Posted on 08/05/2023 12:02:29 PM PDT by george76
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team admitted in a Monday court filing that his staff did not turn over all evidence to former President Donald Trump’s legal team, despite previously claiming that they had.
Smith has brought a total of 40 counts against Trump, accusing him of unlawfully retaining classified documents after leaving office and lying to the government about handing over all documents.
On July 27, Smith’s team filed a “superseding indictment” which further accused Trump of instructing his security staff to delete security tapes from his Mar-a-Lago resort only a couple of months before the FBI raided the Florida residence, Newsweek reported.
Others named in the indictment include Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira and Trump aide Waltine “Walt” Nauta.
According to prosecutors, it was De Oliveira who told a Mar-a-Lago employee that “the boss” wanted a security server erased.
...
Now, it appears that Smith is the one withholding security footage.
In a July 31 court filing, Smith’s team admitted that they failed to upload video footage taken from Mar-a-Lago to an online platform where Trump’s defense team could review it, as required by law, according to Newsweek.
“On July 27, as part of the preparation for the superseding indictment coming later that day and the discovery production for Defendant De Oliveira, the Government learned that this footage had not been processed and uploaded to the platform established for the defense to view the subpoenaed footage,” read the filing.
The Government’s representation at the July 18 hearing that all surveillance footage the Government had obtained pre-indictment had been produced was therefore incorrect.”
The Brady rule is a legal standard that requires the prosecution to provide the defense with any exculpatory information that will be brought against them in court.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...
Stalin would be proud. Gulags, showers and ovens, anyone?
Brady rule
The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government’s possession to the defense. Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant’s potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant’s guilt.
Initially, the Brady rule was only applicable if the defendant made a pretrial request for specific information which the prosecution denied. In United States v. Bagley, however, the Supreme Court eliminated this request requirement and stated that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose all material, favorable information in their possession to defendants regardless of whether it is requested. This duty is breached regardless of whether that information is withheld intentionally or unintentionally.
If a Brady rule violation is discovered during trial, the court can either declare a mistrial or prohibit the prosecution from using unfavorable evidence which could be discredited by the withheld information. Because the Brady rule inherently involves a lack of information on the side of the defense, however, violations of the Brady rule are typically only discovered after the defendant is already convicted. As a result, the most common outcome of a Brady rule violation is overturning that conviction. Additionally, if the prosecution withheld Brady material intentionally or knowingly, they may be subject to sanctions.
The defendant bears the burden to prove that any withheld information was both material and favorable. A defendant meets this burden if they can show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the information been disclosed. In Kyles v. Whitley, the Supreme Court clarified four aspects of this test:
“Reasonable probability” is a question of whether the government’s failure to disclose this information undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.
“Reasonable probability” is not a sufficiency of evidence test and the defendant does not need to show that the evidence, barring any evidence undermined by the withheld information, is inadequate to support a conviction. Rather, the defendant merely must show that the withheld information can reasonably be taken to put the whole case in a different light.
Failure to disclose information which has a reasonable probability of changing the outcome of the trial is inherently harmful, thus there is no need for a separate harmless error review.
All information not disclosed must be considered collectively, not item by item.
A little like “My Cousin Vinny”.
She won't be the slightest bit offended.
But If I were Trumps attorney, I'd move for a mistrial based on the persecution's violation of Trumps civil rights by deliberately, illegally, and maliciously withholding relevan crucial evidence from the defense.
Her "honor" could find herself in the same boat as Jack, facing Federal civil rights charges. (Although the Feds and her are on the same get Trump at any cost team...)
If Judge Chutkan doesn’t toss this case, she is as dirty as Smith.
He appears to me to be the sort that would enjoy shooting political opponents and dissidents in the back of the head in his sound proofed basement bunker.
Communists are like that.
“I deliberately failed to hand over all evidence to Trump’s legal team, because I’m not really a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.”
Wouldn't that normally called for the counsel to be removed? Perhaps even have the case dismissed?
Prosecutorial misconduct..if the justice system were fair the case would be thrown out of court this second
She is as dirty as Smith that’s why he hand picked her
That happened in General Flynn's case. These Federal prosecutors do it all the time, and end up getting away with it far too often.
Trump’s attorney, Mr. Lauro, should file for a mistrial based on the violation of Trump’s Civil Rights with Smith’s intentional omission.
Dershowitz is reporting that Smith included a Trump quote in the indictment and misquoted him. Left out Trumps words about demonstrating peacefully.
It’s pretty clear our elected representatives no longer fear the people.
Is that sorta like “misspoke” about sniper fire?
Seems to me like illegally trying to hinder the defense, which is probably against the rules.
Gee whiz. In a normal persecution, uh, prosecution, would deliberately withholding pertinent info be grounds...... Oh, never mind. 🤬
The braying mob doesn't give a damn. And this whole freaking country is nothing but a braying mob.
As you can see, this is something to really battle about in all the Trump cases. I certainly hope Trump’s legal team is extra vigilant. I think it is important for there to be complete transparency. This isn’t some Judge Wapner bull crap faux reality TV. America should be in for a major lesson in how justice really works in America. These trials are microcosms of what goes on every day. People really need to put themselves in Trump’s shoes and ask if it is fair.
And Dersh still will vote for whatever Democrat is on any ticket, including Biden (again) in 2024.
What a pompous, arrogant, overzealous prig he is. If he was so sure of his case, he wouldn't have had to pad the charges.
Even if its showing boxes being moved around....so what. As far as everyone knew, there were no classified documents in any of the boxes,
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.