Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

[Salah11]

I'm beginning to understand why Judge Gull triggered these guys. I wish she'd done it properly.

MOO

Well, they certainly don’t like her, do they?!

This is why I have always agreed with no Cameras in the courtroom cameras as these fame seekers, that’s exactly what they want.

IMO

 

[AugustWest]

RSBM

You keep saying this, but that's not what Brady says. Maybe that's how you think it should be, but the defense is only guaranteed materially exculpatory information. If it was "everything", and a case could be dismissed because the defense didn't get "everything", then no case would ever get prosecuted because it's an unreasonable burden. That napkin the detective scrawled a phone number on five years ago was thrown away after the fact? DISMISSED!

The prosecution does in fact have a duty to disclose all exculpatory information, whether or not he/she feels it is material/relevant.

This is covered not only by Brady, but also our professional rules of responsibility.

See 3.1-12 and 3-5.4: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/#:~:text=The prosecutor should seek to,persons, including suspects and defendants.

 

[m00c0w]

The prosecution does in fact have a duty to disclose all exculpatory information, whether or not he/she feels it is material/relevant.

This is covered not only by Brady, but also our professional rules of responsibility.

See 3.1-12: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/#:~:text=The prosecutor should seek to,persons, including suspects and defendants.

3-1.12 is regarding prosecutorial misconduct?

The relevant section from your link says this:

(a) After charges are filed if not before, the prosecutor should diligently seek to identify all information in the possession of the prosecution or its agents that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the offense charged, impeach the government’s witnesses or evidence, or reduce the likely punishment of the accused if convicted.

This is the definition of materially exculpatory information under Brady…

Link since it’s not my opinion:

Brady rule

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Cool Cats]

because they needed a big splashy conspiracy to mobilise supporters. IMO

Supporters?

Sounds more like a rally than a future trial.

 

[AugustWest]

3-1.12 is regarding prosecutorial misconduct?

The relevant section from your link says this:

(a) After charges are filed if not before, the prosecutor should diligently seek to identify all information in the possession of the prosecution or its agents that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the offense charged, impeach the government’s witnesses or evidence, or reduce the likely punishment of the accused if convicted.

This is the definition of materially exculpatory information under Brady…

Link since it’s not my opinion:

Brady rule

www.law.cornell.edu

Yes, 3-1.12 is about prosecutorial misconduct. Direct quote from its language:

"The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants."

Due process is a constitutional right.

I also stated that 3-5.4 deals with it, which you have basically quoted with your link.:

"(a) After charges are filed if not before, the prosecutor should diligently seek to identify all information in the possession of the prosecution or its agents that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the offense charged, impeach the government’s witnesses or evidence, or reduce the likely punishment of the accused if convicted..."

(c) Before trial of a criminal case, a prosecutor should make timely disclosure to the defense of information described in (a) above that is known to the prosecutor, regardless of whether the prosecutor believes it is likely to change the result of the proceeding, unless relieved of this responsibility by a court’s protective order."

Notice the wording. "All information." "..regardliess of whether the prosecution believes it is likely to change the result of the proceeding."

 

[TTF14]

Notice the wording. "All information." "..regardliess of whether the prosecution believes it is likely to change the result of the proceeding."

RSBM

Plain common sense. Checks and balances, otherwise prosecutors could run amuck.

Thank you, @AugustWest, for your expertise.

IMO MOO

 

[m00c0w]

Yes, 3-1.12 is about prosecutorial misconduct. Direct quote from its language:

"The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants."

Due process is a constitutional right.

I also stated that 3-5.4 deals with it, which you have basically quoted with your link.:

"(a) After charges are filed if not before, the prosecutor should diligently seek to identify all information in the possession of the prosecution or its agents that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the offense charged, impeach the government’s witnesses or evidence, or reduce the likely punishment of the accused if convicted..."

(c) Before trial of a criminal case, a prosecutor should make timely disclosure to the defense of information described in (a) above that is known to the prosecutor, regardless of whether the prosecutor believes it is likely to change the result of the proceeding, unless relieved of this responsibility by a court’s protective order."

Notice the wording. "All information." "..regardliess of whether the prosecution believes it is likely to change the result of the proceeding."

Yes, they should turn over all Brady material whether or not they believe it will impact the outcome of the trial. If it was literally “all” material, there would be no qualification as what material is being referred to…

What do you think the point is of basically defining Brady material in the description of things the prosecutor should search for, if that’s not what is obligated to be produced? Why not just leave it at “all material”?

 

[susane7]

I've known for months that MA was appearing on conspiratorial youtube channels claiming that the prosecution was responsible for the CS photos leak (even though MW admitted it) and that the bridge photo is faked. He is way down the rabbit hole IMO.

MS has reported it for us in June, but if you don't believe them, anyone can go and see for themselves and judge whether he is credible.

