Reply to The Tucker Carlson videos are dropping

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "The Tucker Carlson videos are dropping "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Predictably, the Shaman's defense counsel in fact had the video:

"Prosecutors say that apart from 10 seconds that “implicated an evacuation route,” the rest of the video played by Carlson was released to Pezzola and Chansley by September 24, 2021, and the additional 10 seconds were released to all January 6 defendants on January 23, 2023."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/politics/jacob-chansley-footage-tucker-carlson/index.html

Everyone accusing the prosecution of Brady violations will surely now come apologize.[/quote]

They can say anything they want. They have to prove it.[/quote]

The prosecutors don't have to prove anything.  Dude already pleaded guilty.[/quote]

Learn something please:

“ If the government possessed these tapes and did not share them with Chansley or similarly situated defendants, it risks running afoul of Brady. The Supreme Court found in 1963 that a prosecutor’s suppression of evidence in a murder case against John Brady — his co-defendant had confessed to the crime — amounted to a violation of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

The 7-to-2 opinion penned by Justice William Douglas held that the “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”

Mr. Silverglate explains that it does not matter whether the prosecuting attorney who handled Chansley’s case was himself in possession of the footage. The very fact that the tapes were held by the government imposes a duty to bring “Brady evidence” to the court and the accused as soon as any member of the government became aware of its existence.

To prove a Brady violation, a defendant must convince the court of three things. First, the evidence in question must be exculpatory in some fashion. Second, it has to have been suppressed by the state. It does not matter whether that suppression was willful or inadvertent.

Finally, that suppression must, in the Supreme Court’s parlance, “affect the outcome of the trial” or “undermine confidence in the verdict.” Were a Brady violation found, it could lead to a new trial or dismissal of charges altogether. The burden of disclosure rests on the prosecutor to step forward, not the defendant to ask.

Mr. Silverglate contends that the video at issue in Chansley’s case is  a particularly potent form of “primary evidence.” As he puts it, the “thing about film is that witnesses lie, but film doesn’t lie.” When asked if the suppression of this footage would warrant tossing Chansley’s conviction, he replied with one word: “Yes.”[/quote]

Now you can learn something.  Brady doesn't apply to guilty pleas.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics