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

[hadit]

That isn't a choice the prosecution gets to make.

You do realize that defending this just proves all you want is show trials, right?

Exactly. "So sorry your client got the electric chair. We just thought the video showing he was shopping at Walmart when the murder happened wasn't exculpatory" (using absurdity to illustrate absurdity).

 

[Marener]

Was he given the database access or just the raw data?

DOJ is part of the executive branch, Tucker got access from Congress.

Ask Carlson and McCarthy.

 

[BlueGin]

That isn't a choice the prosecution gets to make.

You do realize that defending this just proves all you want is show trials, right?

There have been allegations that commission members never even viewed the video footage. They just gave it to staff to view and edit.

 

[Marener]

Obviously they didn’t . Since the lawyer said he had never seen it and then requested it.

How could they not know what was in the video? Chansley was there. The video was of Chansley.

 

[martybegan]

Ask Carlson and McCarthy.

I'm asking you because you made a statement that now I believe you just made up.

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.

 

[Marener]

We just thought the video showing he was shopping at Walmart when the murder happened wasn't exculpatory".

That would be actually exculpatory.

Showing Chansley inside the Capitol isn't exculpatory. We knew he was there. That's the whole point.

It's akin to saying that a murderer covered in blood was polite with the police when they showed up is exculpatory. It's not.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Of course you would say that, you are a supporter of the J6 Show Trials.

It's not about me.

 

[Marener]

I'm asking you because you made a statement that now I believe you just made up.

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.

Suit yourself.

 

[martybegan]

That would be actually exculpatory.

Showing Chansley inside the Capitol isn't exculpatory. We knew he was there. That's the whole point.

It's akin to saying that a murderer covered in blood was polite with the police when they showed up is exculpatory. It's not.

It's exculpatory if the prosecution used a video of him doing one thing, said that's all he did in there, and used it to get him to plea out. It's exculpatory if the judge used presented video of him doing one thing, and made that part of the sentencing time, as if he was only doing that one thing. The video's withheld showed him doing another thing, which was never given to the defense, which could prove he wasnt ALWAYS doing the one thing.


The thing in this case is his interactions with the police and his general demeanor.

 

[Marener]

That isn't a choice the prosecution gets to make.

You do realize that defending this just proves all you want is show trials, right?

It absolutely is a choice the prosecution gets to make. Who else decides what evidence is and isn't turned over to the defendant in response to a Brady motion?

 

[martybegan]

It's not about me.

Bullshit.

 

[BlueGin]

How could they not know what was in the video? Chansley was there. The video was of Chansley.

How would he know he was on surveillance unless he saw the video. Which was kept from them.

 

[martybegan]

It absolutely is a choice the prosecution gets to make. Who else decides what evidence is and isn't turned over to the defendant in response to a Brady motion?

The default is "when it doubt, turn it over"

 

[martybegan]

Suit yourself.

Figures you can't back it up.

 

[SamInAZ]

The guy who wore the indian headdress in the capitol will likely get a new trial......the prosecution withheld video evidence from the defense....

Albert Watkins, whose client Jacob Chansley pleaded guilty to felony charges in connection with the Capitol riot and was sentenced to 41 months in prison, said Department of Justice prosecutors were legally bound to turn over the footage. Clips shown on Carlson’s Fox News Channel program show Chansley walking freely and peaceably through the building, often accompanied by multiple police officers.



“We did not receive that video footage,” Watkins said. “We asked for it, and not just once or twice. Whether we asked for it or not is irrelevant because the government had an absolute, non-compromisible duty to disclose that video and they did not do so.”

“And all the while, they were actively representing to the court and the American people that Jake was a leader, leading the charge into the Capitol,” he said. “They did not disclose that footage because it ran contrary to their rote narrative.”
------
Court filings in Chansley’s case corroborate Watkins’ claim that he repeatedly asked for all videos of his client.

“Our position is that the government must identify any evidence it believes to capture [defendant], regardless of whether it intends to rely on the same in its case in chief,” one said.

‘It’s Appalling’: QAnon Shaman’s Lawyer Says DOJ Lied, Withheld Videos Aired By Carlson | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Another look.....

This is why, perhaps, they refused to share the video with Chansley’s lawyer, which among other things violates his constitutional rights, big time. They are supposed to disclose all such materials in discovery, and failing to is prosecutorial misconduct.
----
Ed noted before we knew this tidbit:



If true, and I believe that it is extremely likely that it is, then the DOJ lawyers involved should be in some serious legal jeopardy. At least if there is a semblance of legal integrity left in the federal government.

I am no lawyer, but what is at issue is something called Brady Disclosure, named after a case where theSupreme Court ruled that the government provide any exculpatory evidence to defendants in criminal cases.

The ruling was necessary, obviously, because prosecutors can be very…enthusiastic…about winning their cases and didn’t always disclose facts that would undermine their cases, leading to people being convicted based upon flawed or incomplete evidence.

DOJ broke the law when prosecuting "Q-Anon Shaman"

hotair.com

I honestly had a gut feeling that Shaman Dude was a fed plant at first. Just seems like the kind of idea that only a leftist millennial computer nerd @ the FBI would come up with.

 

[Marener]

It's exculpatory if the prosecution used a video of him doing one thing, said that's all he did in there, and used it to get him to plea out. It's exculpatory if the judge used presented video of him doing one thing, and made that part of the sentencing time, as if he was only doing that one thing. The video's withheld showed him doing another thing, which was never given to the defense, which could prove he wasnt ALWAYS doing the one thing.

The thing in this case is his interactions with the police and his general demeanor.

That makes absolutely no sense. He had already committed his crime simply by being one of the rioters who broke into the Capitol. The defense noted that Chansley was pleasant with the officers in the Capitol and this was not disputed. It was also not disputed that he did not comply with the officer's orders to leave the building.

The prosecution never claimed he was violent with officers.

Your "if" statements are bizarre and irrelevant.

 

[Marener]

How would he know he was on surveillance unless he saw the video. Which was kept from them.

Unless he's a moron who is unaware that there are cameras in the Capitol, he knew he was on surveillance. But the fact that he was on surveillance is irrelevant to the fact that he knew what any surveillance of him would have shown.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Bullshit.

It better not be, Marty...

You have an itchy trigger finger...

 

[Marener]

The default is "when it doubt, turn it over"

It takes time. They aren't going to turn over 41,000 hours of video to Chansley because the court would not see that as proper. Drowning the defense in nonresponsive material is not okay.

 

[hadit]

That would be actually exculpatory.

Showing Chansley inside the Capitol isn't exculpatory. We knew he was there. That's the whole point.

It's akin to saying that a murderer covered in blood was polite with the police when they showed up is exculpatory. It's not.

It can change the sentence. Judges and juries are ordinary people who can be swayed by a defendant's behavior, both during the incident for which he was arrested and the trial. The prosecution attempts to portray the defendant as the worst possible human being, worthy of the worst possible punishment, while the defense attempts to portray the defendant as the best possible human being worthy of the lightest possible punishment, if not outright being found not guilty. By denying the defense access to ALL the video evidence portraying the defendant's actions and demeanor, they effected the ultimate outcome of the trial.

Either way, it's not up to you or the prosecution to make the decision to withhold it. If there's video showing my actions at a scene, I would want my attorneys to have access to it so they can decide if it would help my case or not. It's not up to the prosecution.