to stop screwing around and start providing that 'possibly exculpatory evidence', or at least forced to tell the judge what's on some of it.
But Griffin’s case was far from over. In fact, his prosecution has dragged on for nearly seven months, and just this week, in a court filing seeking permission to extend it even longer, federal prosecutors made a breathtaking admission.
After explaining that the government possesses “[t]housands of hours” of video footage from a variety of sources, they conceded these materials include recordings of Capitol Police Officers allowing protesters to enter the so-called “restricted” area into which Griffin is alleged to have trespassed. The prosecutors stated:
“[W]e are not in a position to turn over the universe of information we possess for Defendant to review. Although we are aware that we possess some information that the defense may view as supportive of arguments that law enforcement authorized defendants (including Defendant) to enter the restricted grounds, e.g., images of officers hugging or fist-bumping rioters, posing for photos with rioters, and moving bike racks, we are not in a position to state whether we have identified all such information” (emphasis is mine).
...
At the bail hearing, Chief Judge Howell presaged this issue, stating:
“The charge under 18 U.S.C. 1752(a)(1) with which Mr. Griffin is charged, you know, does require more than simply having – simply presenting proof of the fact that Mr. Griffin jumped over some fences or barriers, you know, to get onto the Capitol grounds …. that fact alone doesn’t constitute a crime under Section 1752(a)(1) …. In addition to breaching barriers of a restricted space, the Government also has to prove that the defendant knowingly entered this restricted building without lawful authority” (emphasis is mine).
This week’s revelation by federal prosecutors that Capitol Police Officers either explicitly or implicitly authorized protesters to enter the very portions of the Capitol grounds that those protesters are now being charged with trespassing onto guts the government’s case.
And, I would think, if the prosecutors lied('misstated' in "Please to suggest we be disbarred!" fedspeak) in the charging documents, that would expose them to charges themselves. Assuming the Do'J' were honest.
4 comments:
I would say, they need to hand over everything. Otherwise, it should all be inadmissible in court. Every lawyer representing the defendants should be pursuing that.
W]e are not in a position to turn over the universe of information we possess for Defendant to review.
You might not Want to, but both sides have a right to ALL the evidence.
Your last sentence says it all. And that assumption would be mistaken.
Apparently the Do'J' is trying real hard to get people to take a plea bargain so their case won't go to court, because they really don't want the lawyer pointing out what's in the article. Because one person wins, most of their cases fall apart, and they'll look like the biased bastards they are.
Which would be the best thing that could happen. And I wonder if someone could then go after the prosecutors for prosecuting them and not the leftists?
Post a Comment