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

[hadit]

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.

They wouldn't have to. This videos in question showed the defendant's actions at the scene. His attorneys should have had it and THEY decide whether to use it or not.

 

[hadit]

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.

Video is more powerful than verbally spoken testimony. His attorneys should have had the video and THEY decide whether to use it or not. Most likely, they would have used it to influence the sentence.

 

[hadit]

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?

What we're talking about right now is why more rather than less should be turned over. Trials can get tossed out and prosecutor's careers ruined because of things like this.

 

[hadit]

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.

Exactly. It should have been up to the defense to decide if the video helped his case or not.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Having video would have maybe made the defense fight for a lesser charge.

That's why you don't fucking hide exculpatory evidence, it taints the whole process.

 

[Marener]

What we're talking about right now is why more rather than less should be turned over. Trials can get tossed out and prosecutor's careers ruined because of things like this.

Not because of things like this.

For starters, it never went to trial. Second, the video is not exculpatory. Third, the videos do not show anything the defendant was unaware of.

 

[martybegan]

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.

And yet a TV show with a few dozen production assistants found it in less than two weeks.

 

[martybegan]

It better not be, Marty...

You have an itchy trigger finger...

And you have a fetish for Show trials, much like Stalin.

 

[Marener]

Having video would have maybe made the defense fight for a lesser charge.

That's why you don't fucking hide exculpatory evidence, it taints the whole process.

How would this video have affected the charge? He pled guilty to 1512(c)(2). The charge is supported by the fact that he was there in the first place.

The video PROVES the charge, genius.

 

[hadit]

Having video would have maybe made the defense fight for a lesser charge.

That's why you don't fucking hide exculpatory evidence, it taints the whole process.

There's a difference between an officer saying, "he wasn't violent with us", and a video showing them smiling and chatting together peacefully. Letting the judge and jury see their body language is more powerful than a simple statement. Again, it should be up to the defense to decide if they want to use it.

 

[martybegan]

Not because of things like this.

For starters, it never went to trial. Second, the video is not exculpatory. Third, the videos do not show anything the defendant was unaware of.

All this bullshit justification for railroading someone.

You are a fucking statist cum bucket.

 

[hadit]

How would this video have affected the charge? He pled guilty to 1512(c)(2). The charge is supported by the fact that he was there in the first place.

The video PROVES the charge, genius.

They might have fought for a lesser charge and the prosecution could have been more agreeable to a lesser charge. THAT'S the point. The evidence could have had an impact on the outcome.

 

[Marener]

They wouldn't have to. This videos in question showed the defendant's actions at the scene. His attorneys should have had it and THEY decide whether to use it or not.

His actions at the scene were known.

 

[BlueGin]

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.

So did the prosecutors. Which is why they didn’t disclose it

 

[martybegan]

How would this video have affected the charge? He pled guilty to 1512(c)(2). The charge is supported by the fact that he was there in the first place.

The video PROVES the charge, genius.

He plead out to that, to save from being charged for something far worse.

The video is exculpatory towards the whole process of the plea bargain.

 

[Marener]

All this bullshit justification for railroading someone.

You are a fucking statist cum bucket.

This isn't justification, these are facts.

The video isn't exculpatory and none of you morons can explain how it is. You are just mindlessly dedicated to your bullshit narrative.

 

[hadit]

Not because of things like this.

For starters, it never went to trial. Second, the video is not exculpatory. Third, the videos do not show anything the defendant was unaware of.

You keep saying it isn't exculpatory, yet you are not one of the defense attorneys who may have been able to use that video to argue for a lesser charge. That's the point, you simply DON'T want the video used, because your bias is to see him punished as severely as possible.

 

[Marener]

The video is exculpatory towards the whole process of the plea bargain.

Saying it's exculpatory doesn't make it exculpatory.

The fact is that Chansley was one of the first people to flood into the Capitol as the doors were broken down. He did it to disrupt the Congressional proceedings.

These are facts. The video doesn't change that.

 

[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.

If Brady was broken as suggested, then he will get another shot.... He can go to trial or plead guilty again.....?

 

[The5thHorseman]

And you have a fetish for Show trials, much like Stalin.

It's not about me, Marty.