Defense says prosecutors withholding evidence Freddie Gray 'attempted to injure himself' in previous

[JakeStarkey]

Such is prosecutorial discretion if such meets the rule. Therein lies the rub.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Let them burn the damn place down...Idiots. Sick of this shit and sick of the haters of our justice system.

 

[occupied]

http://shop.americanbar.org/eBus/Store/ProductDetails.aspx?productId=220016

Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Evidence and Information Favorable to the Defense July 8, 2009Rule 3.8(d) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct requires a prosecutor to "make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, [to] disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor." This ethical duty is separate from disclosure obligations imposed under the Constitution, statutes, procedural rules, court rules, or court orders. Rule 3.8(d) requires a prosecutor who knows of evidence and information favorable to the defense to disclose it as soon as reasonably practicable so that the defense can make meaningful use of it in making such decisions as whether to plead guilty and how to conduct its investigation. Prosecutors are not further obligated to conduct searches or investigations for favorable evidence and information of which they are unaware. In connection with sentencing proceedings, prosecutors must disclose known evidence and information that might lead to a more lenient sentence unless the evidence or information is privileged. Supervisory personnel in a prosecutor's office must take reasonable steps under Rule 5.1 to ensure that all lawyers in the office comply with their disclosure obligation.

The bar to get a dismissal for misconduct is so high that it might as well not exist.

 

[Obiwan]

Let them burn the damn place down...Idiots. Sick of this shit and sick of the haters of our justice system.

It's quite possible that could happen on acquittal....

 

[The Professor]

But if prosecutorial misconduct can be proven, it could go pretty badly for Mosby... She could actually be disbarred, and both her and the city could face a massive lawsuit......

Most of the time evidence not directly associated with the alleged crime is disallowed. It's much the same thing as past sexual conduct of the victim not being allowed in a rape trial.

Did you even bother to read the defense's assertion???

In their filing Thursday, the defense attorneys said prosecutors have withheld "multiple witness statements from individuals who stated that Mr. Gray was banging and shaking the van at various points" after his arrest April 12...

That's exculpatory evidence directly related to to the case....

So how are defense attorneys prevented from deposing and calling these witnesses? Any judge would throw out evidence brought from a previous arrest and eyewitnesses are poor evidence at best. This is a media stunt to sow doubt among potential jurors, it's legal theater. What is not in question is that a living man went into that van and a dying man came out after a bunch of shady shit. The police are legally bound to protect you, even from yourself, and are fully responsible for your welfare after you are placed in custody.

1. 
   

You do not know the law; I do, so let me explain a few things to you. A prosecutor has a duty to release ALL exculpatory evidence as quickly as reasonably possible to allow the defense to properly prepare the case for trail. There are no exceptions. The defense has an absolute entitlement to the statements of all eyewitnesses. The fact that the defense can depose those witnesses to get information is irrelevant for several reasons. First, since the documents are being withheld it is possible that the defense does not know the names of some witnesses. Second, the documents themselves will be more reliable than subsequent testimony during a deposition because they were recorded much closer in time to the event. And finally, these original documents are needed to ensure that witnesses do not change their minds (this has been known to happen in cases like this).

You seem to think that eyewitness testimony is poor at best, and in truth it is not always reliable; however, eyewitness testimony has been the determining factor in a hell of a lot of cases and you should know this. More than one man has been convicted of murder based solely upon the testimony of a single eyewitness. Someone who has watched a few episodes of Law And Order knows more about the law than you.

 

[occupied]

But if prosecutorial misconduct can be proven, it could go pretty badly for Mosby... She could actually be disbarred, and both her and the city could face a massive lawsuit......

Most of the time evidence not directly associated with the alleged crime is disallowed. It's much the same thing as past sexual conduct of the victim not being allowed in a rape trial.

Did you even bother to read the defense's assertion???

In their filing Thursday, the defense attorneys said prosecutors have withheld "multiple witness statements from individuals who stated that Mr. Gray was banging and shaking the van at various points" after his arrest April 12...

That's exculpatory evidence directly related to to the case....

So how are defense attorneys prevented from deposing and calling these witnesses? Any judge would throw out evidence brought from a previous arrest and eyewitnesses are poor evidence at best. This is a media stunt to sow doubt among potential jurors, it's legal theater. What is not in question is that a living man went into that van and a dying man came out after a bunch of shady shit. The police are legally bound to protect you, even from yourself, and are fully responsible for your welfare after you are placed in custody.

You do not know the law; I do, so let me explain a few things to you. A prosecutor has a duty to release ALL exculpatory evidence as quickly as reasonably possible to allow the defense to properly prepare the case for trail. There are no exceptions. The defense has an absolute entitlement to the statements of all eyewitnesses. The fact that the defense can depose those witnesses to get information is irrelevant for several reasons. First, since the documents are being withheld it is possible that the defense does not know the names of some witnesses. Second, the documents themselves will be more reliable than subsequent testimony during a deposition because they were recorded much closer in time to the event. And finally, these original documents are needed to ensure that witnesses do not change their minds (this has been known to happen in cases like this).

You seem to think that eyewitness testimony is poor at best, and in truth it is not always reliable; however, eyewitness testimony has been the determining factor in a hell of a lot of cases and you should know this. More than one man has been convicted of murder based solely upon the testimony of a single eyewitness. Someone who has watched a few episodes of Law And Order knows more about the law than you.

Do you think this shit is going to result in anything? I am of the opinion that it will go nowhere and the trial will proceed, I am not guessing at the outcome yet and I barely give a shit at this point. The defense is already building a case for malicious prosecution and nothing more. They are tipping their hand early, watch as their entire defense is that their clients are the victims of a frame job after the deceased killed himself just to get back at the cops.

 

[Obiwan]

And the case keeps getting dirtier.....
Baltimore State s Attorney once defended Freddie Gray - CNNPolitics.com