Qanon shaman...likely to get a new trial considering the government withheld video evidence from the defense....

[lennypartiv]

I never saw him portrayed as a leader. I saw him portrayed as an example of the sad fringe weirdos that Trump took advantage of.

The leaders were and are on trial for seditious conspiracy.

He was a patriot protesting the stolen election.

 

[Faun]

Wrong.....he took a plea based on a prosecution that hid wxculpatory evidence

False. Video of him inside the Capitol is not exculpatory evidence. In fact, it's even more evidence of him committing the crime to which he pleaded guilty.

 

[Care4all]

So Tucker hates Trump yet he's willing to go to bat for him.
That should tell you something but since you're an idiot I doubt you'll get it.

It tells me, and everyone, he sold his soul to the "demonic force" for the love of money.

 

[Faun]

He was a patriot protesting the stolen election.

 

[Magnus]

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.

‘It’s Appalling’: QAnon Shaman’s Lawyer Says DOJ Lied, Withheld Videos Aired By Carlson | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

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.

DOJ broke the law when prosecuting "Q-Anon Shaman"

hotair.com

Keep dreaming.

 

[leftwinger]

The plea will be vacated. The judge has no choice but to do so. The now provable Brady violations are sufficient cause to do so.

its been DC Judges & Juries. Wrong every step of the way to now. Suddenly they become “honest”?

 

[Ringo]

He should not only be pardoned,

Same goes for Assange.

 

[DudleySmith]

Same goes for Assange.

Not a fan of his but yes, once secret info gets out the press isn't the people who need to pay for incompetence of those who let it leak in the first place..

 

[DudleySmith]

It’s not exculpatory.

The commies learned a new word they can parrot over and over again. lol

 

[22lcidw]

False. Video of him inside the Capitol is not exculpatory evidence. In fact, it's even more evidence of him committing the crime to which he pleaded guilty.

He admitted to a crime so he could get less time from the evil in power. Concentration camps are coming here at some point.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Remember when you right-wingers were all telling us this guy was actually an FBI-Antifa plant??


"These are NOT Trump supporters," said one Jan. 6 Facebook post. "[They are]Antifa THUGS". But the mysterious man in horns is not antifa-aligned. [The man] is a well-known supporter of the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory. He goes by the moniker, "Q Shaman".

Man in horned cap at Capitol riot isn’t antifa activist

Hours after supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol, several of his allies in Congress and the med

www.politifact.com

I clearly remember you folks claiming this exact guy was not a Trump supporter, but Antifa....And now, he is your martyr.......I swear yall are clowns....

This is why being a reactionary right-winger is literally the easiest thing to do in the world...you do not have to have any shame whatsoever....you can literally pretend the position you held five minutes ago, never happened....

 

[pknopp]

The leftists think this is funny......the guy isnt a democrat party politician so they like that his Rights were denied

For years people thought it was funny when others had their Constitutional rights violated. Remember, Trump called people wanting the violations of their rights addressed SOB's.

Now more to the subject. Whether it would make any difference or not, the defense had a right to all the video that was available. That they did not is a valid argument for a re-do.

 

[Marener]

He was a patriot protesting the stolen election.

He’s a sad dope with no direction or purpose who was most recently living in his moms basement.

These kinds of purposeless losers are prime targets for the conspiracy laden right.

 

[Marener]

Reality vs. perception casts two different stories .. undoubtedly, Chansley was thee most recognized individual from January 6, and was portrayed by media and others as a focal point of the event (translated: a leader). We'll find out more detail now that new video footage, intentionally withheld by the government, is put into play. No need to convince anyone otherwise .. the defense will initiate next steps. Cheers!

Being the most recognized is not equivalent to being portrayed as a leader.

 

[martybegan]

There will be no new trial. No evidence was withheld and the fact he entered the congressional chambers made him part of obstructing a legal proceeding.

Was the video available to his defense attorneys? yes or no?

 

[Marener]

Was the video available to his defense attorneys? yes or no?

The defense attorney says no.

Is the video covered under Brady v Maryland? yes or no?

 

[The5thHorseman]

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.

‘It’s Appalling’: QAnon Shaman’s Lawyer Says DOJ Lied, Withheld Videos Aired By Carlson | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

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.

DOJ broke the law when prosecuting "Q-Anon Shaman"

hotair.com

1) Unless Watkins is incompetent, he would have asked his client for a detailed narrative of what transpired.

2) The judge SPECIFICALLY noted that Chansley had not been violent when passing sentence.

3) The "new evidence" proves he was in the Capitol, doing as the charge to which he pleaded describes.

 

[The5thHorseman]

I believe the motion should be granted. And the trial (which would never have been a slam dunk anyway) will then be put in a much weaker posture for the government.

I frankly wouldn’t be surprised if a different plea were agreed to. Possibly a plea to a misdemeanor and maybe time served. I assume any judge would go along with it.

How do any of these new videos weigh on the offense to which Chansley pleaded...

 

[Marener]

1) Unless Watkins is incompetent, he would have asked his client for a detailed narrative of what transpired.

2) The judge SPECIFICALLY noted that Chansley had not been violent when passing sentence.

3) The "new evidence" proves he was in the Capitol, doing as the charge to which he pleaded describes.

This. To get anything overturned on appeal he'd have to show that the evidence was actually exculpatory and that it would have been likely to affected the outcome of a trial.

Since the video is of Chansley, it would be impossible to say he didn't know the content of the video.

 

[martybegan]

The defense attorney says no.

Is the video covered under Brady v Maryland? yes or no?

It should be. They were requesting video access and ignored.

Even if it didn't impact the charges, it sure as hell could impact the sentencing, and It shows that others could have been denied exculpatory evidence.