DOJ, Democrat DAs Sure Do Violate 5th Amendment / Withhold Exculpatory Evidence A LOT!

[easyt65]

The FBI was proven to have withheld Exculpatory Evidence from tbe FISA Court IOT defraud the FISA Court, violate the Patriot Act, and illegally spy on Americans during their failed coup attempt against then Presdident Trump

Recently released J6 video has proven the DOJ attorneys / govt withheld exculpatory evidence from J6 defendents

It was just exposed that DA Alvin Bragg withheld 600 pages of exculpatory evidence presented by a lawyer - Costello - from the Grand Jury in his unauthorized pursuit of a non-crime against former President Trump.

NOW its being reported that the politically weaponized DOJ is doing it again, that it has been caught withholding exculpatory evidence in a trial in which they hope to convict a US citizen for SHARING A HUMOROUS MEME in 2016.


THESE ARE 4 (FOUR) SEPERATE PROVEN CRIMINAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES PERPETRATED BY THE US DOJ, FBI, & A SOROS-FUNDED LIBERAL DA!

THESE ARE CRIMES THAT COULD & SHOULD RESULT IN ALL PROSECUTING ATTORNIES BEING DISBARRED!



2 Biden Judicial Candidates were recently asked what the 5th Amendment is while appearing before Congress. NEITHER ONE COULD ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Evidently Garland, no one in the DOJ, no one in the FBI, and DA Alvin Bragg knows what the 5th Amendment is, either ... or they just don't give a daMn.

Perhaps after every one of these Prosecuting lawyers / DAs are disbarred the DOJ & FBI should be forced to retrain all of their remaining lawyers on the 5th Amendment as well as legal ethics before they participate in another trial.

Perhaps all DAs should be required to immediately take a refresher course on the same things.

At the level they are at, considering the stakes and the lives they could and have tried to destroy while violating defendents' rights, every one of these lawyers should be disbarred!

BREAKING: Doug Mackey attorney accuses DOJ of withholding exculpatory info... demands MISTRIAL in critical 1A "meme trial"... - Revolver News

Biden DOJ dealing from the dirty end of the deck

www.revolver.news

 

[two_iron]

Nothing ever happens to these criminals. Until they're dragged through the streets or locked up for decades they'll keep doing it.

Shitlibs have nothing to lose.... most of them are mentally ill, have no family unit and are half a White Claw from stabbing themselves in the throat. It's easy to be a criminal when you're that fucked up.

 

[jwoodie]

These DAs are soulless creatures with no concept of honesty or justice.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Reverse Troll.
Please don't feed the trolls...and YES...there are pretenders on BOTH sides of the fence.

 

[Catsnmeters]

The FBI was proven to have withheld Exculpatory Evidence from tbe FISA Court IOT defraud the FISA Court, violate the Patriot Act, and illegally spy on Americans during their failed coup attempt against then Presdident Trump

Recently released J6 video has proven the DOJ attorneys / govt withheld exculpatory evidence from J6 defendents

It was just exposed that DA Alvin Bragg withheld 600 pages of exculpatory evidence presented by a lawyer - Costello - from the Grand Jury in his unauthorized pursuit of a non-crime against former President Trump.

NOW its being reported that the politically weaponized DOJ is doing it again, that it has been caught withholding exculpatory evidence in a trial in which they hope to convict a US citizen for SHARING A HUMOROUS MEME in 2016.


THESE ARE 4 (FOUR) SEPERATE PROVEN CRIMINAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES PERPETRATED BY THE US DOJ, FBI, & A SOROS-FUNDED LIBERAL DA!

THESE ARE CRIMES THAT COULD & SHOULD RESULT IN ALL PROSECUTING ATTORNIES BEING DISBARRED!



2 Biden Judicial Candidates were recently asked what the 5th Amendment is while appearing before Congress. NEITHER ONE COULD ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Evidently Garland, no one in the DOJ, no one in the FBI, and DA Alvin Bragg knows what the 5th Amendment is, either ... or they just don't give a daMn.

