[jpp113]

A prosecutor could allow surprise defense evidence, but why would they. However, if the prosecutor actually has knowledge of exculpatory evidence, he absolutely has to present it. But as can be seen from the NY sham GJ shenanigans, nothing happens if they do not (although it is blatantly unconstitutional to not do so).

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I thought that in the discovery phase of a federal case going to trial, the prosecutor is required to provide exculpatory evidence which may reflect on the case. If Jack Smith got caught withholding such evidence, he might say, "I didn't think that evidence was relevant." The J6 lawyers for the defense were pretty quiet about the prosecution withholding video footage. What's the story there?