MOO

Absolutely. A few weeks ago I was watching a youtube when a ex RA and defense supporter are talking about the 2 girls in this group and their antics but he says Ausbrook is a great guy. Meanwhile, Ausbrook appeared in the chat saying the BG/Abby pic are odd/fake, there are proof the CS pics are leaked by the prosecution (he didn't show any evidence of that). Absolutely crazy.


I remember that I made a post here saying that I didn't know what he thinks but I hate the theory about "fake pics" because usually who have their theory are accusing the family of Libby's of something. Looks like I was right.

I went to his twitter and scroll but just saw a list of excuses, 0 empathy for the girls and girl's families and he says they are a great group. Really? people who want to inferfere in a murder trial of two girls, threatens, offend and disrespect the judge, the prosecution, the girls, the families? Ok.. He also said the other are internet "deplorables" who have claimed, at least, over time, to have been helping out McLeland. I doubt the "deporables" are trying to subvert justice to win and I doubt Nick needs help. He show he is eager for the trial, contrary to the defense like some of that "great group" even admitted.

An atorney in a big case with many conspiracies and lovers of their client who doesn't engage in conspiracies and with the internet people and respect the due process - Brian Kohberger's attorney. It can change but right now she seems to be how an attorney should be. Not trying to convert the trials in a circus but trying to defend their client attacking the investigation, trying to give an "alibi", etc. She seems to have a more difficult case than RA's attorneys because the evidence seems stronger there. These attorneys should learn with her and have a few lessons of ethics btw.

 

[AugustWest]

Yes, they should turn over all Brady material whether or not they believe it will impact the outcome of the trial. If it was literally “all” material, there would be no qualification as what material is being referred to…

What do you think the point is of basically defining Brady material in the description of things the prosecutor should search for, if that’s not what is obligated to be produced? Why not just leave it at “all material”?

@grannygates was clearly talking about exculpatory evidence, as they used the adjective "exculpatory" in the post. They qualified what information they were speaking of.

The prosecution doesn’t get to arbitrarily decide what is exculpatory and what evidence have to give to the defense. They’re supposed to give everything over, so it’s a completely fair trial and everyone has the same facts.

The ABA model rules on the subject were written in response to the Brady decision, which is why the language is the same or similar in all states' model rules of professional conduct.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Due Process Gang. Key word here is gang. Just read the 25 tweets filled with memes from Ausbrook. Waste of time. Basically clearing up that MS is "lying" since he is not a part of the defense team. Also clearing up they didn't plan on "jury tampering". Just doing their due diligence to rule out unsuitable jurors.

Also find it sad Cara W. had time to stop by the chat to laugh about them being called a "brain trust". With more memes. I guess defense diaries is going live later today to weave their web.

Oh, this is Karma at work IMO, they sure are doing a big time back pedal. It's not so funny now DPG is it?? They will never be able to justify the disgusting memes, jokes, language, and insinuations of potential jury tampering by one of their SM cranks.

Disgusting behavior by a group of so called 'Lawyers" in an ongoing case. I must say DH was smart enough to not put his thoughts on the net. Good on him for that at least.

MOO

EBM: Spelling

 

[m00c0w]

@grannygates was clearly talking about exculpatory evidence, as they used the adjective "exculpatory" in the post. They qualified what information they were speaking of.


The ABA model rules on the subject were written in response to the Brady decision, which is why the language is the same or similar in all states' model rules of professional conduct.

See, now I’m confused. They clearly stated that the state doesn’t get to decide what is exculpatory and what isn’t. That they have to turn everything over.

In response, I stated that they’re only obligated to turn over Brady material.

You then acted as if I spoke incorrectly.

Curious.

 

[mrjitty]

Absolutely. A few weeks ago I was watching a youtube when a ex RA and defense supporter are talking about the 2 girls in this group and their antics but he says Ausbrook is a great guy. Meanwhile, Ausbrook appeared in the chat saying the BG/Abby pic are odd/fake, there are proof the CS pics are leaked by the prosecution (he didn't show any evidence of that). Absolutely crazy.


I remember that I made a post here saying that I didn't know what he thinks but I hate the theory about "fake pics" because usually who have their theory are accusing the family of Libby's of something. Looks like I was right.

I went to his twitter and scroll but just saw a list of excuses, 0 empathy for the girls and girl's families and he says they are a great group. Really? people who want to inferfere in a murder trial of two girls, threatens, offend and disrespect the judge, the prosecution, the girls, the families? Ok.. He also said the other are internet "deplorables" who have claimed, at least, over time, to have been helping out McLeland. I doubt the "deporables" are trying to subvert justice to win and I doubt Nick needs help. He show he is eager for the trial, contrary to the defense like some of that "great group" even admitted.