Perhaps after every one of these Prosecuting lawyers / DAs are disbarred the DOJ & FBI should be forced to retrain all of their remaining lawyers on the 5th Amendment as well as legal ethics before they participate in another trial.

Perhaps all DAs should be required to immediately take a refresher course on the same things.

At the level they are at, considering the stakes and the lives they could and have tried to destroy while violating defendents' rights, every one of these lawyers should be disbarred!

BREAKING: Doug Mackey attorney accuses DOJ of withholding exculpatory info... demands MISTRIAL in critical 1A "meme trial"... - Revolver News

Biden DOJ dealing from the dirty end of the deck

www.revolver.news

You have been shown in multiple threads on this topic, that this does not apply to New York State.

The link to the law has been posted over and over yet you keep creating threads or responding in posts the same old shit...as if it's your job or something.

No dignity. No shame. That's you.

 

[0311]

The FBI was proven to have withheld Exculpatory Evidence from tbe FISA Court IOT defraud the FISA Court, violate the Patriot Act, and illegally spy on Americans during their failed coup attempt against then Presdident Trump

Recently released J6 video has proven the DOJ attorneys / govt withheld exculpatory evidence from J6 defendents

It was just exposed that DA Alvin Bragg withheld 600 pages of exculpatory evidence presented by a lawyer - Costello - from the Grand Jury in his unauthorized pursuit of a non-crime against former President Trump.

NOW its being reported that the politically weaponized DOJ is doing it again, that it has been caught withholding exculpatory evidence in a trial in which they hope to convict a US citizen for SHARING A HUMOROUS MEME in 2016.


THESE ARE 4 (FOUR) SEPERATE PROVEN CRIMINAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES PERPETRATED BY THE US DOJ, FBI, & A SOROS-FUNDED LIBERAL DA!

THESE ARE CRIMES THAT COULD & SHOULD RESULT IN ALL PROSECUTING ATTORNIES BEING DISBARRED!



2 Biden Judicial Candidates were recently asked what the 5th Amendment is while appearing before Congress. NEITHER ONE COULD ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Evidently Garland, no one in the DOJ, no one in the FBI, and DA Alvin Bragg knows what the 5th Amendment is, either ... or they just don't give a daMn.

Perhaps after every one of these Prosecuting lawyers / DAs are disbarred the DOJ & FBI should be forced to retrain all of their remaining lawyers on the 5th Amendment as well as legal ethics before they participate in another trial.

Perhaps all DAs should be required to immediately take a refresher course on the same things.

At the level they are at, considering the stakes and the lives they could and have tried to destroy while violating defendents' rights, every one of these lawyers should be disbarred!

Another ReNaziKlan Snow Flake website.

 

[Ropey]

Quelle Surprise?

It wouldn't be the first time the DoJ has broken the law and violated people's rights.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

You have been shown in multiple threads on this topic, that this does not apply to New York State.

The link to the law has been posted over and over yet you keep creating threads or responding in posts the same old shit...as if it's your job or something.

No dignity. No shame. That's you.

How is the State of New York exempt from the law?

 

[Catsnmeters]

How is the State of New York exempt from the law?

They aren't exempt. They are following state law.

"An analysis of these decisions furnishes no support for the proposition that a failure to promptly present exculpatory evidence early in the trial stage furnishes a basis for a dismissal in the interests of justice. This being the case, defendant's application lacks merit under the criteria set down in People v Clayton ( 41 A.D.2d 204)."

People v. Filis, 87 Misc. 2d 1067 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Filis, 87 Misc. 2d 1067, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

They aren't exempt. They are following state law.

"An analysis of these decisions furnishes no support for the proposition that a failure to promptly present exculpatory evidence early in the trial stage furnishes a basis for a dismissal in the interests of justice. This being the case, defendant's application lacks merit under the criteria set down in People v Clayton ( 41 A.D.2d 204)."

People v. Filis, 87 Misc. 2d 1067 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Filis, 87 Misc. 2d 1067, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

That isn't a law. It's a court ruling and it only applies to that one case.

 

[Catsnmeters]

That isn't a law. It's a court ruling and it only applies to that one case.

What? It applies to all cases. How the world would it only apply to one case?

It is New York state law for all cases.

 

[Marener]

How is the State of New York exempt from the law?

They’re not. These right wing blogs are exempt from being truthful.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

What? It applies to all cases. How the world would it only apply to one case?

It is New York state law for all cases.

No, it doesn't. You missed this part,

"
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Filis​

Supreme Court, Criminal Term, Queens County
Sep 15, 1976
87 Misc. 2d 1067 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1976)Copy Citations
Download
Treatment

Search all case law on Casetext. Get red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, and more.
Try Casetext free

September 15, 1976
Gerald W. Kilby for defendant.
Nicholas Ferraro, District Attorney (Robert C. McGann of counsel), for plaintiff.

---

FRANCIS X. SMITH, J.
Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the People failed to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury.
The defendant herein was indicted on December 12, 1975 and charged with the intentional murder of Juan Calil, a Queens resident. This indictment stemmed from a homicide committed on October 21, 1975 and which was allegedly viewed by the victim's wife who identified the criminals.
A motion is now made to dismiss on the grounds:
(1) That the District Attorney has a positive obligation to present exculpatory evidence during the Grand Jury's deliberations and the failure to present renders the indictment legally insufficient pursuant to CPL 210.20 (subd 1, par );
(2) That the failure to present Brady evidence at an early stage of the judicial proceedings nullifies the value of such evidence and requires a dismissal in the interests of justice pursuant to CPL 210.20 (subd 1, par ).
The exculpatory evidence in this case allegedly arises from the fact that originally the victim's wife indicated that she saw "a man" shoot her husband and then later testified that she saw specific men perform the homicide. The People concede that the witness appears to have made an inconsistent statement, but maintain that this testimony is evidentiary in nature and must be resolved at the trial. Hence, they maintain they had no obligation to present it at the time of the indictment.
At issue in this case is the question of whether the People must present exculpatory evidence during the Grand Jury presentation or immediately thereafter.
In considering the People's obligation in this area, it must be pointed out that historically the Grand Jury is "part of the investigatory process and not the prosecution". (People v Waters, 27 N.Y.2d 553, 556.) It is "an inquisitorial body * * * charged with the duty under law of conducting its own investigation into all crimes within its jurisdiction". (People v Van Dusen, 56 Misc.2d 107, 109.) The Grand Jury then starts all felony proceedings; it initiates the judicial process.
As an investigatory body its functions are twofold — it seeks to determine if a crime has been committed and who committed this crime. To resolve these questions, the Grand Jury may return an indictment when (a) "the evidence before it is legally sufficient to establish that such person committed such offense and (b) competent and admissible evidence before it provides reasonable cause to believe that such person committed such offense". (CPL 190.65, subd 1.)
Traditionally, the District Attorney has discretion in the manner of presenting his case to the Grand Jury. He need only select those witnesses and those facts which most expeditiously establish a prima facie case. He is under no duty to present all of his evidence or engage in a dress rehearsal of his case. Yet this discretion is not unlimited. Under the law the District Attorney is the legal adviser of the Grand Jury. (CPL 190.25, subd 6.) As legal adviser he must "instruct the jury with respect to the significance, legal effect or evaluation of evidence". (CPL 190.30, subd 6.) Obviously, a jury cannot evaluate evidence without being aware of the underlying facts comprising this evidence. Thus it follows that the statute must contemplate situations in which specific evidence must be presented to the Grand Jury. When would such situations arise? Logic would indicate that the District Attorney should introduce specific evidence in those situations where such evidence would be clearly material to the issues explored by that body. The Grand Jury is a fact-finding group and must have the necessary facts before it. Further, it would appear that in any case where there would be evidence so compelling as to legally cause the Grand Jury to consider an alternate action under CPL 190.60 the District Attorney would be equally obligated to introduce such evidence.
Applying the above reasoning to the facts of this case, the District Attorney is initially under no obligation to present exculpatory material on the Grand Jury level. There is nothing inherently sacred about Brady evidence. While it is true that the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused * * * violates due process where the evidence is material" (Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87) this constitutes no precedent for presenting this material at an early stage. The value of such evidence, like any other form of evidence, lies in its relevance and materiality.
This raises the second and more fundamental question. Is the exculpatory matter in this case so important as to materially influence the Grand Jury's investigation or would its introduction possibly cause the Grand Jury to change its findings? The court has re-examined the Grand Jury minutes and finds that the answer must be in the negative. Witnesses grow confused; their testimony is frequently contradictory. However, the mere fact that a witness gives conflicting testimony (in the absence of bad faith or deliberate perjury) does not restrict the Grand Jury's fact-finding role. Nor would it logically tend to change the Grand Jury's ultimate determination. As the District Attorney points out, the conflicting testimony of the witness is a matter that can be resolved only during trial when all the circumstances surrounding that testimony may be thoroughly explored by both sides."

