That is the Brady Rule.
If applied properly, it could strip attorney client privileges with all those immunities.
That would mean City of Detroit Corporate Council was covering up stuff.
Where is Butch Hollowell?
Almost in Detroit.
Brady RuleThe Brady Rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. A "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused--evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.
If the prosecution does not disclose material exculpatory evidence under this rule, and prejudice has ensued, the evidence will be suppressed. The evidence will be suppressed regardless of whether the prosecutor knew the evidence was in his or her possession, or whether or not the prosecutor intentionally or inadvertently withheld the evidence from the defense.
Further, in cases subsequent to Brady, the Supreme Court has eliminated the requirement for a defendant to have requested a favorable information, stating that the Prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose, that is triggered by the potential impact of favorable but undisclosed evidence See Kyles v. Whitley 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1955); United States. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).
The defendant bears the burden to prove that the undisclosed evidence was both material and favorable. In other words, the defendant must prove that there is a “reasonable probability” that the outcome of the trial would have been different, had the evidence been disclosed by the prosecutor. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433 (1955). Bagles and Kyles Court further defined the “materiality” standard, outlining the four aspects of materiality. First, the “reasonable probability” of a different result is not a question of whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether the government’s evidentiary suppression undermines the confidence in the outcome of the trial. The second aspect is that it is not a sufficiency of evidence test, and the defendant only has to show that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine the confidence in the verdict. Third aspect is that there is no need for a harmless error review, because a Brady violation, by definition, could not be treated as a harmless error. Fourth and final aspect of materiality the Kyles Court stressed was that the suppressed evidence must be considered collective, not item by item, looking at the cumulative effect to determine whether a reasonable probability is reached. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433-438.
Waiting on the Detroit Land Bank Authority to come up in the orders.
2 witnesses maintain Carmack didn't pay for land he sold
A real estate attorney and a former staffer for the city of Detroit maintained Tuesday that Robert Carmack did not pay for the southwest side property he sold for $1 million to an Illinois developer.
Bruce Goldman, an attorney for the city who oversees real estate transactions, and a former city employee who worked on real estate transactions were called back to court to face questions from Carmack's defense attorneys about emails they wrote in 2017 concerning the disputed Melville Street parcel.
Chidi Nyeche, a former staffer for the city of Detroit's planning and development, acknowledged writing in a 2017 email to Goldman that Carmack had closed on the property.
But Nyeche testified Tuesday in 36th District Court he later retracted the email, saying he made the comments in error because he found that the sale was rescinded and that $70,000 was refunded to Carmack.
Carmack's co-counsel Lillian Diallo also asked Nyeche about a later email in which Goldman said the sale of the Melville property was approved by Detroit City Council and that the $70,000 refund was for another property and not the site at 7751 Melville.
Nyeche said "there was no check in my file" for the Melville property from Carmack but did not dispute a closing settlement.
Goldman testified it would have been "impossible" for Carmack to have closed on the Melville property because he had not paid for it.
"There was no closing," Goldman said. He said for real estate to be conveyed to a new owner, "funds would be exchanged and the deal would be closed."
Judge Cylenthia Miller asked Goldman why there was no notation of the words "copy" or "draft" on the deed that Carmack's attorneys say he has on the property, noting that the city maintains the document is not official.
"This is a copy," Goldman replied.
Carmack, 59, of Woodhaven is charged with four felonies in connection with his 2016 sale of the 10-acre property in southwest Detroit. Authorities contend he never completed a $250,000 purchase of the site but used draft documents from 2007 to fraudulently represent that he owned the land before selling it.
Both sides rested Tuesday and closing arguments are expected when the preliminary hearing continues Friday.
But what if a Judge violated the Brady Doctrine like Nancy Edmunds did by letting Gasper Fiore off and not allowing him to testify, as a witness with exculpatory evidence, considering that he was just sentenced for just about the same charges she dropped?
hmmmmm........
But what if a Judge violated the Brady Doctrine like Nancy Edmunds did by letting Gasper Fiore off and not allowing him to testify, as a witness with exculpatory evidence, considering that he was just sentenced for just about the same charges she dropped?
hmmmmm........
U.S. v. Kwame Kilpatrick OP... by on Scribd
Here is another interesting opinion on a case dealing with Voting Rights of Members in the U.S. House of Representatives.Nancy Edmunds said the Chairman of the U.S. House of Judiciary, John Conyers, and 10 others had failed to state a claim on a law, The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, being signed by POTUS without having concurrent language of both chambers.
Plaintiffs claim that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (“the Act” or “the Deficit Reduction Act”), Pub. L. No. 109-171, § 10001, 120 Stat. 4, § 183, is invalid and did not comply with Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution because it did not pass the House in the form in which it was passed by the Senate, signed by the President, and enrolled as a Public Law.
Conyers v Bush 11-06-2006 by Beverly Tran on Scribd
That is a just a blatant violation of the Brady Doctrine because the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 was about the expansion of Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare, (oops, I mean child welfare services because it would be a violation of due process to accuse someone of participating in the implementation of a Medicaid fraud scheme in foster care and adoption services, without giving them the ones I accuse the opportunity to tell their side of their stealin' story) and I had filed a False Claims Act, along with many other legal actions, well documented on my blog and databases, where this was just another trafficking of tiny humans appropriation operation.
On a side note, my False Claims Act was tossed on a pile of to-do stuff that I had to go off on the court to at least send me an order of dismissal for not having an attorney.
I was planning on taking that one all the way to SCOTUS, but, you know, there was a bit of economic and financial logistic situations that prevented me from castigating the court, like maintaining my socioeconomic status of being one of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).
As a matter of fact......it seems Nancy Edmunds should have known about the fraud because she has been sitting on the Children's Rights case, Dwayne B. v. Granholm, where Michigan has been under federal oversight of its Child Welfare System, where Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare, not just continues to flourish, but is being re-engineered, preparing for that delicious Faith Based Funding to sell more wares, or rather the children of "The Poors" into a life of eternal servitude, for they are being put under the legal auspices of foreign corporate parents.
No wonder nothing has been done during the 10 years of federal monitoring of this case.
I wonder if a judge can be stripped of the same immunities as the attorney client privilege.
I think that process would be called expulsion, or impeachment, or war crimes, depending on how you prosecute it.
They were all stealin' the children, the land and the votes.
Michigan Federal Child Welf... by on Scribd
Nancy Edmunds was mean to my Sweetie and now I know why.Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
No comments:
Post a Comment