General Flynn May Walk Free

[Syriusly]

Judge Emmitt Sullivan has ordered Mueller to turn over any material that might be helpful to the former National Security Advisor. If he finds Flynn did not have sufficient evidence to defend himself, the judge may overturn the conviction and let him go free.

But, will Flynn be able to get back his life along with all the $$$ her had to spend defending himself?

More of this @ Dick Morris: Big Blow to Mueller -- Flynn May Walk

Remember the 'good old days' when Conservatives railed against the courts for defendants getting off on 'technicalities'?

 

[Syriusly]

Too late. Flynn has already pleaded guilty.

Perhaps right wingers don't understand the meaning of the word "Guilty"?

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of exculpatory evidence or the withholding of it. Flynn pleaded guilty because he was going broke. Had his lawyers had the withheld evidence, he might have won the case.

If Flynn was broke- and innocent- he could have gotten a public defender to plead guilty for him.

Remember- Flynn has far- far- far- more resources than the average defendant- who we happily entrust to public defenders in our Justice system everyday.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Seems there was a new sentence added to his previous order-


That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.

It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.”

General Flynn Should WITHDRAW His Guilty Plea. His New Judge Is A Government Misconduct Expert

I linked to Judge Sullivan's order, as of November 2017. Here it is again:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/StandingBradyOrder_November2017.pdf

It includes that sentence.

 

[depotoo]

All you posted was a copy of a standard blank order, not Sullivan’s.
Sullivan didn’t issue his order until Dec 12. He took over the case on Dec 7.

Here is Sullivan’s original from Dec 12, and his Feb 16 one. Note page 2in his first order, then page 3 of his footnotes in his later order. Dec order is 3 pages vs Feb 16 order is 4, due to his added reasoning with cases
Judicial order in Flynn case prompts new round of scrutiny | Discovery (Law) | Plea
Flynn Order | Discovery (Law) | Prosecutor
Dec

Feb

Seems there was a new sentence added to his previous order-


That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.

It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.”

General Flynn Should WITHDRAW His Guilty Plea. His New Judge Is A Government Misconduct Expert

I linked to Judge Sullivan's order, as of November 2017. Here it is again:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/StandingBradyOrder_November2017.pdf

It includes that sentence.

 

[longknife]

Too late. Flynn has already pleaded guilty.

Perhaps right wingers don't understand the meaning of the word "Guilty"?

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of exculpatory evidence or the withholding of it. Flynn pleaded guilty because he was going broke. Had his lawyers had the withheld evidence, he might have won the case.

That and the prosecutors were threatening his son.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

All you posted was a copy of a standard blank order, not Sullivan’s.
Sullivan didn’t issue his order until Dec 12. He took over the case on Dec 7.

Here is Sullivan’s original from Dec 12, and his Feb 16 one. Note page 2in his first order, then page 3 of his footnotes in his later order. Dec order is 3 pages vs Feb 16 order is 4, due to his added reasoning with cases
Judicial order in Flynn case prompts new round of scrutiny | Discovery (Law) | Plea
Flynn Order | Discovery (Law) | Prosecutor
Dec
View attachment 185380

Feb
View attachment 185382

Seems there was a new sentence added to his previous order-


That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.

It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.”

General Flynn Should WITHDRAW His Guilty Plea. His New Judge Is A Government Misconduct Expert

I linked to Judge Sullivan's order, as of November 2017. Here it is again:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/StandingBradyOrder_November2017.pdf

It includes that sentence.

There is no "standard blank order". The only Judge that I know of who has this standing order is Sullivan - and I took that blank order from his website, as I linked. The whole idea of a standing order is that it is a blanket order, and it applies to every single case that comes before Sullivan's bench.

Both of the orders that you linked to include the sentence you referred to earlier, by the way. The only difference between the two is in the footnotes.

 

[longknife]

Wow! You Leftists really have a hardon on for Flynn, don;t you? What did he ever do to you other than try to serve his country?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Wow! You Leftists really have a hardon on for Flynn, don;t you? What did he ever do to you other than try to serve his country?

I honestly couldn't give a flying **** about General Flynn. He should have known better than to lie to the FBI.

It is you guys that are so desperate for a reason to believe he is innocent of the charges he has already admitted to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Too late. Flynn has already pled guilty.

Perhaps right wingers don't understand the meaning of the word "Guilty"?

