Well, if only the story said that.
The story says 2500 pages of "discovery" was not produced -- not that the 2500 pages was "Brady" material.
Brady is evidence that points towards "actual innocence". But a discovery violation is still serious.
The Gov't acknowledged it likely warranted a new trial.

But the two sides reached a deal on a disposition of the charges as an alternative to a new trial -- which might have resulted in another conviction.

There is a Supreme Court case called Kyles v. Whitely.
In Kyles, the Supreme Court ruled that federal prosecutors have "constructive knowledge" of all information in the possession of the investigating agency. That means even when they DON'T ACTUALLY know, the law imposes the same disclosure obligation on them as if they did know.
When the US Attorney and FBI work on an investigation or prep for trial, the FBI does not open its files and invite the prosecutor to look through it all. It very commonly happens that the FBI does not include everything that it should when it sends docs to the prosecutor.
They are supposed to but there is no real way for the prosecutor to know if something is missing from what has been provided. There might be clues -- references in other documents to something that is not included. So there is a lot of "back and forth" re "Do I have everything?"
It is up to the Agents to go through the FBI case file -- or any agency case file -- and give to the prosecutor everything required. Knowing what that includes is the result of 1) training, 2) experience, and 3) communication from prosecutor re "I need the following...."
The prosecutor moves forward in court thinking they have everything. That's no always true.
That led to Kyles. What the prosecutor "thinks" doesn't matter. What matters is what the FBI actually has. No excuses of "I didn't know."

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with shipwreckedcrew

shipwreckedcrew Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shipwreckedcrew

22 Jul
I think you missed my next message that my first paragraph is sarcasm. The USWNT to laugh this off -- as the article shows -- but it soon realized how embarrassing it truly was, and it undermined their claim they should get equal money as the USMNT because they play the same.
Once that realization came to them no one would comment on this game, and they tried to act like it never happened. It was just a scrimmage, the best women's team players didn't play, not one was trying hard, they were all just having fun.
That's not what people who watched the game said. The boys were bigger and faster. While the women might have had a small edge from a "skills" standpoint, they couldn't possess the ball and got frustrated.
Read 4 tweets
22 Jul
Steven D’Antuono most recently served as the special agent in charge of the Detroit Field Office. D’Antuono joined the FBI as a forensic accountant in 1996 and was assigned to the Providence Resident Agency in Rhode Island, under the Boston Field Office.
He supported criminal investigations into financial crimes, public corruption, organized crime, drugs, and counterintelligence. In 1998, Mr. Steven D’Antuono was appointed a special agent.
After graduating from the FBI Academy ...he was assigned to the Washington Field Office to investigate white-collar crime and public corruption. He was promoted to supervisory special agent in 2004 and returned to the FBI Academy to teach white-collar crime courses.
Read 8 tweets
21 Jul
Probably, but the difference in the reporting on Mich case is that it was not the CI who came up with the idea to kidnap Witmer--it was Fox and the others. Once they "agreed" and then take a step, the crime o conspiracy was committed.
The feds can continue along letting the plot unfold even after they could have arrested. The purpose is to find out if there are unknown co-conspirators or any other parallel plots happening which the CI isn't aware of. They are just in an "evidence-gathering" mode.
Apart from the issue of bringing new people to the conspiracy, they are not "entrapping" people who were already part of the conspiracy. That's the big flaw in the analysis done by amateurs in the press here--most of these guys were indictable in and around June 2020--or earlier.
Read 4 tweets
21 Jul
"If the defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels."
USSG Sec. 2B1.3
THAT is a sentencing enhancement.

What the judge does is impose an actual sentence in a term of months, AFTER he does the guideline calculation.
That includes:
1. Base offense level
2. Specific Offense Characteristics
3. Aggravating and Mitigating Adjustments
4. Criminal History
Read 5 tweets
20 Jul
For a long time I've noted that the FBI changed its hiring priorities and practices when Obama was elected. This guy was hired in 2011 when he was 30.
Because of the changed priorities, the FBI relaxed the standards for appearance and off-hours behavior in order to accommodate "lifestyle" choices among the now-prioritized recruiting practices.
When a fed. agency relaxes standards for certain demographics in an effort to attract and hire more from that demographic, it has to relax the standards for all.

That is how you end up with this guy carrying an FBI Badge when that would have been impossible prior to 2008.
Read 5 tweets
17 Jul
I cut a line from this story with the intention to insert it in another place then forgot. But I think it is helpful to understanding my point that DOJ does not have an "interest" in the outcome of trial--the "trial" is "justice", not the verdict.
humanevents.com/2021/07/16/cha…
The line I cut pointed out that they way we know this to be true is that the government has no right to appeal "not guilty" verdicts no matter how "wrong" it thinks that verdict is.
If the law gave the prosecution an "interest" in the outcome of criminal trials, it would have created a path for the gov't to seek appellate review when the gov't believes a case has been wrongly decided.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(