Doc7505
Diamond Member
- Feb 16, 2016
- 17,047
- 30,295
- 2,430
Biden Judicial Nominee Thinks a Brady Motion - a Key Issue in J6 Prosecutions - Has to Do With 'Second Amendment'
Biden Judicial Nominee Thinks a Brady Motion - a Key Issue in J6 Prosecutions - Has to Do With 'Second Amendment'
Brady v. Maryland is Criminal Law 101, and Crews' ignorance is unacceptable.
redstate.com
Judge Kato Crews, nominee for US District Court for the District of Colorado, appeared on Capitol Hill Wednesday as part of his confirmation hearings and became the latest nominee who was unable to answer a basic legal question by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA).
Crews, who currently serves as a federal magistrate in Colorado, was unable to describe what the landmark US Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland was about. Brady, decided in 1963, “held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process ‘where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.'” Seems like a pretty important case (and principle) to be crystal clear about.
~Snip~
While the case is Criminal Law 101 and a known quantity for court observers (and therefore should have been an easy question for Crews to answer), it’s also been in the news recently regarding January 6 defendants and the revelation that hours of video footage from the Capitol that day hadn’t been seen by anyone except some Democrat staffers on the J6 committee. In case it’s not obvious why Brady would be relevant there, the snippets of video that have recently been released tell a very different story than the January 6 Committee and the Department of Justice have been telling, and could very well exonerate J6 defendants and be key in appealing convictions that have already occurred.
~Snip~
As Justice William O. Douglas, who penned the Brady decision, wrote, “We now hold 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… Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted, but when criminal trials are fair.” Crews’ ignorance of what the decision holds and his linking the name “Brady” with gun control shows where his priorities are and that he cannot be allowed near a federal court bench.
Commentary:
Most informed legal and political watchers, even those who do not work in the field, know about Brady and its effects on prosecutions. How could someone who went through three years in law school and spent four years on the bench not at least know the basics of the law? That’s almost too incredulous to believe! And he wants to be confirmed to a higher court as well? Who vetted him for this nomination? Given the number of times the issues on Brady have been in the news over the past few weeks, you would think they would have made sure he had a passing knowledge of the court opinion.
Crews as portrayed himself as a typical affirmative action graduate. Dumb as a door knob.