You sound like "Constitutional Lawyer" Obama telling us that SCOTUS would never overturn a democratically passed law

 

[depotoo]

Which is related to that sentence.
And there is a reason for that, more than likely.
Each order includes case file info I would assume, each being different, depending on the charge. He widened his scope with his case references in his second order. There was a reason he refilled it.

All you posted was a copy of a standard blank order, not Sullivan’s.
Sullivan didn’t issue his order until Dec 12. He took over the case on Dec 7.

Here is Sullivan’s original from Dec 12, and his Feb 16 one. Note page 2in his first order, then page 3 of his footnotes in his later order. Dec order is 3 pages vs Feb 16 order is 4, due to his added reasoning with cases
Judicial order in Flynn case prompts new round of scrutiny | Discovery (Law) | Plea
Flynn Order | Discovery (Law) | Prosecutor
Dec
View attachment 185380

Feb
View attachment 185382

Seems there was a new sentence added to his previous order-


That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.

It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.”

General Flynn Should WITHDRAW His Guilty Plea. His New Judge Is A Government Misconduct Expert

I linked to Judge Sullivan's order, as of November 2017. Here it is again:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/StandingBradyOrder_November2017.pdf

It includes that sentence.

There is no "standard blank order". The only Judge that I know of who has this standing order is Sullivan - and I took that blank order from his website, as I linked. The whole idea of a standing order is that it is a blanket order, and it applies to every single case that comes before Sullivan's bench.

Both of the orders that you linked to include the sentence you referred to earlier, by the way. The only difference between the two is in the footnotes.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow! You Leftists really have a hardon on for Flynn, don;t you? What did he ever do to you other than try to serve his country?

Well since he has already plead guilty to a crime- I would say that what he has done to our country is commit a crime.

Do you think that a veteran should not be charged and convicted for crimes committed?

I still remember the days when Conservatives favored the prosecution of criminals- even if it might embarass the President.

 

[Syriusly]

Too late. Flynn has already pled guilty.

Perhaps right wingers don't understand the meaning of the word "Guilty"?

You sound like "Constitutional Lawyer" Obama telling us that SCOTUS would never overturn a democratically passed law

You sound like another Trumpster excusing criminal behavior because well- Trump.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Too late. Flynn has already pled guilty.

Perhaps right wingers don't understand the meaning of the word "Guilty"?

You sound like "Constitutional Lawyer" Obama telling us that SCOTUS would never overturn a democratically passed law

You sound like another Trumpster excusing criminal behavior because well- Trump.

Point being, Mueller engaged in prosecutorial misconduct to get the guilty plea

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Which is related to that sentence.
And there is a reason for that, more than likely.
Each order includes case file info I would assume, which each being different, depending on the charge. He widened his scope with his case references in his second order. There was a reason he refilled it.

All you posted was a copy of a standard blank order, not Sullivan’s.
Sullivan didn’t issue his order until Dec 12. He took over the case on Dec 7.

Here is Sullivan’s original from Dec 12, and his Feb 16 one. Note page 2in his first order, then page 3 of his footnotes in his later order. Dec order is 3 pages vs Feb 16 order is 4, due to his added reasoning with cases
Judicial order in Flynn case prompts new round of scrutiny | Discovery (Law) | Plea
Flynn Order | Discovery (Law) | Prosecutor
Dec
View attachment 185380

Feb
View attachment 185382

Seems there was a new sentence added to his previous order-


That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.

It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.”

General Flynn Should WITHDRAW His Guilty Plea. His New Judge Is A Government Misconduct Expert

I linked to Judge Sullivan's order, as of November 2017. Here it is again:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/StandingBradyOrder_November2017.pdf

It includes that sentence.

There is no "standard blank order". The only Judge that I know of who has this standing order is Sullivan - and I took that blank order from his website, as I linked. The whole idea of a standing order is that it is a blanket order, and it applies to every single case that comes before Sullivan's bench.

Both of the orders that you linked to include the sentence you referred to earlier, by the way. The only difference between the two is in the footnotes.

A change in footnotes does not change the substance of the order. Footnotes are just citations.