 

[Catsnmeters]

No, it doesn't. You missed this part,

"
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Filis​

Supreme Court, Criminal Term, Queens County
Sep 15, 1976
87 Misc. 2d 1067 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1976)Copy Citations
Download
Treatment
Search all case law on Casetext. Get red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, and more.
Try Casetext free
September 15, 1976
Gerald W. Kilby for defendant.
Nicholas Ferraro, District Attorney (Robert C. McGann of counsel), for plaintiff.

---

FRANCIS X. SMITH, J.
Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the People failed to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury.
The defendant herein was indicted on December 12, 1975 and charged with the intentional murder of Juan Calil, a Queens resident. This indictment stemmed from a homicide committed on October 21, 1975 and which was allegedly viewed by the victim's wife who identified the criminals.
A motion is now made to dismiss on the grounds:
(1) That the District Attorney has a positive obligation to present exculpatory evidence during the Grand Jury's deliberations and the failure to present renders the indictment legally insufficient pursuant to CPL 210.20 (subd 1, par );
(2) That the failure to present Brady evidence at an early stage of the judicial proceedings nullifies the value of such evidence and requires a dismissal in the interests of justice pursuant to CPL 210.20 (subd 1, par ).
The exculpatory evidence in this case allegedly arises from the fact that originally the victim's wife indicated that she saw "a man" shoot her husband and then later testified that she saw specific men perform the homicide. The People concede that the witness appears to have made an inconsistent statement, but maintain that this testimony is evidentiary in nature and must be resolved at the trial. Hence, they maintain they had no obligation to present it at the time of the indictment.
At issue in this case is the question of whether the People must present exculpatory evidence during the Grand Jury presentation or immediately thereafter.
In considering the People's obligation in this area, it must be pointed out that historically the Grand Jury is "part of the investigatory process and not the prosecution". (People v Waters, 27 N.Y.2d 553, 556.) It is "an inquisitorial body * * * charged with the duty under law of conducting its own investigation into all crimes within its jurisdiction". (People v Van Dusen, 56 Misc.2d 107, 109.) The Grand Jury then starts all felony proceedings; it initiates the judicial process.
As an investigatory body its functions are twofold — it seeks to determine if a crime has been committed and who committed this crime. To resolve these questions, the Grand Jury may return an indictment when (a) "the evidence before it is legally sufficient to establish that such person committed such offense and (b) competent and admissible evidence before it provides reasonable cause to believe that such person committed such offense". (CPL 190.65, subd 1.)
Traditionally, the District Attorney has discretion in the manner of presenting his case to the Grand Jury. He need only select those witnesses and those facts which most expeditiously establish a prima facie case. He is under no duty to present all of his evidence or engage in a dress rehearsal of his case. Yet this discretion is not unlimited. Under the law the District Attorney is the legal adviser of the Grand Jury. (CPL 190.25, subd 6.) As legal adviser he must "instruct the jury with respect to the significance, legal effect or evaluation of evidence". (CPL 190.30, subd 6.) Obviously, a jury cannot evaluate evidence without being aware of the underlying facts comprising this evidence. Thus it follows that the statute must contemplate situations in which specific evidence must be presented to the Grand Jury. When would such situations arise? Logic would indicate that the District Attorney should introduce specific evidence in those situations where such evidence would be clearly material to the issues explored by that body. The Grand Jury is a fact-finding group and must have the necessary facts before it. Further, it would appear that in any case where there would be evidence so compelling as to legally cause the Grand Jury to consider an alternate action under CPL 190.60 the District Attorney would be equally obligated to introduce such evidence.
Applying the above reasoning to the facts of this case, the District Attorney is initially under no obligation to present exculpatory material on the Grand Jury level. There is nothing inherently sacred about Brady evidence. While it is true that the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused * * * violates due process where the evidence is material" (Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87) this constitutes no precedent for presenting this material at an early stage. The value of such evidence, like any other form of evidence, lies in its relevance and materiality.
This raises the second and more fundamental question. Is the exculpatory matter in this case so important as to materially influence the Grand Jury's investigation or would its introduction possibly cause the Grand Jury to change its findings? The court has re-examined the Grand Jury minutes and finds that the answer must be in the negative. Witnesses grow confused; their testimony is frequently contradictory. However, the mere fact that a witness gives conflicting testimony (in the absence of bad faith or deliberate perjury) does not restrict the Grand Jury's fact-finding role. Nor would it logically tend to change the Grand Jury's ultimate determination. As the District Attorney points out, the conflicting testimony of the witness is a matter that can be resolved only during trial when all the circumstances surrounding that testimony may be thoroughly explored by both sides."

