Jan 6 video
- Thread starter biggreydogs
- Start date
Unless it's relevant to his "innocence", it isn't going to matter.
As I'd already told you, IF there had been someone dressed LIKE him and there would be reasonable doubt it was him on the other videos, sequestering that would be a Brady violation.
None of the "non-crime actions" on tape are relevant, at all, to the charges he pled guilty to.
You continue to act as if this piece of footage would’ve changed the plea deal. It wouldn’t have.
You are the one pushing the narrative that your video clears Jacob Chansley. Who needs proof of anything in your world?
Incidentally, does it affect your narrative in any way that Chansley admitted his guilt, and expressed contrition when he was sentenced?
@biggreydogs
Hi, you are probably super busy, so you probably missed this post. Chansley admitted his guilt, and expressed contrition when he was sentenced. How does that affect you and Tucker pushing that there's a bunch of evidence that he's innocent?
Obviously, Chansley never had the opportunity to see the video of himself walking calmly though the Capitol chambers. If he had, he would've totally forgotten all the things he admitted to and expressed remorse over.
Can Chansley appeal, and will Tucker and Biggrey represent him? They are very good at law stuff. Or, maybe they will just fund an appeal? I am sure that very soon we will hear about Tucker funding an appeal for Chansley.
He has an attorney. They are exploring exactly that. The government withheld evidence. This is a truly big deal despite what the tribal blue members on here think
He. Pleaded. Straight. Up. Guilty.
Would you like to bet on the outcome of his appeal?
You people are such morons. Hisbhuikt or innocence is not material. What matters now is the government violating the rights of dependents by withholding evidence
And. You. Are. A. ****ing. Moron
Look up brady violation and why it matters.
The government by the way withheld all video from the defense until after they secured their plea deal.
The appeal would be for the Brady violation. The guy was guilty. The Brady violation you’re claiming would relate to sentencing.
LOL. White knighting the criminal morons that attacked the Capitol seems to be a passionate obsession with you. You gonna white knight Hitler and how he got railroaded in the Beer Hall Putsch trial next?
It's irrelevant anyway, and you're a full of shit fascist, but see link:
Loading…
www.washingtonpost.com
Traitor fluffers. There are worse Americans, but not many.
You are the fascist. I read that report and it is a clown show. The fire back where they admit a brady violation because they didn't provide the video until after the plea deal.
So dipshit if the video wasn't exculpatory then why did they eventually provide it? If it was exculpatory then why did they wait until after a plea deal.
That you don't understand that makes you stupid as ****. If you do understand it thay makes you an evil **** that doesn't mi n d the government violating constitutional rights because you don't like the defendent.
Jeff Foxworthy- if you attempt to overturn a free and legal election, you might be a fascist.
If you attack the Capital, you might..
If you desire to execute the Vice President, there’s a strong possibility…
If you defend the obvious anti-American scumbag fascists who did all that I’m not gonna wonder.
If you attack the Capital, you might..
If you desire to execute the Vice President, there’s a strong possibility…
If you defend the obvious anti-American scumbag fascists who did all that I’m not gonna wonder.
Hang on tight, folks.
@hawkedoff is gonna "take it to 11" once his orange idol gets indicted next week...
@hawkedoff is gonna "take it to 11" once his orange idol gets indicted next week...
Can you provide a citation to Supreme Court precedent holding that Brady even applies before a guilty plea? Very quick research suggests that this is not at all clear.
Omg you're calling me an idiot when you're so frigging stupid.
Ok let's play you're little game. There was a brady violation. They withheld it. Did chisley not know what he did when he was inside the capital? Why plead straight up guilty if he knew what happened? Why not take an Alford? Are you aware of an Alford? Why not demand the video I mean you were there?
Your argument is for a mental midgit who never graduated high schools but thinks they are smart
I'm done with you this isn't even fun anymore, it's sad for someone with no clue to be so clueless.
Dumbass. It does not matter what the defendent knows or doesn't know. The prosecutors office does not get to withhold evidence. So the defendent knows police escorted him around but can be prove it? Does he realize it's important? Is the prosecution overcharging and applying pressure for an appeal.
A brady violation is a very big deal abd the government had evidence a d withheld it.
That you don't care makes you an evil ****. Do better
By the way;
Since Chansley was charged with and eventually pleaded guilty to “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority,” video showing as many as nine police officers in close proximity to him but never once attempting to stop him from marching around the Capitol would tend to exonerate him as it would show that he had a reasonable belief that he did in fact have lawful authority to enter and remain in the Capitol
And:
Chansley, though, was never able to present this defense because the Department of Justice never once provided him with the surveillance video that could have proven his innocence.
“Had you seen that clearly exculpatory tape of your client at trial?” Carlson asked Chansley’s former attorney Albert Watkins on Wednesday night.
“No,” Watkins flatly answered. “The government knew that Jake walked around with all of these police officers. They had that video footage. I didn’t get it, it wasn’t disclosed to me, it wasn’t provided to me. I requested it.
“I filed the requisite pleadings for it, and whether I did or not, they had a duty, an absolute duty, with zero discretion, to provide it to me so that I could share it with my client. I never got it.”
He's busy packing for his Mar A Lago Tuesday "appointment"...
From the guy posting clips from Tucker Carlson's show as "evidence". LOL.
That isn't Iowa nice. And, nobody has ever explained why despite these gross violations of the shaman's rights, he pled guilty, and expressed contrition as the Trump judge sentenced him.
Yes. Your friends on Twitter are misrepresenting the law.
United States v. Derr, 990 F.2d 1330 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Reaffirmed in,
Walker v. United States, 167 A.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
And the fascism you’re so worried about? The conservatives on the Supreme Court don’t care.
Cert denied (2019)
Yates v. United States - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
Cert denied (2022)
Blankenship v. United States - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
Last edited:
My God you are a liar. Your very first case listed deals with inadmissible evidence nondisclosure being a brady violation. In that case the court found that a failed polygraph in a murder case by a witness would not have changed the outcome of the case and would not have been admitted because polygraphs were inadmissible in court.Yes. Your friends on Twitter are misrepresenting the law.
United States v. Derr, 990 F.2d 1330 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Reaffirmed in,
Walker v. United States, 167 A.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
And the fascism you’re so worried about? The conservatives on the Supreme Court don’t care.
Cert denied (2019)
Yates v. United States - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Courtwww.scotusblog.com
Cert denied (2022)
Blankenship v. United States - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Courtwww.scotusblog.com
Do you plan to simply lie and post caselaw as if it says something it doesn't? Just how big of a lying asshole are you?
By the way chansleys original attorney is quoted above as to nondisclosure by the government despite repeated attempts by him to get the videos and that the government was well aware if the content of the videos contradicting their charges and the plea deal.
You are a dick
Are you illiterate? From Derr,
Because Brady only requires disclosure of information unknown to the defendant, see United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), and then generally only upon request, see id. at 107, 96 S.Ct. at 2399, Derr's knowledge at trial of the arrests combined with his failure to seek any information about the fruits of the accompanying search necessarily defeat this Brady claim. Brady provides no refuge to defendants who have knowledge of the government's possession of possibly exculpatory information, but sit on their hands until after a guilty verdict is returned.
That is the stance you are going to take? I hope to God you don't represent anyone and I truly belive that if you are a prosecutor every single case you have ever handled should be reviewed and you should be sanctioned or disbarred. Shame on you. You are mischaracterizing the very first case you listed in relation to this situation completely. Which makes you stupid, incompetent, or evil. Maybe all three
But you’re stupid.
I literally provided you with the relevant law in the DC Circuit. You’re just not smart enough to see how it’s interpreted. Chansley knew that the cops walked with him and that there was likely video.
So, here again is the current interpretation. SCOTUS denied Cert. This remains the law in the DC Circuit.
Loading…
www.supremecourt.gov
Last edited:
I'm not the one making claims that have been refuted by several actual attorneys in this thread. That would be you.
Similar threads