 

[depotoo]

Except in the case of:

right to impeachment evidence before indictment in order to accept a fast-track plea, the Supreme Court did not imply that the government may avoid the consequence of a
Brady
violation if the defendant accepts an eleventh-hour plea agreement while ignorant of withheld exculpatory evidence in the government's possession.”
)
;
McCann v. Mangialardi
, 337 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2003)(noting that “given th[e significant distinction between impeachment information and exculpatory evidence of actual innocence], it is highly likely that the Supreme Court would find a violation of the Due Process Clause if prosecutors or other relevant government actors have knowledge of a criminal defendant’s factual innocence but fail to disclose such information to a defendant before he enters into a guilty plea”);
United States v. Nelson
, 979 F. Supp. 2d 123, 135-36 (D.D.C. 2013)(“Because the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence before Nelson pled guilty, Nelson’s due process rights were violated to his prejudice and his guilty plea was not voluntary and knowing.”);
Buffey v. Ballard
, 782 S.E.2d 204, 221 (W. Va. 2015)(finding “that the DNA results were favorable, suppressed, and material to the defense," and therefore "the Petitioner’s due process rights, as enunciated in
Brady
, were violated by the State’s suppression of that exculpatory evidence”).
But see
United States v. Conroy
, 567 F.3d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 2009)(disagreeing with the proposition that, based on
Ruiz
, “exculpatory evidence is different [fromimpeachment information] an





As noted in the new version of the order, as issued by the judge.

Wow! You Leftists really have a hardon on for Flynn, don;t you? What did he ever do to you other than try to serve his country?

Well since he has already plead guilty to a crime- I would say that what he has done to our country is commit a crime.

Do you think that a veteran should not be charged and convicted for crimes committed?

I still remember the days when Conservatives favored the prosecution of criminals- even if it might embarass the President.

 

[depotoo]

Or it could, as several former prosecutors have stated, seeing the references he has now included.
It was important enough to feel the need to amend it.

Which is related to that sentence.
And there is a reason for that, more than likely.
Each order includes case file info I would assume, which each being different, depending on the charge. He widened his scope with his case references in his second order. There was a reason he refilled it.

All you posted was a copy of a standard blank order, not Sullivan’s.
Sullivan didn’t issue his order until Dec 12. He took over the case on Dec 7.

Here is Sullivan’s original from Dec 12, and his Feb 16 one. Note page 2in his first order, then page 3 of his footnotes in his later order. Dec order is 3 pages vs Feb 16 order is 4, due to his added reasoning with cases
Judicial order in Flynn case prompts new round of scrutiny | Discovery (Law) | Plea
Flynn Order | Discovery (Law) | Prosecutor
Dec
View attachment 185380

Feb
View attachment 185382

Seems there was a new sentence added to his previous order-


That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.

It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.”

General Flynn Should WITHDRAW His Guilty Plea. His New Judge Is A Government Misconduct Expert

I linked to Judge Sullivan's order, as of November 2017. Here it is again:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/StandingBradyOrder_November2017.pdf

It includes that sentence.

There is no "standard blank order". The only Judge that I know of who has this standing order is Sullivan - and I took that blank order from his website, as I linked. The whole idea of a standing order is that it is a blanket order, and it applies to every single case that comes before Sullivan's bench.

Both of the orders that you linked to include the sentence you referred to earlier, by the way. The only difference between the two is in the footnotes.

A change in footnotes does not change the substance of the order. Footnotes are just citations.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Except in the case of:

right to impeachment evidence before indictment in order to accept a fast-track plea, the Supreme Court did not imply that the government may avoid the consequence of a
Brady
violation if the defendant accepts an eleventh-hour plea agreement while ignorant of withheld exculpatory evidence in the government's possession.”
)
;
McCann v. Mangialardi
, 337 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2003)(noting that “given th[e significant distinction between impeachment information and exculpatory evidence of actual innocence], it is highly likely that the Supreme Court would find a violation of the Due Process Clause if prosecutors or other relevant government actors have knowledge of a criminal defendant’s factual innocence but fail to disclose such information to a defendant before he enters into a guilty plea”);
United States v. Nelson
, 979 F. Supp. 2d 123, 135-36 (D.D.C. 2013)(“Because the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence before Nelson pled guilty, Nelson’s due process rights were violated to his prejudice and his guilty plea was not voluntary and knowing.”);
Buffey v. Ballard
, 782 S.E.2d 204, 221 (W. Va. 2015)(finding “that the DNA results were favorable, suppressed, and material to the defense," and therefore "the Petitioner’s due process rights, as enunciated in
Brady
, were violated by the State’s suppression of that exculpatory evidence”).
But see
United States v. Conroy
, 567 F.3d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 2009)(disagreeing with the proposition that, based on
Ruiz
, “exculpatory evidence is different [fromimpeachment information] an





As noted in the new version of the order, as issued by the judge.

