Prosecutors Withheld Evidence That Could Exonerate J20 Protesters, Judge Rules

CHIEF JUDGE Robert E. Morin of the D.C. Superior Court found on Wednesday that federal prosecutors suppressed potentially exculpatory evidence against six Inauguration Day protesters. In a motion filed late last night, attorneys for the defendants accused the government of withholding evidence that could have exonerated their clients — a serious violation of pretrial discovery rules. Attorneys allege that the state withheld evidence by editing a video of a protest planning meeting. Defense attorneys called on the court to sanction Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff for “blatant hiding of evidence” and requested that the indictment against their clients be dismissed.

At pretrial hearing Wednesday afternoon, Morin agreed that the prosecution had violated the “Brady rule,” which governs the state’s pretrial obligations to disclose exculpatory evidence, but declined to rule on the defense’s motions to dismiss the indictment or suppress the evidence. Morin will rule on those sanctions next week.

Source

This is just the latest in what has become a long series of questionable and outright illegal moves on the part of the Feds when it comes to the J20 protesters.

As if these cases were not ridiculous enough to begin with it has become crystal clear that this was nothing more than a witch hunt. One can only hope that any prosecutor who bent and broke the law in an attempt to further the government's agenda loses their license to practice law.

One fact you (and probably others) forget about laws and the Constitution of the US

You absolutely have the right to a peaceful protest
You do not have a right to disrupt a public gathering . That is against the law.

The protesters arrived at Franklin Square shortly after Mr Trump’s swearing-in. According to the Washington Post, some of the protesters threw rocks, bricks, and chunks of concrete as they walked. Other protesters assaulted a limousine driver, destroyed a government vehicle and committed other "violent and destructive acts," according to an indictment.

Dirru pt J20

And , BTW, you forgot part of their name
DISRUPT J20
Better

Get it ?
Got it ?
Good...

I hope everyone gets it.

a reply to: Gothmog

agree however in your quote it says some of the protesters, not all. So are the ones that were not hurling bricks and causing disarray - are they being prosecuted and if so, are they having evidence to exonerate them withheld?

originally posted by: auroraaus
a reply to: Gothmog

agree however in your quote it says some of the protesters, not all. So are the ones that were not hurling bricks and causing disarray - are they being prosecuted and if so, are they having evidence to exonerate them withheld?

The leaders of DISRUPT J20 have stated that was their established goal
So , yes. If you admit to a crime in public and then follow through.....
Guilty of charges.
Also , guilty of extreme lack of intelligence

a reply to: Gothmog

thanks for clarifying

a reply to: Gothmog

This was a mass arrest of nearly 200 people simply for being there. Do you really think all 200 of these people were breaking the law? Because so far the judges that have overseen these cases don't think so.

And even then do you not think facing 70 years for protesting is a bit excessive?

Regardless, this thread is not about the protesters. It is about the prosecutors who have violated the law every step of the way to get a guilty verdict. Luckily their cases have been so weak that no one who has gone to trial has been found guilty.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

This was a mass arrest of nearly 200 people simply for being there. Do you really think all 200 of these people were breaking the law? Because so far the judges that have overseen these cases don't think so.

And even then do you not think facing 70 years for protesting is a bit excessive?

Regardless, this thread is not about the protesters. It is about the prosecutors who have violated the law every step of the way to get a guilty verdict. Luckily their cases have been so weak that no one who has gone to trial has been found guilty.

If you are a member of a gang at the same location as the gang , Sure .
The leaders that started the gang professed the reason they were formed. If a person joins that gang , they share similar beliefs thus share the same fate

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

This was a mass arrest of nearly 200 people simply for being there. Do you really think all 200 of these people were breaking the law? Because so far the judges that have overseen these cases don't think so.

And even then do you not think facing 70 years for protesting is a bit excessive?

Regardless, this thread is not about the protesters. It is about the prosecutors who have violated the law every step of the way to get a guilty verdict. Luckily their cases have been so weak that no one who has gone to trial has been found guilty.

If you are a member of a gang at the same location as the gang , Sure .
The leaders that started the gang professed the reason they were formed. If a person joins that gang , they share similar beliefs thus share the same fate

So straight up, if anyone goes to a protest and damage is caused by some Protesers you're happy for everyone there to be found guilty, so the actions of a few make the whole group guilty...

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

This was a mass arrest of nearly 200 people simply for being there. Do you really think all 200 of these people were breaking the law? Because so far the judges that have overseen these cases don't think so.

And even then do you not think facing 70 years for protesting is a bit excessive?

Regardless, this thread is not about the protesters. It is about the prosecutors who have violated the law every step of the way to get a guilty verdict. Luckily their cases have been so weak that no one who has gone to trial has been found guilty.

