Posted on 03/09/2023 12:17:41 PM PST by McGruff
Hey, Queen Nazi Pelosi and her accomplices the Capitol Police were just teaching everyone not to invade their castle.
You are wrong. That is not how rules of evidence work in court.
IF there was a chain of custody issue (1) that is a defense, not a prosecution issue since it is the gov. that holds every link of that chain and (2) there is nothing, just nothing, casting doubt on the ‘chain’ of this video. Came directly from the gov. to the reporter. Gov. is the only entity in possession of originals. There is no ‘chain’ here.
Stop with the red herrings.
So QAnon is probably screwed I take it.
đ Thanks
I’ve spent 50 years in endless, almost continuous, civil litigation as a developer in a liberal town and have been in scores of “hearings” (probably a couple hundred).
I managed in all that to get one judge mandamused (seriously mandamused according to the lawyers involved) and I sued a firm for a gross impropriety and settled for a half million.
I’ve NEVER seen a lawyer sanctioned in all that. It was tried many times and denied every time.
In my opinion, and in a judiciary that was not sick, some prosecutors would/should go to jail and should have to pay (personally) an appropriate amount of the defendants fees.
Yeah, and when the AG dropped the charges, the judge appointed his own prosecutor. Ive never even heard of that being done.
Yeah, and when the AG dropped the charges, the judge appointed his own prosecutor. Ive never even heard of that being done.
“Stop with the red herrings.”
What “red herring”?
Every DOJ attorney who even got near this case needs to be disbarred.
Every last one.
L
Hiding exculpatory evidence is grounds for appeal to overturn the verdict. It is grounds for prosecutorial misconduct. It is grounds for civil lawsuits on EVERYONE.
Go make your money Mr. Lawyer, and represent your client.
Get him the “F” out of prison!
Zero claims, let alone actual proof, of any chain of custody or authentication issue with the vids. None. No reason to bring up a chain of custody claim when there is no-one even hinting at it. But it keeps popping up in the threads as if it is an issue.
Like all red herrings, it distracts from the actual problem. That problem here is the USDOJ secreted exculpatory evidence from a criminal defendant thereby gaining advantage to pressure a plea bargain/obtain an unfair conviction.
Convictions are routinely overturned for this very reason - see dna rapist trials and the later expungement due to prosecutorial misconduct in failing to produce.
It DOES NOT MATTER if it proves innocence or not since a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The failure to produce is the crime. Not up to the prosecution to decide what evidence a defendant should have, and what evidence should be hidden, irrespective of their motive. They must produce all of it. No exceptions.
In fact, the prosecution should be filing motions themselves right now to overturn the conviction in the interest of justice on the sole fact that the vids exist and were not given to the defense. Monday-morning quarterbacking the effect of secreted evidence [it wouldn’t have changed the outcome] is no defense.
That’s why.
Exactly. So what has he done about it. We just hear he was not shown this. But what does he plan on do with these violations?
TITLE 2âTHE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6âCONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous."
It seems to me that the language of the statute only overrides the concept of privilege in two situations - you cannot refuse to testify or produce based on the answer's tendency to disgrace the witness; or otherwise the answer would have the tendency to make the witness infamous. For example, if you do not want to testify because you, in good faith, believe that the subject they want you to testify in regards to is not any of their business or jurisdiction (think of the the Govt's demands to Elon Musk for names of all the journalists that Musk allowed to see/work on/report the Twitter Files), you still hold the privilege
How the power of contempt is applicable to ANY and ALL refusals to testify or produce is read out of that is a complete mystery regardless of the cited US Supreme court cases
“No reason to bring up a chain of custody claim when there is no-one even hinting at it.”
Then perhaps you should take that up with the poster who actually brought up chain of custody, because it was not me, ya doofus.
There is that corrupt judge who’s name comes up again and again in being involved illegal actions.
Royce C. Lamberth
I am not sure if he was the judge in this case. But I read recently that he was blocking defendants from have access to the video. The judge should be disbarred.
Posting these articles is not helping bring the light to cases like the grandmother from the Midwest who, after being invited in by USCP, simply walked into the Capitol and walked out, and had to take an ugly, ugly plea deal to establish her first and only criminal record, because, as I just stated, we at FreeRepublic are more interested in the FRacebooking and scanning the headlines and smashing the keyboards with our elbows, than we are in actually achieving justice for J6 defendants.
? According to this report the footage of the guy being escorted by Capitol Police was NOT seen by the attorney before.
Watkins has been sharply criticized by Bill Shipley who is handling Chansley’s appeal. He claims that Watkins is essentially incompetent (not in a legal sense).
https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/jacob-chansleys-guilty-plea-in-january
From Shipley’s blog:
“Chansley has received horrible legal advice and assistance in his case. His attorney, Albert Watkins of St. Louis, has been suspect from the very beginning, making prejudicial statements about the mental health of his client in the media, referring to him as a âshort busâ person. Generally speaking, Watkins has a âmixedâ reputation in St. Louis as a defense attorney.”
Shaman should be a very wealthy man when all is said and done.
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.