Posted on 12/05/2017 4:25:52 PM PST by TigerClaws
Former Judge: If General Flynn Was Not Aware Strzok Was Removed for Bias – Case Can Be Dismissed Due to Giglio Violation December 5, 2017 by Jim Hoft 9 Comments
Share Tweet Email
Glenn Reynolds is a law professor, author and USA Today columnist.
Glenn runs the wildly popular Instapundit website at PJ Media and has an enormous following.
This afternoon Glenn Reynolds posted this comment from a former judge and reader on the General Michael Flynn arrest and plea deal.
Glenn believes this was a flawed investigation because General Michael Flynn was not notified that the main witness against him was removed from the investigation for bias. If General Flynn was not aware of this it is Giglio violation. Via Instapundit:
A READER WHO IS A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE EMAILS:
Did the prosecution tell Flynn’s lawyer that their main witness against him was removed for bias? Since Strzok led the interview and his testimony would be needed to establish untruthfulness, he is a critical witness not just a prosecutor. If not disclosed, would this not be a Giglio violation? This is the kind of misconduct that can get a case dismissed and a lawyer disbarred. It is a Constitutional violation. This has bothered me since I heard about it.
Me too.
The Giglio versus United States case: is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution’s failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial.
Basically, if the proseuction engages in hiding key evidence form the defendant, they can get the conviction set aside and possibly tossed out completely:
The Supreme Court began its analysis by noting that deliberately deceiving the trial court and jury by presenting evidence known to be false had been held to be incompatible with the “rudimentary demands of justice” as early as Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935).[3] In Napue, the Court had held that the same result occurs “when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears.”[3] In Brady, the Supreme Court had held that, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution, suppression of material, exculpatory evidence required a new trial.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giglio_v._United_States
I wonder if Alan Dershowitz would also agree with that idea, as he seems to be a voice of reason in the last while, particularly the way he nailed DiFi to the wall regarding her recent comments.
Word has it the persecutors threatened Flynn’s son.
I saw that, and posted it elsewhere. I think the judge is correct. Their chief witness has now been demonstrated to be heavily biased. Their case has just collapsed, even with a guilty plea.
Yeah, they hid this information from Congress while going after Flynn. Sure looks like they hid it deliberately.
I’ve said this for the past four days; Strzok is the Rosetta Stone of this prosecution and the whole rotten mess can be pulled down because of him. If I were one of Flynn’s or Manafort’s lawyers, I would file an immediate motion for discovery against Mueller, demanding all reoords of the Strzok interview of Flynn, all emails the clown sent out, the hiring files for his wife and her appointment to a 225,000 dollar high level SEC job while he was in charge of reviewing the Abedin/Weiner email cache from Hillary before he gave the “all clear” three days before the election.
bump
I have an answer to that question on a tab I left open in the hopes that someone would ask it!
"He should have recused himself," said Dershowitz, speaking to Fox News host Laura Ingraham. "And I think he should be severely punished ... He knew he had a bias."
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/dershowitz-pardoning-people-not-impeachable-offense/
We knew that anti Trumpers were working for Mueller, but this is going to get very interesting.
It's the end of Mueller, and not just this phony Russian probe.
Mueller would face disbarment at the very least, and possibly criminal prosecution himself.
Smells like a thoroughly rotten stew of corruption, influence peddling, quid pro quo, kickbacks, bribery, and you name it.
Not a lawyer. It’s *possibly* true. I am pretty sure if Flynn threw $175K at this he could get his confession reversed. That’s apparently the crux of the issue at this juncture.
Assumes that Mueller et al. give a rat's ass about the rule of law.
Pardon Flynn NOW!! He is a political; prisoner in a free country. Stop this travesty.
I thought I read where Special Counsel has no judicial oversight. If true, they can do whatever they wish, no?
Sure sounds like Mueller committed OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AMONG OTHER THINGS by NOT disclosing Strzok’s removal when it happened.
Gen. Flynn needs to publicly renounce his plea agreement and simultaneously announce that he plans to sue Mueller, McCabe, Comey, Obama,Rice, Rhodes, and Power for violation of his constitutional rights.
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.