18 percent
Are you saying the DOJ is not releasing ~2½ million pages because they're planning on prosecuting many people over involvement with Epstein's girls?
Like
Dislike
Do Courts Approve All Evidence to Be Made Public Before Trials?
Courts do not automatically make all evidence public before trials. While U.S. law generally favors transparency, many pieces of evidence remain private until certain conditions are met.
Default presumption of openness
American courts operate under a strong presumption that proceedings and filings are open to the public. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the public’s right to attend criminal trials, and most federal appellate courts extend a similar presumption to civil cases and court filings legalclarity.org. This means that when evidence is introduced in open court or formally filed with the court, it generally becomes part of the public record.
When evidence stays private
Not all evidence becomes public simply because it exists in a case. Many items are part of the pre‑trial discovery process and are shared only between the prosecution and defense. Discovery materials — such as police reports, witness statements, surveillance footage, and forensic reports — are not automatically public record unless they are admitted in court or filed with the court for a specific purpose David G. Moore Attorney at Law. Even after trial, much of this information remains sealed.
Judicial discretion to restrict access
A court can order that certain evidence be sealed or restricted if it finds that closure serves a compelling interest (e.g., witness safety, national security) and that less restrictive alternatives won’t work. The party seeking closure must prove this on the record, and courts that fail to meet the required standards risk reversal on appeal legalclarity.org.
Mandatory disclosure requirements
For fairness, U.S. law requires prosecutors to disclose certain types of evidence — such as exculpatory or impeachment material — to the defense before trial, regardless of whether the defense requests it U.S. Department of Justice+1. This is rooted in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. However, mandatory disclosure does not mean all evidence must be made public; sensitive or protected information can still be withheld.
In summary:
- Evidence introduced in open court or formally filed generally becomes public record.
- Much pre‑trial discovery remains private until admitted or filed.
- Courts can restrict access to sensitive evidence if they find a compelling reason.
- Prosecutors must disclose certain material evidence to ensure a fair trial, but not all evidence is automatically public.
They are helpless in the Senate when reconciliation happens.
I want finger pointing at who, given I've said I support appropriate redactions?
No, I posted what I said. Victims have rights too in cases like you want to happen.
You have them.
The law stated all Epstein documents get released.
Now show which Epstein documents are tied up in courts?
Like
Dislike
Do Courts Approve All Evidence to Be Made Public Before Trials?
Courts do not automatically make all evidence public before trials. While U.S. law generally favors transparency, many pieces of evidence remain private until certain conditions are met.
Default presumption of openness
American courts operate under a strong presumption that proceedings and filings are open to the public. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the public’s right to attend criminal trials, and most federal appellate courts extend a similar presumption to civil cases and court filings legalclarity.org. This means that when evidence is introduced in open court or formally filed with the court, it generally becomes part of the public record.
When evidence stays private
Not all evidence becomes public simply because it exists in a case. Many items are part of the pre‑trial discovery process and are shared only between the prosecution and defense. Discovery materials — such as police reports, witness statements, surveillance footage, and forensic reports — are not automatically public record unless they are admitted in court or filed with the court for a specific purpose David G. Moore Attorney at Law. Even after trial, much of this information remains sealed.
Judicial discretion to restrict access
A court can order that certain evidence be sealed or restricted if it finds that closure serves a compelling interest (e.g., witness safety, national security) and that less restrictive alternatives won’t work. The party seeking closure must prove this on the record, and courts that fail to meet the required standards risk reversal on appeal legalclarity.org.
Mandatory disclosure requirements
For fairness, U.S. law requires prosecutors to disclose certain types of evidence — such as exculpatory or impeachment material — to the defense before trial, regardless of whether the defense requests it U.S. Department of Justice+1. This is rooted in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. However, mandatory disclosure does not mean all evidence must be made public; sensitive or protected information can still be withheld.
In summary:
- Evidence introduced in open court or formally filed generally becomes public record.
- Much pre‑trial discovery remains private until admitted or filed.
- Courts can restrict access to sensitive evidence if they find a compelling reason.
- Prosecutors must disclose certain material evidence to ensure a fair trial, but not all evidence is automatically public.
Well in all fairness, you can't actually prove your claim. But I already knew that.
Now? I said that hours ago.
Trumps law was very carefully crafted so as not to hurt the victim's cases.
Actually, you haven't shown even one single Epstein document not being released is in any court.
Trump
You're comparing a party to an individual. Congress almost always polls lower than named politicians. That aside, 18% is still a historic low for Democrats. Despite that, 47% to 43% still say they want Democrats to take control of the House following November's elections.18 percent
A high-profile Quinnipiac poll found just 18 percent of voters approve of the job Democrats in Congress are doing, with 73 percent disapproving — the lowest reading Quinnipiac has recorded since it began asking the question in 2009, and a datum widely cited in national media.
factually.co
factually.co
What Are the Democrats' Approval Ratings Today?
poll.qu.edu
What cases? There are none.
When did the victims give up?
