Report: Fulton County DA Fani Willis ignored exculpatory evidence in Trump case

[rangerrebew]

Report: Fulton County DA Fani Willis ignored exculpatory evidence in Trump case
0
 
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is one of the Democrat prosecutors waging lawfare against Donald Trump.

Willis’s bogus charges look like they may collapse.

And Fani Willis is terrified of this shocking document that will destroy her case against Trump.

Elected Democrat Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis indicted Donald Trump and 18 other co-defendants for a racketeering conspiracy to overturn the results of the election.

One of the key charges Willis leveled was against Georgia GOP Chair David Shafer and Trump campaign attorney Ray Smith for conspiracy to defraud authorities by presenting themselves as the legitimate electors from Georgia to the Electoral College.

https://swampdigest.com/report-fulton-county-da-fani-willis-ignored-exculpatory-evidence-in-trump-case/

[Kamaji]

So what?  A prosecutor is not required to take into account supposedly exculpatory evidence - it's usually a good idea as a practical matter, because it conserves the prosecutor's resources - but it is not mandatory, and a prosecutor will not face disciplinary charges for failing to take into account exculpatory evidence.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I wouldn't pin a lot of hope on a story that appears only in something called "Swamp Digest".

[Smokin Joe]

So what?  A prosecutor is not required to take into account supposedly exculpatory evidence - it's usually a good idea as a practical matter, because it conserves the prosecutor's resources - but it is not mandatory, and a prosecutor will not face disciplinary charges for failing to take into account exculpatory evidence.

Not to get an indictment, but suppressing Brady Material is a crime.

[Kamaji]

Not to get an indictment, but suppressing Brady Material is a crime.

The claim wasn't about suppressing Brady material, it was about not taking this exculpatory evidence "into account" in deciding to issue the indictments in the first place.

And no, failing to provide Brady material is not a crime; it is typically dealt with by reversing a criminal conviction, provided that the Brady material would have had a good chance of changing the outcome.

[Smokin Joe]

The claim wasn't about suppressing Brady material, it was about not taking this exculpatory evidence "into account" in deciding to issue the indictments in the first place.

And no, failing to provide Brady material is not a crime; it is typically dealt with by reversing a criminal conviction, provided that the Brady material would have had a good chance of changing the outcome.

I stand corrected. Legally not, morally so, and I should know better than confuse legalities with what is morally correct.

Can those who have been harmed by such bring suit for damages?

[DefiantMassRINO]

 

From what I've seen on Law & Order and from the Boston FBI Corruption case, not handing over exculpatory evidence is a no-no for a Government prosecutor.

Trials are meant to be a search for truth ... that ship has sailed if it ever floated.

[Kamaji]

From what I've seen on Law & Order and from the Boston FBI Corruption case, not handing over exculpatory evidence is a no-no for a Government prosecutor.

Trials are meant to be a search for truth ... that ship has sailed if it ever floated.

Yes, it is a no-no, but what happens if it doesn't get turned over is not criminal charges against the offending prosecutor, and typically not even a disciplinary referral.  Instead, a convicted defendant appeals to have the verdict overturned; an acquitted defendant has no grounds for complaint.

[Kamaji]

I stand corrected. Legally not, morally so, and I should know better than confuse legalities with what is morally correct.

Can those who have been harmed by such bring suit for damages?

Generally no.  If the defendant is convicted, then his recourse is to appeal the conviction on the grounds of a Brady violation; if he is acquitted, then there has been no harm, and therefore nothing to be done.

[Smokin Joe]

Generally no.  If the defendant is convicted, then his recourse is to appeal the conviction on the grounds of a Brady violation; if he is acquitted, then there has been no harm, and therefore nothing to be done.

The amount of harm depends on if the defendant kept their job, had legal fees, etc. You can be hurt pretty badly, even if acquitted.

[Kamaji]

The amount of harm depends on if the defendant kept their job, had legal fees, etc. You can be hurt pretty badly, even if acquitted.

Good luck suing.  Sec. 1983 cases don't often yield much, and if there was sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case, then you're basically USCWAP.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Kamaji is right on this.  It's kind of a nothingburger of a story because prosecutors choose not to present grand juries with potentially exculpatory information all the time.  It's why the "ham sandwich" saying exists.