2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,563
- 52,834
- 2,290
The guy who wore the indian headdress in the capitol will likely get a new trial......the prosecution withheld video evidence from the defense....
Albert Watkins, whose client Jacob Chansley pleaded guilty to felony charges in connection with the Capitol riot and was sentenced to 41 months in prison, said Department of Justice prosecutors were legally bound to turn over the footage. Clips shown on Carlson’s Fox News Channel program show Chansley walking freely and peaceably through the building, often accompanied by multiple police officers.
“We did not receive that video footage,” Watkins said. “We asked for it, and not just once or twice. Whether we asked for it or not is irrelevant because the government had an absolute, non-compromisible duty to disclose that video and they did not do so.”
“And all the while, they were actively representing to the court and the American people that Jake was a leader, leading the charge into the Capitol,” he said. “They did not disclose that footage because it ran contrary to their rote narrative.”
------
Court filings in Chansley’s case corroborate Watkins’ claim that he repeatedly asked for all videos of his client.
“Our position is that the government must identify any evidence it believes to capture [defendant], regardless of whether it intends to rely on the same in its case in chief,” one said.
Another look.....
This is why, perhaps, they refused to share the video with Chansley’s lawyer, which among other things violates his constitutional rights, big time. They are supposed to disclose all such materials in discovery, and failing to is prosecutorial misconduct.
----
Ed noted before we knew this tidbit:
If true, and I believe that it is extremely likely that it is, then the DOJ lawyers involved should be in some serious legal jeopardy. At least if there is a semblance of legal integrity left in the federal government.
I am no lawyer, but what is at issue is something called Brady Disclosure, named after a case where theSupreme Court ruled that the government provide any exculpatory evidence to defendants in criminal cases.
The ruling was necessary, obviously, because prosecutors can be very…enthusiastic…about winning their cases and didn’t always disclose facts that would undermine their cases, leading to people being convicted based upon flawed or incomplete evidence.
Albert Watkins, whose client Jacob Chansley pleaded guilty to felony charges in connection with the Capitol riot and was sentenced to 41 months in prison, said Department of Justice prosecutors were legally bound to turn over the footage. Clips shown on Carlson’s Fox News Channel program show Chansley walking freely and peaceably through the building, often accompanied by multiple police officers.
“We did not receive that video footage,” Watkins said. “We asked for it, and not just once or twice. Whether we asked for it or not is irrelevant because the government had an absolute, non-compromisible duty to disclose that video and they did not do so.”
“And all the while, they were actively representing to the court and the American people that Jake was a leader, leading the charge into the Capitol,” he said. “They did not disclose that footage because it ran contrary to their rote narrative.”
------
Court filings in Chansley’s case corroborate Watkins’ claim that he repeatedly asked for all videos of his client.
“Our position is that the government must identify any evidence it believes to capture [defendant], regardless of whether it intends to rely on the same in its case in chief,” one said.
Another look.....
This is why, perhaps, they refused to share the video with Chansley’s lawyer, which among other things violates his constitutional rights, big time. They are supposed to disclose all such materials in discovery, and failing to is prosecutorial misconduct.
----
Ed noted before we knew this tidbit:
If true, and I believe that it is extremely likely that it is, then the DOJ lawyers involved should be in some serious legal jeopardy. At least if there is a semblance of legal integrity left in the federal government.
I am no lawyer, but what is at issue is something called Brady Disclosure, named after a case where theSupreme Court ruled that the government provide any exculpatory evidence to defendants in criminal cases.
The ruling was necessary, obviously, because prosecutors can be very…enthusiastic…about winning their cases and didn’t always disclose facts that would undermine their cases, leading to people being convicted based upon flawed or incomplete evidence.
Last edited:
