Posted on 03/22/2023 7:18:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It has been reported that Trump could be indicted as early as Wednesday, but it’s anyone’s guess when and if it will actually happen. However, it is becoming more apparent that the case, which legal experts believe is very weak, has been rigged against Trump.
On Monday night, during an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Robert Costello, the surprise witness in the case, discussed his testimony before the Manhattan Grand Jury earlier in the day. Costello stated that he testified for two hours in front of Soros-funded DA Bragg’s grand jury and claimed that during that time, he came to the conclusion that the DA’s office was not interested in discovering the truth.
“I just spent two hours or so testifying before the grand jury in downtown Manhattan, and I got my point across,” Costello said. “Although it was clear to me that the Manhattan DA’s office did not want to get to the truth. I need to explain that a little bit. I called them up after I saw Michael Cohen on TV, stating things that he said he was going to tell the grand jury and had told the grand jury that were contrary to what he told us when we first represented him in April of 2018. So I’m sitting at home watching these lies, and I said I’ve got to do something about it. I don’t represent Donald Trump, but I do stand for justice. And I think I have a legal obligation to inform both sides. So that’s what I did.”
The situation is alarming but not entirely surprising, given what we already know about DA Alvin Bragg. However, things might actually be even worse than previously thought, because Bragg may have deliberately hidden exculpatory evidence from the grand jury.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Watch as this Biden judicial nominee explains to Senator Kennedy what a Brady Motion (Brady v. Maryland is the case that confirmed the exculpatory evidence requirement) in a court case entails. I assure you, you will be impressed (or not)!
I think all 50 state Bars are populated by leftists and thus all are corrupt to the core. There is a better chance of Hell really freezing over than a state Bar yanking his law license.
https://www.stroock.com/uploads/NYLJ-JC-The-Ethics-of-a-One-Sided-Grand-Jury-Presentation.pdf
see page 2
New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8, titled “Special Responsibilities of Prosecutors and Other
Government Lawyers,” says merely that a prosecutor “shall not institute, cause to be instituted or maintain a
criminal charge when the prosecutor … knows or it is obvious that the charge is not supported by probable
cause,” cf. ABA Model Rules 3.8. No requirement that exculpatory evidence be presented—certainly if not
requested by defense counsel.
But, one wonders, how many prosecutors or even prosecution offices have actually looked at the somewhat
expanded requirements of the ABA Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function, at 3-4.6(e): A
“prosecutor with personal knowledge of evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject … should present
or otherwise disclose that evidence to the grand jury. The prosecutor should relay to the grand jury any
request by the subject or target … to testify …, or present other non-frivolous evidence claimed to be
exculpatory.”
As a purely ethical matter, this seems consistent with Department of Justice policy. According to the Justice
Department manual:
“In United States v. Williams, 112 S. Ct. 1735 (1992), the Supreme Court held that the federal courts’
supervisory powers over the grand jury did not include the power to make a rule allowing the dismissal of an
otherwise valid indictment where the prosecutor failed to introduce substantial exculpatory evidence … It is
the policy of the Department of Justice, … that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally
aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor
must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment … While a
failure to follow the Department’s policy should not result in dismissal of an indictment, appellate courts may
refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.” DOJ Manual 9-11.233.”
Costello went rogue and didn’t play their game.
If only everyone approached prosecutors this way, there would be a lot fewer innocent people getting convicted and fewer prosecutorial misconduct incidents. IMO
There can’t be a “mistrial” because there’s not an indictment.
Thank you. My initial reaction was, How can there be a mistrial without a trial?
I got my law degree from watching re-runs of Law & Order and even I know this. : )
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.