If you are a member of a gang at the same location as the gang , Sure .
The leaders that started the gang professed the reason they were formed. If a person joins that gang , they share similar beliefs thus share the same fate

So straight up, if anyone goes to a protest and damage is caused by that protest you're happy for everyone there to be found guilty...

If a person joins the KKK and turns up at a violent protest , guess what ?
Now , go away.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

This was a mass arrest of nearly 200 people simply for being there. Do you really think all 200 of these people were breaking the law? Because so far the judges that have overseen these cases don't think so.

And even then do you not think facing 70 years for protesting is a bit excessive?

Regardless, this thread is not about the protesters. It is about the prosecutors who have violated the law every step of the way to get a guilty verdict. Luckily their cases have been so weak that no one who has gone to trial has been found guilty.

If you are a member of a gang at the same location as the gang , Sure .
The leaders that started the gang professed the reason they were formed. If a person joins that gang , they share similar beliefs thus share the same fate

So straight up, if anyone goes to a protest and damage is caused by that protest you're happy for everyone there to be found guilty...

If a person joins the KKK and turns up at a violent protest , guess what ?
Now , go away.

How very authoritarian of you, can't see how something like that could come back to bite you in the ass...

a reply to: Gothmog

What about the journalists covering the rally that also got arrested?

a reply to: Gothmog

So you agree that everyone that was at the UTR rally should be arrested.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

This was a mass arrest of nearly 200 people simply for being there. Do you really think all 200 of these people were breaking the law? Because so far the judges that have overseen these cases don't think so.

And even then do you not think facing 70 years for protesting is a bit excessive?

Regardless, this thread is not about the protesters. It is about the prosecutors who have violated the law every step of the way to get a guilty verdict. Luckily their cases have been so weak that no one who has gone to trial has been found guilty.

If you are a member of a gang at the same location as the gang , Sure .
The leaders that started the gang professed the reason they were formed. If a person joins that gang , they share similar beliefs thus share the same fate

So straight up, if anyone goes to a protest and damage is caused by that protest you're happy for everyone there to be found guilty...

If a person joins the KKK and turns up at a violent protest , guess what ?
Now , go away.

How very authoritarian of you, can't see how something like that could come back to bite you in the ass...

May happen one of these days
Hasnt yet , though. And it has been many decades
Good luck trying to provoke someone else.
I countered the OP with a fact
The leaders had already professed what their mission was when the started DISRUPT J20
Anyone joining agrees with that founding principle or else they wouldnt join
Get the gist of my comparison now ?
Or will it take 20 more posts ?
I dont like to have to repeat myself...
Some will not face criminal charges. Some including the "leaders" will

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

So you agree that everyone that was at the UTR rally should be arrested.

See the comparison on my other post.
Nuff Said.

a reply to: Gothmog

Actually, so far none have been found guilty and pretty much all the cases have been heard at this point. So clearly the judicial branch does not agree with your interpretation of the law.

Once again though, this thread is not about the legality of the protesters' actions but the actions of the prosecutors.

Do you think it is okay for the government to violate the law in order to get a guilty verdict?

a reply to: Gothmog

I think you've said enough, it's quite clear where you stand.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

This was a mass arrest of nearly 200 people simply for being there. Do you really think all 200 of these people were breaking the law? Because so far the judges that have overseen these cases don't think so.

And even then do you not think facing 70 years for protesting is a bit excessive?

Regardless, this thread is not about the protesters. It is about the prosecutors who have violated the law every step of the way to get a guilty verdict. Luckily their cases have been so weak that no one who has gone to trial has been found guilty.

If you are a member of a gang at the same location as the gang , Sure .
The leaders that started the gang professed the reason they were formed. If a person joins that gang , they share similar beliefs thus share the same fate

So straight up, if anyone goes to a protest and damage is caused by that protest you're happy for everyone there to be found guilty...

If they are found innocent of charges , they will be released
It doesnt even state what type of evidence was withheld

And I am living proof if you are at a protest in which some turn violent , you are arrested and held.
But , that was long ago and far away...
Still applies though.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Gothmog

I think you've said enough, it's quite clear where you stand.

There ya go , trying to read stuff into a person that isnt there.
I stand in my beautiful home right now.
That is all you know , as that is all I have told you.

a reply to: Gothmog

It was a Project Veritas video taken at one of the organization meetings for the protest. The prosecutor claimed they only did minor edits to protect the identity of the videographer. It turns out they edited out more than just that, including a part where the videographer states, "These people clearly know nothing."

The prosecution is trying to paint these people as ringleaders of the whole thing but their own evidence contradicts that narrative. So instead of dropping the case they hide the evidence.

Also, it's one thing to be arrested at a protest. That's a common occurrence. Most aren't actually charged with anything. Especially with crimes that could lead to a 70 year prison sentence.

a reply to: auroraaus

If you join a protest whose purpose is to be disruptive then you are imo guilty, just like if you partake in a robbery and someone gets shot you are guilty Even if you aren't the one shooting.