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

[Marener]

It's possible he could but, once again, the legal gymnastics will be longer than he has time to serve.

I don’t actually know that he could, but let’s say he can.

Why wouldn’t he? Expunging a criminal record has a lot of benefits.

 

[Delldude]

I don’t actually know that he could, but let’s say he can.

Why wouldn’t he? Expunging a criminal record has a lot of benefits.

He has to get his plea deal overturned if he wants to use video to drop or reduce the charges. Prosecution got him to waive his right to appeal as part of a 'deal'.

 

[Faun]

He has to get his plea deal overturned if he wants to use video to drop or reduce the charges. Prosecution got him to waive his right to appeal as part of a 'deal'.

A motion to dismiss is not an appeal.

 

[Delldude]

A motion to dismiss is not an appeal.

I never said it was, read what I said.

 

[Faun]

I never said it was, read what I said.

You said, "prosecution got him to waive his right to appeal as part of a 'deal'," but no one here was talking about an appeal. Marener was talking about him getting his record expunged and I was talking about him filing a motion to dismiss.

So why doesn't he file a motion to dismiss?

 

[otto105]

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

No, no he’s not.

He is going to continue toreceive a subpar vegan meal.

 

[Delldude]

You said, "prosecution got him to waive his right to appeal as part of a 'deal'," but no one here was talking about an appeal. Marener was talking about him getting his record expunged and I was talking about him filing a motion to dismiss.

So why doesn't he file a motion to dismiss?

Have to ask his attorney, wouldn't you think?

Beyond that, he can't ask for an expungement until his sentence is over.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I see. Those 2 did not have the clear shot Byrd had. Those 2 were facing the mob. Miss the person climbing through the window and they risked hitting someone else, including the one cop on the other side of the doors. Whereas Byrd was off to the side. Miss Benedict Babbitt and he hits a wall.

Not the ones on the outside where the crowd was, the ones directly in line with the window on the INSIDE of the door. Byrd was well off to the side and didn’t have a clear shot at her.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Cause uh...there was no evidence.

Usually you can’t find evidence without subpoena power which only can be granted by a court.

 

[Faun]

Have to ask his attorney, wouldn't you think?

Beyond that, he can't ask for an expungement until his sentence is over.

But he could still submit a motion to dismiss the case based on Tucker's videos. So why doesn't he unless those videos don't actually portray what you think they do.

 

[Faun]

Not the ones on the outside where the crowd was, the ones directly in line with the window on the INSIDE of the door. Byrd was well off to the side and didn’t have a clear shot at her.

Because Byrd was off to the side, he was the only one with a clear shot. The others were facing the mob. Had any of them shot and missed, the could have hit someone else by accident. Whereas had Byrd missed, he would have hit the wall to Ashes' right.

 

[bodecea]

Any new trial yet?

 

[Faun]

Usually you can’t find evidence without subpoena power which only can be granted by a court.

It's a plaintiff's responsibility to show up in court with the evidence needed to prove their claims. If they fail to do so, which was the case in many of those claims, you can expect the court will not entertain a clown show.

 

[Chillicothe]

a motion to dismiss the case based on Tucker's videos. So why doesn't he unless those videos don't actually portray what you think they do.

I think a salient point that may be a hiccup in any plans by Goathead Guy to get a new trial...... is that despite the 4-minutes* of semi-benign non-threat videos that Tucker showed, there are another 45-minutes*....of video footage that show Goathead
otherwise.

So, in Goathead's "next" trial.....the jury will see Tuckers' 4, and the DOJ's 45.

And here.....size matters.
(content too)




(*I use 4 and 45 as approximates, but they are fairly close, per media reportage)

 

[Delldude]

But he could still submit a motion to dismiss the case based on Tucker's videos. So why doesn't he unless those videos don't actually portray what you think they do.

Looks like he said he never saw the footage. According to Alan Feurer, NYT .

John Pierce, Jacob Chansley's lawyer, says he's never seen the video released by Tucker Carlson but can't be certain it wasn't already in the case file buried under thousands of hours of other videos. He's considering options and says he may file a motion based on the new footage

 

[Faun]

Looks like he said he never saw the footage. According to Alan Feurer, NYT .

John Pierce, Jacob Chansley's lawyer, says he's never seen the video released by Tucker Carlson but can't be certain it wasn't already in the case file buried under thousands of hours of other videos. He's considering options and says he may file a motion based on the new footage

That was 3 weeks ago, what's he waiting for? Every day he doesn't file that motion is another day his client is in prison. Doesn't he want to get his client out ASAP?

Or maybe he can't because Tucker's videos aren't what you think they are.

 

[Delldude]

That was 3 weeks ago, what's he waiting for? Every day he doesn't file that motion is another day his client is in prison. Doesn't he want to get his client out ASAP?

Or maybe he can't because Tucker's videos aren't what you think they are.

Dude's supposedly getting out in July.

Here's his phone number, call him, he can answer all your queries....213-279-7648
Tucker hardon is showing...................................

 

[Faun]

Dude's supposedly getting out in July.

Here's his phone number, call him, he can answer all your queries....213-279-7648

Why on Earth would I need to call him when his actions speak for him? He's not filing a notion to dismiss.

Tucker hardon is showing...................................

LOL

Uh, no, don't confuse me with your homo-erotic fantasies.

 

[Delldude]

So why doesn't he file a motion to dismiss?

 

[Faun]

What about it? He's still incarcerated and still a convicted felon. Two things his attorney could have reversed had Tucker actually shown exculpatory evidence.