Wow! You Leftists really have a hardon on for Flynn, don;t you? What did he ever do to you other than try to serve his country?

Well since he has already plead guilty to a crime- I would say that what he has done to our country is commit a crime.

Do you think that a veteran should not be charged and convicted for crimes committed?

I still remember the days when Conservatives favored the prosecution of criminals- even if it might embarass the President.

Yes. Those are citations.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Or it could, as several former prosecutors have stated, seeing the references he has now included.

Which is related to that sentence.
And there is a reason for that, more than likely.
Each order includes case file info I would assume, which each being different, depending on the charge. He widened his scope with his case references in his second order. There was a reason he refilled it.

All you posted was a copy of a standard blank order, not Sullivan’s.
Sullivan didn’t issue his order until Dec 12. He took over the case on Dec 7.

Here is Sullivan’s original from Dec 12, and his Feb 16 one. Note page 2in his first order, then page 3 of his footnotes in his later order. Dec order is 3 pages vs Feb 16 order is 4, due to his added reasoning with cases
Judicial order in Flynn case prompts new round of scrutiny | Discovery (Law) | Plea
Flynn Order | Discovery (Law) | Prosecutor
Dec
View attachment 185380

Feb
View attachment 185382

I linked to Judge Sullivan's order, as of November 2017. Here it is again:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/StandingBradyOrder_November2017.pdf

It includes that sentence.

There is no "standard blank order". The only Judge that I know of who has this standing order is Sullivan - and I took that blank order from his website, as I linked. The whole idea of a standing order is that it is a blanket order, and it applies to every single case that comes before Sullivan's bench.

Both of the orders that you linked to include the sentence you referred to earlier, by the way. The only difference between the two is in the footnotes.

A change in footnotes does not change the substance of the order. Footnotes are just citations.

Those are citations.

They support the plaintext of the order, they don't modify the plaintext.


I'm in law school, by the way. I am quite intimately familiar with court orders and citations.

 

[depotoo]

As I stated earlier, we shall see. Other prosecutors seem to think it unusual and could be significant.

Or it could, as several former prosecutors have stated, seeing the references he has now included.

Which is related to that sentence.
And there is a reason for that, more than likely.
Each order includes case file info I would assume, which each being different, depending on the charge. He widened his scope with his case references in his second order. There was a reason he refilled it.

All you posted was a copy of a standard blank order, not Sullivan’s.
Sullivan didn’t issue his order until Dec 12. He took over the case on Dec 7.

Here is Sullivan’s original from Dec 12, and his Feb 16 one. Note page 2in his first order, then page 3 of his footnotes in his later order. Dec order is 3 pages vs Feb 16 order is 4, due to his added reasoning with cases
Judicial order in Flynn case prompts new round of scrutiny | Discovery (Law) | Plea
Flynn Order | Discovery (Law) | Prosecutor
Dec
View attachment 185380

Feb
View attachment 185382

There is no "standard blank order". The only Judge that I know of who has this standing order is Sullivan - and I took that blank order from his website, as I linked. The whole idea of a standing order is that it is a blanket order, and it applies to every single case that comes before Sullivan's bench.

Both of the orders that you linked to include the sentence you referred to earlier, by the way. The only difference between the two is in the footnotes.

A change in footnotes does not change the substance of the order. Footnotes are just citations.

Those are citations.

They support the plaintext of the order, they don't modify the plaintext.


I'm in law school, by the way. I am quite intimately familiar with court orders and citations.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As I stated earlier, we shall see. Other prosecutors seem to think it unusual and could be significant.

Or it could, as several former prosecutors have stated, seeing the references he has now included.

Which is related to that sentence.
And there is a reason for that, more than likely.
Each order includes case file info I would assume, which each being different, depending on the charge. He widened his scope with his case references in his second order. There was a reason he refilled it.

There is no "standard blank order". The only Judge that I know of who has this standing order is Sullivan - and I took that blank order from his website, as I linked. The whole idea of a standing order is that it is a blanket order, and it applies to every single case that comes before Sullivan's bench.

Both of the orders that you linked to include the sentence you referred to earlier, by the way. The only difference between the two is in the footnotes.

A change in footnotes does not change the substance of the order. Footnotes are just citations.

Those are citations.

They support the plaintext of the order, they don't modify the plaintext.


I'm in law school, by the way. I am quite intimately familiar with court orders and citations.

All of the "former prosecutors" who have said so are all currently political pundits. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

As you say, we shall see. But I wouldn't keep my hopes up, if I were you.