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

[The5thHorseman]

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.

No, it doesn't.

 

[martybegan]

No, it doesn't.

Of course you would say that, you are a supporter of the J6 Show Trials.

 

[Marener]

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.

They weren’t ignored. The DoJ worked extremely hard to put together a system for them to access the video spending millions on it.

It wasn’t easy to put together such a massive system and couldn’t realistically be done in a short period of time.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Hell just let them all out, hell they only attacked the Capitol that the CIC told them to attack.

 

[Redfish]

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"

The lawyer for Jacob Chansley, the so-called “Q-Anon Shaman” whose image is indelibly li

hotair.com

He should get a new trial, he is a political prisoner.

 

[martybegan]

They weren’t ignored. The DoJ worked extremely hard to put together a system for them to access the video spending millions on it.

It wasn’t easy to put together such a massive system and couldn’t realistically be done in a short period of time.

"working really hard"

Utter and absolute bullshit.

Yet 20-30 production assistants probably found them in less than 2 weeks.....

 

[hadit]

Not really.

One, he admitted to the crime.

Two, showing film of you not robbing the bank is not excusing the fact you robbed the bank and were caught on film doing it.

"See, see, I was not robbing the bank at 3:30 PM."

"Um, yeah, but you were robbing it at 3:31."

Irrelevant. If they government deliberately withheld video evidence of the defendant from the defense, that's a problem. The defense is entitled to ALL the evidence, not just the cherry-picked bits the prosecution wants played in court.

 

[hadit]

It’s not exculpatory.

In your opinion. In the hands of a defense attorney, it could get him a much more favorable outcome. That's the point, he's entitled to ALL the evidence from that day, not just the cherry-picked bits the prosecution want played in court.

 

[hadit]

You do know of course that Chansley was part of the mob rushing and breaking through multiple lines of police barricades. Chansley was only able to enter the Capitol after rioters smashed a window feet away from him and then kicked the doors down from the inside.

He cannot rationally claim ignorance as to whether his actions were okay or not.

This all comes before the video you reference, which, I might add has no audio. To claim merely being followed by an officer without knowing what was being said cannot imply anything. Video of Chansley in the Capitol with audio indicates the officers were repeatedly telling him he needed to leave and he chose not to.

You have a mere implication, which you infer based on a deep seated bias. Even if we accept your belief, it’s tenuous. An objective judge would not be so bias as to believe this video implies what you think it implies.

The defendant is entitled to ALL the evidence his attorney can use to get him the most favorable outcome, not just the cherry-picked bits the prosecution wants played in court.

 

[hadit]

What a pity for horned guy those videos are not exculpatory.

It doesn't matter. He was entitled to them and was denied. That alone can get him a new trial.

 

[hadit]

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.

Irrelevant. He was entitled to ALL the evidence for his attorneys to make the best case possible, not just the cherry-picked bits the prosecution wanted played in court.

 

[jotathought]

They weren’t ignored. The DoJ worked extremely hard to put together a system for them to access the video spending millions on it.

It wasn’t easy to put together such a massive system and couldn’t realistically be done in a short period of time.

Yes .. it was so difficult that a private perusal of the information has produced results in just a couple weeks.

 

[Marener]

"working really hard"

Utter and absolute bullshit.

Yet 20-30 production assistants probably found them in less than 2 weeks.....

Yes, because Carlson was able to access a system which made it easy for them to find exactly what they were looking for.

DOJ Spending $6.1 Million On ‘Database’ For Capitol Riot Prosecutions | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

 

[hadit]

It remains amazing to me the glee displayed on here over a defendant being denied material his attorneys could use to make the best case possible for him. That's not the way our justice system is supposed to work, and the prosecution should face consequences for doing this. Even Chuck Schumer, should he ever face a judge and jury, is entitled to all the evidence, and I'm absolutely certain that the usual suspects (you know who you are) now cheering on the prosecution would be screaming bloody murder if the prosecution denied him access to anything that MIGHT have made a difference.

 

[Marener]

The defendant is entitled to ALL the evidence his attorney can use to get him the most favorable outcome, not just the cherry-picked bits the prosecution wants played in court.

He is entitled to anything potentially exculpatory.

This isn't exculpatory.

Furthermore, Chansley and his lawyer knew exactly what this video showed, and was not in question or relevant to his charges.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, because Carlson was able to access a system which made it easy for them to find exactly what they were looking for.

DOJ Spending $6.1 Million On ‘Database’ For Capitol Riot Prosecutions | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Was he given the database access or just the raw data?

DOJ is part of the executive branch, Tucker got access from Congress.

 

[hadit]

They weren’t ignored. The DoJ worked extremely hard to put together a system for them to access the video spending millions on it.

It wasn’t easy to put together such a massive system and couldn’t realistically be done in a short period of time.

It is to laugh. Short period of time, indeed. We have prisoners from that day still being held without trial. Again, it is to laugh.

 

[hadit]

He is entitled to anything potentially exculpatory.

This isn't exculpatory.

Furthermore, Chansley and his lawyer knew exactly what this video showed, and was not in question or relevant to his charges.

It's up to his attorneys to decide if they can use it or not. It's not up to the prosecution to decide it's not exculpatory.

 

[martybegan]

He is entitled to anything potentially exculpatory.

This isn't exculpatory.

Furthermore, Chansley and his lawyer knew exactly what this video showed, and was not in question or relevant to his charges.

That isn't a choice the prosecution gets to make.

You do realize that defending this just proves all you want is show trials, right?

 

[BlueGin]

He is entitled to anything potentially exculpatory.

This isn't exculpatory.

Furthermore, Chansley and his lawyer knew exactly what this video showed, and was not in question or relevant to his charges.

Obviously they didn’t . Since the lawyer said he had never seen it and then requested it.