Will General Flynn Be Vindicated?

[Rightguide]

Has Judge Emmet G. Sullivan just turned the Flynn case into a Brady case?


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
)
v. ) Criminal No. 17-232-01 (EGS)
)
MICHAEL T. FLYNN, )
)
Defendant. )
)

ORDER

Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its

progeny, the government has a continuing obligation to produce

all evidence required by the law and the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. See id., 373 U.S. at 87 (holding that due

process requires disclosure of “evidence [that] is material

either to guilt or to punishment” upon request); Kyles v.

Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437-38 (1995) (holding that the

obligation to disclose includes producing evidence “known only

to police investigators and not to the prosecutor” and that “the

individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable

evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf . . .

, including the police”); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97,

107 (1976) (holding that the duty to disclose exculpatory

evidence applies even when there has been no request by the

accused); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-55 (1972)

1
See United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 633 (2002)(government not required “to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant”); United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 286 (4th Cir. 2010)(noting that the “Supreme Court has not addressed the question of whether the Brady right to exculpatory information, in contrast to impeachment information, might be extended to the guilty plea
context”)(emphases in the original); United States v. Ohiri, 133 F. App’x 555, 562 (10th Cir. 2005) (“By holding in Ruiz that the government committed no due process violation by requiring a defendant to waive her right to impeachment evidence before indictment in order to accept a fast-track plea, the Supreme Court did not imply that the government may avoid the consequence of a Brady violation if the defendant accepts an eleventh-hour plea agreement while ignorant of withheld exculpatory evidence in the government's possession.”); McCann v. Mangialardi, 337 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2003)(noting that “given th[e significant distinction between impeachment information and exculpatory evidence of actual innocence], it is highly likely that the Supreme Court would find a violation of the Due Process Clause if prosecutors or other relevant government actors have knowledge of a criminal defendant’s factual innocence but fail to disclose such information to a defendant before he enters into a guilty plea”); United States v. Nelson, 979 F. Supp. 2d 123, 135-36 (D.D.C. 2013)(“Because the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence before Nelson pled guilty, Nelson’s due process rights were violated to his prejudice and his guilty plea was not voluntary and knowing.”); Buffey v. Ballard, 782 S.E.2d 204, 221 (W. Va. 2015)(finding “that the DNA results were favorable, suppressed, and material to the defense," and therefore "the Petitioner’s due process rights, as enunciated in Brady, were violated by the State’s suppression of that exculpatory evidence”). But see United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 2009)(disagreeing with the proposition that, based on Ruiz, “exculpatory evidence is different [from impeachment information] and must be turned over before entry of a plea”).

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/20/united-states-v-flynn/

My opinion, Judge Sullivan could very well rule that prosecutorial misconduct has occurred in the Flynn case.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Got to think you're spot-on, there.

 

[pointless]

well, you got the paranoid pathological liars on your side, so that's something.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Fynn is doomed, son. Best accept that now.

 

[bellisarius]

It looks like Sullivan isn't screwing around. And this may go to the core as to why the original judge recused himself.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Has Judge Emmet G. Sullivan just turned the Flynn case into a Brady case?


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
)
v. ) Criminal No. 17-232-01 (EGS)
)
MICHAEL T. FLYNN, )
)
Defendant. )
)

ORDER

Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its

progeny, the government has a continuing obligation to produce

all evidence required by the law and the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. See id., 373 U.S. at 87 (holding that due

process requires disclosure of “evidence [that] is material

either to guilt or to punishment” upon request); Kyles v.

Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437-38 (1995) (holding that the

obligation to disclose includes producing evidence “known only

to police investigators and not to the prosecutor” and that “the

individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable

evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf . . .

, including the police”); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97,

107 (1976) (holding that the duty to disclose exculpatory

evidence applies even when there has been no request by the

accused); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-55 (1972)

1
See United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 633 (2002)(government not required “to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant”); United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 286 (4th Cir. 2010)(noting that the “Supreme Court has not addressed the question of whether the Brady right to exculpatory information, in contrast to impeachment information, might be extended to the guilty plea
context”)(emphases in the original); United States v. Ohiri, 133 F. App’x 555, 562 (10th Cir. 2005) (“By holding in Ruiz that the government committed no due process violation by requiring a defendant to waive her right to impeachment evidence before indictment in order to accept a fast-track plea, the Supreme Court did not imply that the government may avoid the consequence of a Brady violation if the defendant accepts an eleventh-hour plea agreement while ignorant of withheld exculpatory evidence in the government's possession.”); McCann v. Mangialardi, 337 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2003)(noting that “given th[e significant distinction between impeachment information and exculpatory evidence of actual innocence], it is highly likely that the Supreme Court would find a violation of the Due Process Clause if prosecutors or other relevant government actors have knowledge of a criminal defendant’s factual innocence but fail to disclose such information to a defendant before he enters into a guilty plea”); United States v. Nelson, 979 F. Supp. 2d 123, 135-36 (D.D.C. 2013)(“Because the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence before Nelson pled guilty, Nelson’s due process rights were violated to his prejudice and his guilty plea was not voluntary and knowing.”); Buffey v. Ballard, 782 S.E.2d 204, 221 (W. Va. 2015)(finding “that the DNA results were favorable, suppressed, and material to the defense," and therefore "the Petitioner’s due process rights, as enunciated in Brady, were violated by the State’s suppression of that exculpatory evidence”). But see United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 2009)(disagreeing with the proposition that, based on Ruiz, “exculpatory evidence is different [from impeachment information] and must be turned over before entry of a plea”).

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/20/united-states-v-flynn/

My opinion, Judge Sullivan could very well rule that prosecutorial misconduct has occurred in the Flynn case.

From your link:

For many years, the Court has entered a standing order in every criminal case requiring the government to produce any evidence in its possession that is favorable to the defendant and material to either the defendant's guilt or punishment pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny. The order is entered regardless of the posture of the case when it is assigned to the Court. After this case was randomly assigned to the Court on December 7, 2017, such an order was entered on December 12, 2017. Unfortunately, the prior version of the order was inadvertently entered rather than the Court's current version. Consequently, the Court enters the current version at this time.

I don't think there is much to this. It appears to merely be a procedural issue. I don't know that there is any indication that material evidence favorable to Flynn is being withheld.

 

[WoundedKnee]

From your link:



I don't think there is much to this. It appears to merely be a procedural issue. I don't know that there is any indication that material evidence favorable to Flynn is being withheld.

Good point, but if it has been withheld, how could you know?

 

[doowdniw]

Whole lot of nothing. Standard procedure. Pretty sure that Mueller is well aware of his Brady obligations.

 

[Rightguide]

It looks like Sullivan isn't screwing around. And this may go to the core as to why the original judge recused himself.

My feeling exactly. We know now that something funny has occurred now that Comey's testimony to Congress stating he didn't hink the General lied to the FBI and those FBi agents as well said the same. One wonders if Strzok didn't ambush him in the beginning and somebody like Andrew Weissmann didn't withhold evidence like he has in the past.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Good point, but if it has been withheld, how could you know?

Well, I wouldn't, of course. I'm just reacting to the fact that it is a standard order and that the stated reason for the order issued was that the Court had the wrong one. Beyond that, anything is possible. It's simply not indicated BY Sullivan's most recent ruling.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Well, I wouldn't, of course. I'm just reacting to the fact that it is a standard order and that the stated reason for the order issued was that the Court had the wrong one. Beyond that, anything is possible. It's simply not indicated BY Sullivan's most recent ruling.

I was just hacking on you.

 

[Comshaw]

Has Judge Emmet G. Sullivan just turned the Flynn case into a Brady case?


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
)
v. ) Criminal No. 17-232-01 (EGS)
)
MICHAEL T. FLYNN, )
)
Defendant. )
)

ORDER

Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its

progeny, the government has a continuing obligation to produce

all evidence required by the law and the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. See id., 373 U.S. at 87 (holding that due

process requires disclosure of “evidence [that] is material

either to guilt or to punishment” upon request); Kyles v.

Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437-38 (1995) (holding that the

obligation to disclose includes producing evidence “known only

to police investigators and not to the prosecutor” and that “the

individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable

evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf . . .

