Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one is able to explain how it could be used to argue for a lesser charge. Chansley committed his crime as soon as he flooded into the Capitol doors that the rioters broke down. His behavior after that crime is irrelevant.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.
We are not his defense attorneys, and you are not either. Whether they could use the video or not should have been THEIR call, not the prosecution's. The point is, they withheld video showing the defendant's actions at the scene during the incident, and the defense should have had it.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.
You blathering on to take up space doesn’t mean the video is not exculpatory.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.
Judges and juries are ordinary people and can be swayed by video evidence. The point is, his attorneys were denied access to evidence that COULD have been used to get a more favorable outcome for their client. Instead of plea bargaining, maybe they would have gone to trial. Who knows? The point is, they were denied access to it, even after requesting it multiple times.No one is able to explain how it could be used to argue for a lesser charge. Chansley committed his crime as soon as he flooded into the Capitol doors that the rioters broke down. His behavior after that crime is irrelevant.
Merely wanting something is not justification to getting it.We are not his defense attorneys, and you are not either. Whether they could use the video or not should have been THEIR call, not the prosecution's. The point is, they withheld video showing the defendant's actions at the scene during the incident, and the defense should have had it.
I've explained numerous times why it's not exculpatory. If someone has a counter argument, I've not heard it.You blathering on to take up space doesn’t mean the video is not exculpatory.
Video showing the defendant's actions at the scene of the incident is potentially exculpatory. It's up to the defense if they want to use it as part of their defense strategy.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.
How would this video have swayed anyone?Judges and juries are ordinary people and can be swayed by video evidence. The point is, his attorneys were denied access to evidence that COULD have been used to get a more favorable outcome for their client. Instead of plea bargaining, maybe they would have gone to trial. Who knows? The point is, they were denied access to it, even after requesting it multiple times.
I'm not talking about this in general terms. I'm asking how THIS video is potentially exculpatory.Video showing the defendant's actions at the scene of the incident is potentially exculpatory.
You're not one of his defense attorneys and you were not present when they were planning their strategy. We will never know if they would have done something different if they had it, but the prosecution denied it.I've explained numerous times why it's not exculpatory. If someone has a counter argument, I've not heard it.
If the defense wants to argue that this video was potentially exculpatory, they have to explain how it was potentially exculpatory to a judge. They don't get anything just because they want it. They have to explain why they are entitled to it.You're not one of his defense attorneys and you were not present when they were planning their strategy. We will never know if they would have done something different if they had it, but the prosecution denied it.
Judges and juries are ordinary people. If the defense had the video, they MAY have decided it would have an impact and they MAY have decided to go to trial, or they MAY have fought for a better plea deal. That's the point, they were denied access.How would this video have swayed anyone?
You'll have to excuse Marener.You're not one of his defense attorneys and you were not present when they were planning their strategy. We will never know if they would have done something different if they had it, but the prosecution denied it.
The prosecution deliberately withheld evidence showing his actions at the scene.His actions at the scene were known.
I think my next question will be where he got his law degree from.You'll have to excuse Marener.
He knows everything about everything.
Judges are not ordinary people. They need to have a reason before they accept your assertion.Judges and juries are ordinary people. If the defense had the video, they MAY have decided it would have an impact and they MAY have decided to go to trial, or they MAY have fought for a better plea deal. That's the point, they were denied access.
I'm not the defense attorney and neither are you.I'm not talking about this in general terms. I'm asking how THIS video is potentially exculpatory.
And did the government have a deadline for providing this video?The prosecution deliberately withheld evidence showing his actions at the scene.
“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.”
I'm not the defense attorney. They requested the evidence and were denied it. They would make the case, not me. I'm saying they should have had the choice because there was NO GOOD REASON to withhold it.Judges are not ordinary people. They need to have a reason before they accept your assertion.
So again, "how"?
No, but I have eyes and logic with which to make an opinion.I'm not the defense attorney and neither are you.