An atorney in a big case with many conspiracies and lovers of their client who doesn't engage in conspiracies and with the internet people and respect the due process - Brian Kohberger's attorney. It can change but right now she seems to be how an attorney should be. Not trying to convert the trials in a circus but trying to defend their client attacking the investigation, trying to give an "alibi", etc. She seems to have a more difficult case than RA's attorneys because the evidence seems stronger there. These attorneys should learn with her and have a few lessons of ethics btw.

Agreed

He doesn't address the elephant in the room. Why were these 3 attorneys plus the investigator in a chats with these internet cranks in the first place? If you don't do that, then you don't get strategy and private comms leaked. This all harms the client!

MOO

 

[Spartygirl]

The idea of discovery is handing over the entire case so that the defense has the exact same information as the prosecution. The prosecution doesn’t get to decide what parts to share and what to withhold. Having huge chunks of the case deleted, missing or not handed over is a big deal in a fair trial/due process sense. Isn’t that why the Baldwin case got dismissed ? Because the prosecutors withheld discovery ?

I reread the motion in limine and Nick just asks for defense not to bring up prior bad acts by his witnesses and the way discovery was labeled. It doesn’t say anything about all the missing evidence, unless that’s the prior bad acts?

I wonder if there is a standard practice for the court to handle the jury becoming aware of destruction of evidence/missing/withheld etc evidence ? It doesn’t seem right the jury won’t get to know. What’s stopping every prosecutor from just destroying everything exculpatory?

all MOO

DBM

 

[TTF14]

Agreed

He doesn't address the elephant in the room. Why were these 3 attorneys plus the investigator in a chats with these internet cranks in the first place? If you don't do that, then you don't get strategy and private comms leaked. This all harms the client!

MOO

Here's another way to look at it. These "cranks" (Pot, meet Kettle is the phrase that comes to mind) were in a private Discord, discussing the case. Nothing wrong with that. I'm in several private groups to discuss the case myself.

They invited an investigator in, or maybe the investigator asked, to provide ideas to the investigator. Things they think the defense team should be looking into and investigating, Perry Mason style. Also, nothing wrong with that.

Is there any evidence that the investigator was sharing info with the "cranks?" Or were they just receiving the info.? In other words, was the investigator investigating?

IMO MOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

this is how they choose to conduct themselves in private

Yes. There is an old saying that says, “How you do anything is how you do everything.”

jmo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Here's another way to look at it. These "cranks" (Pot, meet Kettle is the phrase that comes to mind) were in a private Discord, discussing the case. Nothing wrong with that. I'm in several private groups to discuss the case myself.

They invited an investigator in, or maybe the investigator asked, to provide ideas to the investigator. Things they think the defense team should be looking into and investigating, Perry Mason style. Also, nothing wrong with that.

Is there any evidence that the investigator was sharing info with the "cranks?" Or were they just receiving the info.? In other words, was the investigator investigating?

IMO MOO

The "investigator" happens to currently work for Rozzi. I'd say that is a conflict of interest.

JMO

 

[AugustWest]

See, now I’m confused. They clearly stated that the state doesn’t get to decide what is exculpatory and what isn’t. That they have to turn everything over.

In response, I stated that they’re only obligated to turn over Brady material.

You then acted as if I spoke incorrectly.

Curious.

The point is that the prosecution doesn't get to decide whether the information is relevant or material. If there is a question of whether it is or not, the correct procedure is to allow the defense to view the potentially exculpatory material.

@grannygates correctly pointed out that all potentially exculpatory information must be disclosed. When she said the term "all," she was clearly referencing exculpatory information. I wasn't only posting for your benefit, but for the benefit of all who are reading the thread, and didn't want others to be confused.

 

[TTF14]

The "investigator" happens to currently work for Rozzi. I'd say that is a conflict of interest.

JMO

Can you explain how? Don't defense teams hire investigators? Who should be paying the investigator?

 

[steeltowngirl]

Can someone please remind me of what is the missing exculpatory evidence? And how does defense know it exists and is now missing?

 

[m00c0w]

The point is that the prosecution doesn't get to decide whether the information is relevant or material. If there is a question of whether it is or not, the correct procedure is to allow the defense to view the potentially exculpatory material.

@grannygates correctly pointed out that all potentially exculpatory information must be disclosed. When she said the term "all," she was clearly referencing exculpatory information. I wasn't only posting for your benefit, but for the benefit of all who are reading the thread, and didn't want others to be confused.

Gonna have to disagree with you on the plain meaning of the other comment. To me, it’s extremely clear they’re not talking about only exculpatory material because they literally say the state doesn’t get to decide what is exculpatory and what should be turned over. They should turn everything over. “Everything” is not referring to only exculpatory material.

The claim was the prosecution doesn’t get to arbitrarily decide what evidence to give the defense. They’re supposed to give everything over. That has a very clear meaning.

You then acted as if I was incorrect and posted a citation that literally said what I was saying. You’re now trying to make it appear as if the original claim was what I was saying all along.

I’m not interested in continuing a discussion that now feels extremely intellectually dishonest. Thanks.

JMO