, including the police”); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97,

107 (1976) (holding that the duty to disclose exculpatory

evidence applies even when there has been no request by the

accused); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-55 (1972)

1
See United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 633 (2002)(government not required “to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant”); United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 286 (4th Cir. 2010)(noting that the “Supreme Court has not addressed the question of whether the Brady right to exculpatory information, in contrast to impeachment information, might be extended to the guilty plea
context”)(emphases in the original); United States v. Ohiri, 133 F. App’x 555, 562 (10th Cir. 2005) (“By holding in Ruiz that the government committed no due process violation by requiring a defendant to waive her right to impeachment evidence before indictment in order to accept a fast-track plea, the Supreme Court did not imply that the government may avoid the consequence of a Brady violation if the defendant accepts an eleventh-hour plea agreement while ignorant of withheld exculpatory evidence in the government's possession.”); McCann v. Mangialardi, 337 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2003)(noting that “given th[e significant distinction between impeachment information and exculpatory evidence of actual innocence], it is highly likely that the Supreme Court would find a violation of the Due Process Clause if prosecutors or other relevant government actors have knowledge of a criminal defendant’s factual innocence but fail to disclose such information to a defendant before he enters into a guilty plea”); United States v. Nelson, 979 F. Supp. 2d 123, 135-36 (D.D.C. 2013)(“Because the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence before Nelson pled guilty, Nelson’s due process rights were violated to his prejudice and his guilty plea was not voluntary and knowing.”); Buffey v. Ballard, 782 S.E.2d 204, 221 (W. Va. 2015)(finding “that the DNA results were favorable, suppressed, and material to the defense," and therefore "the Petitioner’s due process rights, as enunciated in Brady, were violated by the State’s suppression of that exculpatory evidence”). But see United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 2009)(disagreeing with the proposition that, based on Ruiz, “exculpatory evidence is different [from impeachment information] and must be turned over before entry of a plea”).

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/20/united-states-v-flynn/

My opinion, Judge Sullivan could very well rule that prosecutorial misconduct has occurred in the Flynn case.

Comshaw

 

[Wrong Element]

Reduced from calling posters who disagree with you traitors, to hoping your guy gets off on a technicality. How the self-righteous have fallen.

 

[HisArpy]

Reduced from calling posters who disagree with you traitors, to hoping your guy gets off on a technicality. How the self-righteous have fallen.

Technicalities are the soul of the law.

 

[BZee]

StrongHorse Trump will pardon him

 

[Rightguide]

Now this:



General Flynn Should WITHDRAW His Guilty Plea. His New Judge Is A Government Misconduct Expert

SIDNEY POWELL
Former federal prosecutor

Extraordinary manipulation by powerful people led to the creation of Robert Mueller’s continuing investigation and prosecution of General Michael Flynn. Notably, the recent postponement of General Flynn’s sentencing provides an opportunity for more evidence to be revealed that will provide massive ammunition for a motion to withdraw Flynn’s guilty plea and dismiss the charges against him.

It was Judge Rudolph Contreras who accepted General Flynn’s guilty plea, but he suddenly was recused from the case. The likely reason is that Judge Contreras served on the special court that allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to surveil the Trump campaign based on the dubious FISA application. Judge Contreras may have approved one of those four warrants.

The judge assigned to Flynn’s case now is Emmet G. Sullivan. Judge Sullivan immediately issued what is called a “Brady” order requiring Mueller to provide Flynn all information that is favorable to the defense whether with respect to guilt or punishment. Just today, Mueller’s team filed an agreed motion to provide discovery to General Flynn under a protective order so that it can be reviewed by counsel but not disclosed otherwise.

This development is huge. Prosecutors almost never provide this kind of information to a defendant before he enters a plea — much less after he has done so. This is one of myriad problems in our justice system. As Judge Jed Rakoff wrote several years ago, people who are innocent enter guilty pleas every day. They simply can no longer withstand the unimaginable stress of a criminal investigation. They and their families suffer sheer exhaustion in every form — financial, physical, mental, and emotional. Add in a little prosecutorial duress — like the threat of indicting your son — and, presto, there’s a guilty plea.

Emmet G. Sullivan is one judge who is ready, willing and able to hold Mr. Mueller accountable to the law and who has the wherewithal to dismiss the case against General Flynn — for egregious government misconduct — if Mueller doesn’t move to dismiss it himself.

Rest of the article here:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/16/g...ment-misconduct-expert/?utm_source=site-share

 

[Que]

Technicalities are the soul of the law.

Not to mention he was charged on a technicallity. A process crime without, as far as I am aware, any alleged underlying crime.