Posted on 03/22/2023 11:27:52 AM PDT by Red Badger
as far as I understand the process the DA only presents its evidence against the accused.
It has no obligation to present a defense. Which is why they say you could “indict a ham sandwich”
That’s is their objective.
Trump will make them regret it.................
You are correct — but most DAs wouldn’t do any of this knowing it would eventually lead to their cases falling apart.
Withholding Exculpatory Evidence
from any Agency is TERRORISM.
The DA and his controller Soros, are terrorists.
But certainly not politically motivated.
The FIB apparently does the same everyday when dealing with “domestic terrorists” created in their fervent minds.
as far as I understand the process the DA only presents its evidence against the accused.
It has no obligation to present a defense. Which is why they say you could “indict a ham sandwich”
*********
True, but this needs to be changed. Otherwise, an accused can be put to the expense and risk of a trial even when there is a mountain of evidence in his favor — evidence that would have resulted in no trial if it had been seen. Why bother to have grand juries if they are only puppets of the prosecutor?
It gets trickier than that.
I have just gotten off a month of grand jury duty. We dealt with a lot of cases. One example: some of the evidence presented to us consisted of security camera footage. We actually had one full shooting scene captured on the security camera of a building across the parking lot.
So here’s the question: what if a corrupt prosecutor edits the video? Maybe he just cuts off the beginning or the end to delete footage that refutes his case. Is this legitimate? Of course not.
That is substantively no different from what Bragg appears to have done in this case.
The prosecutor has the resources of the entire Gouvernement at his disposal. He/she is required by law to present the evidence all of it and to make it available to the defense.
A DA on the up and up wouldn’t have even gone to the grand jury if they were in possession of hundreds of pages of truly exculpatory evidence
Assuming the indictment occurs and Trump is charged, I look forward to the (legal) evisceration of Alvin.
This is merely a high profile case. Our system of pseudo-justice often denies jurors the taped confession, the testimony of a person not Mirandized perfectly and the narcotics, guns and stolen property found without a minutely detailed search warrant. And DA’s often withhold exculpatory evidence to hurt a defendant they don’t like-——such as Trump. Both sides in the pseudo-justice system suffer.
Hopefully there are cameras in the court room.
It’s my understanding that if a DA fails to present exculpatory evidence that refutes an element of the crime, any subsequent indictment should be dismissed. The DA is also subject to professional disciplinary action.
there is no defense during a grand jury. You are thinking of what is required during a trial.
that’s at the trial, not the grand jury.
He is really putting his reputation on the line with this story.
You cannot be compelled to testify in a Grand Jury proceeding.
how could the man and wife defend themselves at the grand jury, when they wouldn’t even be there?
quote from google “The process is not an adversarial process. The defendant is not present, and the defense attorney does not have a right to be in the room.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.