Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > General Board

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 02-17-2018, 10:51 AM   #1
Rightguide
Literotica Guru
 
Rightguide's Avatar
 
Rightguide is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 17,381
Will General Flynn Be Vindicated?

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...tates-v-flynn/

My opinion, Judge Sullivan could very well rule that prosecutorial misconduct has occurred in the Flynn case.
__________________
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 11:01 AM   #2
Desiremakesmeweak
Literotica Guru
 
Desiremakesmeweak is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mostly Australia
Posts: 1,613
Got to think you're spot-on, there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 11:14 AM   #3
pointless
¿por qué no?
 
pointless's Avatar
 
pointless is offline
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: typo city
Posts: 57,086
well, you got the paranoid pathological liars on your side, so that's something.
__________________
mind your own business

rip it up
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 11:37 AM   #4
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の 下流人
 
LJ_Reloaded's Avatar
 
LJ_Reloaded is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Honey Badger Don't Care!
Posts: 20,509
Fynn is doomed, son. Best accept that now.
__________________

Free Eddie Ray Routh! A Real American Hero! Chris "American Sniper" Kyle was a mass murdering racist psychopath!

Burn in Hell, Ted Johnson, you racist, rapist scumbag!


Behold! One Donald Trump supporter's transformation from a racist fucktard to a TERRIFIED JAILHOUSE SNOWFLAKE!

Round Up All "Incel" Revolutionaries to Guantanamo.

Men's Rights Cannot Exist Without Responsibilities
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 11:48 AM   #5
bellisarius
Literotica Guru
 
bellisarius is offline
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 4,208
It looks like Sullivan isn't screwing around. And this may go to the core as to why the original judge recused himself.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 11:55 AM   #6
Colonel Hogan
Madness
 
Colonel Hogan's Avatar
 
Colonel Hogan is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Within easy reach
Posts: 18,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rightguide View Post
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...tates-v-flynn/

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

Quote:
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.
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 12:31 PM   #7
WoundedKnee
Loves Spam
 
WoundedKnee is offline
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 7,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 01:30 PM   #8
doowdniw
Literotica Guru
 
doowdniw is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North America
Posts: 3,434
Whole lot of nothing. Standard procedure. Pretty sure that Mueller is well aware of his Brady obligations.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 01:43 PM   #9
Rightguide
Literotica Guru
 
Rightguide's Avatar
 
Rightguide is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 17,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellisarius View Post
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.
__________________
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 02:09 PM   #10
Colonel Hogan
Madness
 
Colonel Hogan's Avatar
 
Colonel Hogan is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Within easy reach
Posts: 18,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by WoundedKnee View Post
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.
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 02:10 PM   #11
WoundedKnee
Loves Spam
 
WoundedKnee is offline
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 7,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 04:29 PM   #12
Comshaw
VAGITARIAN
 
Comshaw's Avatar
 
Comshaw is offline
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pacific NorthWest USA
Posts: 7,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rightguide View Post
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...tates-v-flynn/

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


Comshaw
__________________
"The problem is not the problem; the problem is your attitude about the problem." Captain Jack Sparrow


Comshaw's Story Page
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 04:35 PM   #13
Wrong Element
Gibbest
 
Wrong Element's Avatar
 
Wrong Element is offline
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hiking the Appalachian Trail
Posts: 21,558
Reduced from calling posters who disagree with you traitors, to hoping your guy gets off on a technicality. How the self-righteous have fallen.
__________________
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 04:50 PM   #14
HisArpy
Loose canon extraordinair
 
HisArpy's Avatar
 
HisArpy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: On the sunset coast
Posts: 6,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrong Element View Post
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.
__________________
I don't particularly care if you don't like it.



My Literotica stories
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 06:21 PM   #15
BZee
Loves Spam
 
BZee is offline
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 192
StrongHorse Trump will pardon him
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2018, 11:12 PM   #16
Rightguide
Literotica Guru
 
Rightguide's Avatar
 
Rightguide is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 17,381
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/ge...rce=site-share
__________________
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-18-2018, 12:24 AM   #17
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
 
Que's Avatar
 
Que is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 33,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisArpy View Post
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.
__________________
"A man can convince anyone he’s somebody else, but never himself."
- Verbal Kint in "The Usual Suspects."
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:52 PM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.