Posted on 01/29/2022 8:35:10 AM PST by george76
Prosecutors at the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office are being accused of withholding evidence in hopes of convicting a San Francisco police officer of excessive force.
The NBC Bay Area's Investigative Unit has learned a criminal investigator for the DA’s office, Magen Hayashi, testified Thursday that she was ordered by her own co-workers – attorneys inside the district attorney’s office – to withhold evidence, and said she believed she would have been fired if she refused.
District Attorney Chesa Boudin and his office did not respond to requests for comment.
The allegations stem from the ongoing criminal case against San Francisco Police Officer Terrance Stangel, who is accused of unnecessarily beating a man with his baton more than two years ago.
...
During her testimony, Hayashi told a judge she never disclosed the fact that she interviewed a witness who said just before Officer Stangel pulled out his baton, the man he struck could be seen beating a woman. In court documents filed earlier this week, Stangel’s attorney, Nicole Pifari, argued Stangel’s use of force was “reasonable and lawful under the circumstances and existing law.”
The officer’s legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the charges based “prosecutorial misconduct” and “deceptive and reprehensible methods” used by the district attorney’s office. The judge has yet to rule on whether to throw out the case.
“The DA’s deceit and concealment of real evidence is disturbing, it is corrupt, and it is a violation of public trust,” Pifari wrote in the recent court filing. “Most importantly, however, it is illegal.”
Supporters of San Francisco's District Attorney Chesa Boudin responded to the testimony on Friday.
A spokesperson for the "Friends of Chesa Boudin" lobbying group issued a statement Friday which read in part: “The recall campaign must be getting desperate. They’re actually joining forces with lawyers for disgraced police officers. The recall committee is now working against police accountability in their desperation to overturn the last election.”
If they are falsely accusing him of excessive force, and with-hilding evidence that proves he wasn’t guilty of excessive force, wouldn’t that be called “malicious prosecution”? (Prosecuring under false pretenses/accusations)
Maybe “prosecutorial misconduct’ is similar enough-
Enough said.
“Prosecutorial misconduct” is too broad a term. For example, in the Rittenhouse case. The prosecutor intimated that the defendant exercised his right to remain silent and also violated a court order stemming from a motion in limine. Both are misconduct but are different from a Brady violation.
Brady material violations...
If intentional, perps ought to be prosecuted and disbarred.
“A Communist is just a Fascist who’s wearing your clothes.”
-Tardre Focault, 1939
Remember what the Lord said about trees and fruit?
Corrupt tree, corrupt fruit.
Almost impossible to prove.
In addition, about 1976, The Supreme Court created absolute immunity for prosecutors out of thin air.
Yep- I remember during the Zimmerman trial they were pulling some really awful stuff on George- flat out lying about him and the case- noone was held accountable for that travesty of justice either- (while he was found innocent, he suffered terribly from the lies and false accusations- with blm even threatening him and his family because of the lies- Same with the Chauvin case- )
Message is loud and clear.
If you’re still a cop in that area of operations (AO), then you’re an idiot.
“Any police department (or university faculty, or military unit, etc.) is only as good as the worst psycho they tolerate.” ~ H/T RedStateRocker
Law and Order Republicans are butthurt when DAs use these tactics on cops, but fine with it otherwise.
No, I think those are the "police do no wrong" types.
How cute, he has his own lobbying group.
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.