Posted on 03/15/2023 11:48:13 AM PDT by cuz1961
Defendants in the ongoing Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Breach trial suffered a defeat on Monday, as the court ordered that the defendants may not cross-examine an FBI agent for most of the defense attorneys’ allegations that spawned from internal FBI messages ...
(Excerpt) Read more at truthpress.com ...
Lady Justice’s blind is on the ground and she’s pointing her finger at us while hysterically laughing.
If the judge says you can’t ask questions, why would that judge entertain a motion for mistrial?
No mr.bear, I don’t think so.
Prosecution is bound to provide any
exculpatory evidence
In criminal law, exculpatory evidence is evidence, such as a statement, tending to excuse, justify, or absolve the alleged fault or guilt of a defendant.
In other words, the evidence is favorable to the defendant
.
I've long been in favor of holding liberal Judges, D.A.'s and Attorney Generals criminally accountable when one of the violent criminals they've released right back onto the street, goes out and commits murder and mayhem, but it's a lost cause. Democrats will never hold their feet to fire, and Republicans haven't the balls to do anything either.
Does not mean they necessarily get to cross examine a prosecution witness beyond the scope that the witness was questioned about.
They got all kinds of regular rules of procedure.
As to the particulars in this case I would want to hear what Robert Barnes or some trustworthy knowledgeable lawyer thinks.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
Of course, Trump's list of judges was compiled by the Turtle, so no surprises here.
One of the "tells" for a McConnell judge is the confirmation vote.
Tim Kelly's was 94 to 2.
They usually install these types on the US District Court for the District of Columbia, and they usually "have something" on them.
In Kelly's case, he spent a decade as a federal prosecutor, so he is knee-jerk a King's Man.
the point would be to get the notion of a mistrial on the official record by filing it with the court. the motion would spell out the difficulties caused by the judge. it would be a hail mary message to the appeals court. a decent appeals court would consider the reasoning included in the motion and expanded upon in the appellate filing.
(heck i dunno, i ain’t no hifalutin’ appellate lawyer none, y’all hears)
Gitmo terrorist detainees had more rights.
“Your Honor, I invoke Rule .308 of Constitutional procedure.”
1984 in progress one step at a time before the big slam.
If the Judge controls which witnesses can testify, and the Judge controls what they can and can’t testify to, and the Judge controls which questions can be asked by the defendant, what exactly is the purpose of a Trial?
It is true that venue lies in the jurisdiction of the crime, all other things being equal.
They aren't, here.
“You can move for a change of venue on grounds of prejudice, pretrial publicity, conflict of interest, etc.”
Certainly. But you are petitioning to change the venue, not change the district. The idea that the prosecution takes place in the district where the crime was committed is not just a standard practice, it’s a legal requirement under federal law.
Normally that’s not a big issue, since most districts cover an entire state where you can find a variety of venues, and some even cover multiple states or areas of states. But the District of Columbia is one single city, so there’s really no alternative venue there.
“The lawyer don’t have a hair on his ass if he doesn’t just spit the question right out”
Easier to ask forgiveness than permission so yeh get the question out in the open.
Watch this interview of a Jan. 5th defendant and tell me if you think these agents are not corrupt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsyZIaUQX4Q
Very sad and disturbing.
If the FBI can’t be cross-examined, then all testimony from the FBI should be inadmissible.
Very sound plan...
The right of cross-examination is more than a desirable rule of trial procedure. It is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation, and helps assure the “accuracy of the truth-determining process.” It is, indeed, “an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country’s constitutional goal.”
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295 (1973)
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.