BREAKING! Obama Judge Chutkan Denies Trump Discovery Request to Subpoena Jan 6 Committee Members and Material That WENT MISSING

[CowboyTed]

Only if you believe that a defendant must prove their innocence

Defendant can't call anyone he likes to the stand, they have to show they have first hand knowledge of the case... Jan 6th Committee don't have that...
Tump's legal team have failed to show that and thus get shut down... This is a Trump legal team failure, get angry at them.

 

[DBA]

Defendant can't call anyone he likes to the stand, they have to show they have first hand knowledge of the case

Again, patently false.

 

[CowboyTed]

They investigated the incident. A forensic expert examines a crime scene and his/her testimony is most certainly admissible in court for exactly the same reason. Members of the committee presumably have information that was not made public regarding the incident, otherwise, you are admitting that it was nothing but a political stunt by the Democrats.

Explain who in the Jan 6th is a forensic expert? They talked to forensic experts but nothing what was said they could testify about, it would be all hear say.
The Jan 6th might have or not but the defence can't go on a fishing expedition... Jack Smith released the evidence he gathered on the case bith good and bad... They have his discovery, that is what Trump is getting charged with..

If he wants anymore information his legal team have to be specific what they want and why they want it.. Tump's legal team have failed to show that and thus get shut down... This is a Trump legal team failure, get angry at them.

 

[DBA]

If he wants anymore information his legal team have to be specific what they want and why they want it

Yes, this is true. They must be specific and explain the potential relevancy to the case. However, it is not true that witnesses must have first hand knowledge of a case. Expert witnesses are called on every day that have absolutely no affiliation with cases.

 

[CowboyTed]

Again, patently false.

Even forensic experts have to study the evidence with there expert eye, this is first hand knowledge...

Hear say is only very rarely used and is definitely not going to be allowed in this case.

Trump is not getting charged because Jan 6th Committee, he is got charged because Jack Smith has evidence of a crime... Trump's team should be looking at that instead of fishing for political opportunities in Jan 6th committee..

A Jan 6th committee witness could say he thinks Trump is the most innocent man in the world and it means fuck all in this case because this case is getting tried on the evidence and witnesses who have first hand knowledge of the case.

 

[CowboyTed]

Yes, this is true. They must be specific and explain the potential relevancy to the case. However, it is not true that witnesses must have first hand knowledge of a case. Expert witnesses are called on every day that have absolutely no affiliation with cases.

Name the Jan 6th Committee member who is a forensic expert?

Name them and could you also give example of the questions you would ask this witness..

 

[Dragonlady]

The Jan. 6th committee studied hours of video and did extensive review of the case. They are more than qualified to opine on the proposed facts of this case. Calling a member of this comittee is no different than calling a forensic expert who has thoroughly examined evidence to dispute the findings of the prosecutor‘s experts. This happens every single day in every single court in the US.

The courts aren't interested in the "opinions" of people who have looked at the evidence. They are only interested in the fact based evidence, from which the jury will form their own opinions.

Forensic Experts aren't "opining" on the evidence. They're giving fact based testimony on the scientific testing and comparisons they've made and what they mean.

 

[Dragonlady]

You can’t think of a valid reason for calling a Jan 6 comittee member to defend Trump regarding his alleged role in Jan 6? This is the comittee that studied the case. It is really kind of self-explanatory as to why they may be of use in the trial.

Yes, they've studied the evidence. But it's the jury's job to study the evidence, and to base their verdict SOLELY on the evidence. What new EVIDENCE can the members of the January 6th committee give, that will assist the people on the jury in coming to a verdict.

It's not at all "self-explanatory" what testimony they could provide that would be admissable. Witnesses aren't allowed to express "opinions", "conjecture" or to make "conclusions". Just the facts. What facts do the January 6 Committee members bring to the trial that aren't based on "hearsay" or speculation.

 

[Curried Goats]

Listen, this is not fascist KKKanada. J6 committee made accusations and handed the DOJ those accusations.
My Constitution says the accused has the right to face his accuser.

Who gives a shit how you Bingos interpret your constitution?

 

[DBA]

What new EVIDENCE can the members of the January 6th committee give, that will assist the people on the jury in coming to a verdict.

I’m not privy to all the information they had access to. My guess is that anything benefitting Trump was quickly swept under the rug and anything giving the appearance of impropriety was bought into the light.

What facts do the January 6 Committee members bring to the trial that aren't based on "hearsay" or speculation.

Again, so what was the point of the Jan 6 committee? Funny that now that it doesn’t behoove you, you admit that they had nothing. Are you saying it was just another one of the witch hunts by the Democrats?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Funny. Who cares?

/---/ You care. You vermin are jumping for joy.

 

[Curried Goats]

I’m not privy to all the information they had access to. My guess is that anything benefitting Trump was quickly swept under the rug and anything giving the appearance of impropriety was bought into the light.

Again, so what was the point of the Jan 6 committee? Funny that now that it doesn’t behoove you, you admit that they had nothing. Are you saying it was just another one of the witch hunts by the Democrats?

The point of the Jan 6 committee is irrelevant to Trumps defense. It's no different than if he wanted to subpoena documents from a film crew who did a documentary on Jan 6th.

 

[Dragonlady]

Understanding Exculpatory Evidence: A Comprehensive Guide

Understand exculpatory evidence, what it is and its impact on the legal process and why it's a game-changer in criminal trials.

thedefenders.net

I'm not interested in reading this thing. Kindly point me to the any section which confirms what you're claiming.

 

[Dragonlady]

The point of the Jan 6 committee is irrelevant to Trumps defense. It's no different than if he wanted to subpoena documents from a film crew who did a documentary on Jan 6th.

The film crew might be a more valid subpoena. They were in the crowd, might have some film that could be useful. Film would be evidence. There is nothing the J6 Committee members could provide that wasn't second hand, hear say, or conjecture, none of which is admissable.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Funny. Who cares?

Democracy, so not the Left.

 

[Blaster]

This judge flunked her law exam twice.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This judge flunked her law exam twice.

And the source of this is?

WW

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

Update.

Here's what is going on.

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

Another update!

 

[Curried Goats]

Update.

Here's what is going on.

Expect failure here as well.