I am not sure how this supports your arguement.

Are you saying that in this case the evidence withheld falls into one of two catagorize in the article?

If so, how is it you are making this determination? Have you seen the evidence, reportedly withheld?

 

[westwall]

The FBI was proven to have withheld Exculpatory Evidence from tbe FISA Court IOT defraud the FISA Court, violate the Patriot Act, and illegally spy on Americans during their failed coup attempt against then Presdident Trump

Recently released J6 video has proven the DOJ attorneys / govt withheld exculpatory evidence from J6 defendents

It was just exposed that DA Alvin Bragg withheld 600 pages of exculpatory evidence presented by a lawyer - Costello - from the Grand Jury in his unauthorized pursuit of a non-crime against former President Trump.

NOW its being reported that the politically weaponized DOJ is doing it again, that it has been caught withholding exculpatory evidence in a trial in which they hope to convict a US citizen for SHARING A HUMOROUS MEME in 2016.


THESE ARE 4 (FOUR) SEPERATE PROVEN CRIMINAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES PERPETRATED BY THE US DOJ, FBI, & A SOROS-FUNDED LIBERAL DA!

THESE ARE CRIMES THAT COULD & SHOULD RESULT IN ALL PROSECUTING ATTORNIES BEING DISBARRED!



2 Biden Judicial Candidates were recently asked what the 5th Amendment is while appearing before Congress. NEITHER ONE COULD ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Evidently Garland, no one in the DOJ, no one in the FBI, and DA Alvin Bragg knows what the 5th Amendment is, either ... or they just don't give a daMn.

Perhaps after every one of these Prosecuting lawyers / DAs are disbarred the DOJ & FBI should be forced to retrain all of their remaining lawyers on the 5th Amendment as well as legal ethics before they participate in another trial.

Perhaps all DAs should be required to immediately take a refresher course on the same things.

At the level they are at, considering the stakes and the lives they could and have tried to destroy while violating defendents' rights, every one of these lawyers should be disbarred!

BREAKING: Doug Mackey attorney accuses DOJ of withholding exculpatory info... demands MISTRIAL in critical 1A "meme trial"... - Revolver News

Biden DOJ dealing from the dirty end of the deck

www.revolver.news

You can't "win", if you let the other side present their arguments too.