had of him. That's the Brady violation, not whether or not the video was exculpatory.

 

[Marener]

Except the defense requested ALL video and other evidence the prosecution had of him. That's the Brady violation, not whether or not the video was exculpatory.

Dude, read Brady v Maryland.

 

[Faun]

Only if his attorneys used it incorrectly. They could have looked at it and decided to not use it. The point is, it should have been their choice.

All he can do is petition the court to withdraw his guilty plea. Should the court grant such a motion, then he can petition the court to dismiss the charges. What he risks then is the court rejects that motion and then the prosecution refiles the other 5 charges against him.

He's currently served about 26 months of his 41 month sentence. He could leave things as they are and finish his sentence. Or he could seek to withdraw his plea and roll the dice... get out now or face decades in prison.

I think he might be able to petition the court to simply reduce his sentence if he can show prosecutors withheld evidence, letting him out early. If he can, that might be his best strategy.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Not necessarily all evidence. But the Brady rule requires that the government turn over all exculpatory evidence. The meat of the discussion is going to be whether the evidence was exculpatory. (There are other tests, but that is the heart of it. Plus, the defendant’s attorney certainly specifically requested all videos.)

If the prosecution thought it wasn't exculpatory, the correct move would be to have the judge review it in camera and rule on a motion by the prosecution to exclude the video. Not to completely hide the requested evidence from not only the defense, but the court as well. The prosecution doesn't get to decide what evidence will be produced in court. That's the judge's job.

 

[Faun]

And I'm sure that's why they came down so heavy on him.

We all know the only crimes the left cares about anymore are political "crimes"

By political crimes, you mean storming the Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power?

 

[Faun]

Because it is, fucktard.

If it was, you'd be able to answer such a simple question. Yet you can't...

Chansley was convicted because he was illegally inside the Capitol. How is more video of him being inside the Capitol, exculpatory?

 

[Zincwarrior]

No it isn't. The prosecution has to turn over all it's evidence, what is the process called?

Discovery in Criminal Cases

Discovery is commonly thought of in terms of civil discovery which is an involved process involving witness testimony etc etc.

 

[22lcidw]

We are getting to the point where if there are movies made with a foreign nation attacking D.C. people will be rooting for the foreign powers.

 

[Faun]

I don't have to prove it, and of course the feds are going to ignore all this.

OMG I HAVE AN OPINION FAUN DOESN'T LIKE!!! GET OUT THE VASILINE AND THE CROWBARS TO GET HIS EGO THROUGH THE DOOR!!!!!

Thanks for admitting you made it all up.

 

[Care4all]

The plea will be vacated. The judge has no choice but to do so. The now provable Brady violations are sufficient cause to do so.

He plead guilty to one charge, of trying to obstruct an official government action..... That was his plea, down to 1 charge.

 

[Zincwarrior]

C'mon, man. That's a reference to evidence obtained by illegal or improper search warrants. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Further, again the evidence has to be related. The defense probably didn't get video from a nearby car dealership either.

But please go ahead and belief this is the hot ticket to freedom. When its not you can say the judges and DOJ are corrupt some more.

 

[Faun]

No it isn't. The prosecution has to turn over all it's evidence, what is the process called?

Discovery in Criminal Cases

LOL

Your own link sinks you.

Prosecutors must disclose known material exculpatory evidence to the defendant. Exculpatory evidence is that which tends to show that the defendant is not guilty.​

Video of Chansley breaking the law isn't exculpatory.

 

[AZrailwhale]

They were aware that he was friendly with officers, but he didn’t comply with their commands.

They never testified that they commanded him to not enter or to leave. Given their demeanor in the video, their testimony might have been just the opposite.

 

[Faun]

If the prosecution thought it wasn't exculpatory, the correct move would be to have the judge review it in camera and rule on a motion by the prosecution to exclude the video. Not to completely hide the requested evidence from not only the defense, but the court as well. The prosecution doesn't get to decide what evidence will be produced in court. That's the judge's job.

We also still don't know for certain that the prosecution withheld that evidence.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Do you know what he was charged with?

It doesn't matter what he was charged with. The defense has an absolute right to access and review ALL the prosecution's evidence.

 

[AZrailwhale]

C'mon, man. That's a reference to evidence obtained by illegal or improper search warrants. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

No it's improper conduct by LEOs or the prosecution. Usually it's applied to searches, but it applies to Brady violations as well.

 

[Marener]

They never testified that they commanded him to not enter or to leave. Given their demeanor in the video, their testimony might have been just the opposite.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1430996/download

Respectfully, I don't think you know much about this case.

 

[AZrailwhale]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1430996/download

Respectfully, I don't think you know much about this case.

None of that is testimony. It's the plea deal he agreed to.

 

[Faun]

They never testified that they commanded him to not enter or to leave. Given their demeanor in the video, their testimony might have been just the opposite.

There's video...