Dang, Hippler is coming in hot! He's not mincing words. This may seem like a boring order, but don't skip it---shooting down a lot of defense claims.
So that it doesn't get buried, I'm putting my favorite line first...it will show up later in the post in context:
"Rather, Defendant asked for "everything" and "everything" is what he received. Defendant cannot demand everything under the sun and then complain about the weight of all the planets."
Defense should consider themselves lucky Hippler said this in a file order instead of verbally, on camera, during a hearing. Because I'd try to disappear through the floor if that was said to me.
---------
"Because Defendant has failed to show a discovery violation or due process violation by the State, sanctions are not warranted. The Court further declines to require the State to provide further organizational assistance to Defendant."
footnote 4:
"Despite presenting this motion in briefing as a Brady violation, at the hearing on the motion Defendant confusingly requested that the Court view the motion "not as a Brady violation but as a due process violation[.]" However, Defendant appears to misapprehend the scope of his due process rights regarding discovery. "There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case." Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977). In fact, "the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded... " Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 474 (1973). Rather, it is Brady and its progeny that serve to uphold a criminal defendant's due process rights with regard to discovery. As the United States Supreme Court has explained, "[t}he Brady rule is based on the requirement of due process. Its purpose is not to displace the adversary system as the 2 primary means by which truth is uncovered, but to ensure that a miscarriage ofjustice does not occur." Bagley, 473 US. at 675. Thus, it is Brady that governs the Court's analysis of Defendant's alleged due process rights violation."
Nice of Judge Hippler to process the violation motion correctly, despite the defense presenting it wrong.
"Specifically, the State contends that most of the data is from cell phone extractions and weeks of surveillance video footage throughout the Moscow area obtained following the homicides. It affirmed on the record that it is unaware of any Brady material in those videos other than those specifically identified in motion practice and otherwise throughout the case. Further, the State's experts who reviewed the various devices (including cell phones) and other digital data have disclosed opinions that they found no connection between Defendant and the victims from the devices and data."
Defense said they wanted everything so that they could try to make an alibi. They got everything.
"The State also notes that since this case began over two years ago, it has continuously turned over to Defendant all the information it received from the various investigating agencies in the same format as the information was received by the State."
footnote 6:
"The State explained that all the evidence in this case was routed to it from the various investigating agencies. Once received, the State would copy it and then place it directly on Defendant's server in the same fashion and format it was received. The State has maintained its files in that same format"
"State points out that on September 4, 2024-at approximately the same time as its discovery deadline it provided Defendant with a 320-page index identifying the location of requested discovery, a description ofthe evidence, and the date discovered. In addition, all of the evidence received from the FBI which comprises the majority-was provided to Defendant with a searchable index."
footnote 7
"In his reply, Defendant asserted that the State utilizes an pensive, technologically powerful case management software program called "Prosecutor by Karpel" which has a global search function to search all discovery and case documents at one time, generate reports from such searches and automatically transcribe audio and video files. Because he does not have access to similar technology, Defendant disputes he is on the same playing field as the State. However, at the hearing, the State disputed its evidence software program has any ofthese features. Instead, the prosecutors rely on a self-created spreadsheet to identify and manage discovery."
"First, while neither Brady nor ICR 16 prescribe the form discovery must take, it is well settled under federal law that there is no direct obligation for the government to identify or itemize Brady material for the defense."
"The State received the information from its investigating agencies, labeled the materials and turned them over to Defendant through a shared access drive in the same format as received. This method not only puts the State and Defendant on equal footing regarding discovery review, it also serves the important purpose of protecting against claims of missing or manipulated documents if the State puts them in a different format or organization or otherwise conveys them to Defendant in a different manner than received. While the State acknowledges that much ofthe discovery is "completely irrelevant," including surveillance videos and data from the numerous phones, computers and other devises, it did not produce it for purposes of padding the file or otherwise attempting, in bad faith, to hide Brady information in its haystack of information. Rather, Defendant asked for "everything" and "everything" is what he received. Defendant cannot demand everything under the sun and then complain about the weight of all the planets."
*slow claps* Sir, I bow to you!
"In addition, Defendant's complaints of being unable to meaningfully review the discovery ring hollow. Defendant has been receiving discovery in the same manner for over two years. In that time, he has not once sought a remedy from this Court to regulate discovery, such as requiring the State to provide discovery in a different format. He has not sought additional resources under ICR 12.2 to hire additional staff to review discovery or obtain litigation document control software to help organize and sort the evidence. His lead counsel insisted that she be allowed to take on a second high-profile capital case despite the voluminous discovery in this case.'° Further, at oral argument, lead counsel indicated that her practice is to personally review all the discovery herself, rather than rely on associates and staff to review materials to cut through the less relevant information and point to what materials need review by lead counsel. These actions are not indicative of an overburdened defense team. In fact, it is evident Defendant has been able to capably navigate the discovery given his more than robust motion practice, the scope and breadth of the experts retained and the disclosures filed"
In other words--if you are so overburdened, why are you spending endless hours filing ridiculous motions (not all of them are) and insisting that only 1 person can go through the discovery despite that person also having another death penalty case. Ouch!
www.newsweek.com
