It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Attorneys: Freddie Gray Case Bombshell Claim About Evidence They Say Was Withheld by Prosecution

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: smurfy
It would be nice if there are examples to be had, but I see no mention of any in the link, so I will have no comment one way or the other. Until someone puts their money where their mouth is, it is still tittle tattle, legal eagles or not.


Apparently the info on crash for cash came from the Prosecution witnesses when they were interviewed by the defense. Apparently the prosecutors office also had improper communications with the medical examiner. They also failed to provide statements to the ME.

Here is some more detailed info -
Defense claims Freddie Gray had history of 'crash for cash' schemes

Yes, I have seen that report, critical part is here, "No proof was provided for that allegation" WTF?
Thing is, this has been talked about since late March or April..on the internet, it was a general known, and further, most of the detail of the insurance case is known since at least that time. However, the reason for the payout is not known. There certainly is a liability for insurance, but the reason is confidential, or that part is not given, and there is an advisory at the bottom of the published details saying so. This is the case number 13C14101574 Court of Maryland.
It's actually a hearing to move the settlement from a 'controlled payment' to a lump sum payout, and it seems this where the story comes from, and by the looks of it, the speculation of a serial self hurter. Other places on the internet say that the original claim was actually about lead paint poisoning.




posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

In this instance we are not talking about the court process and settlement. Its referencing situations where the actions of the individual are intended to defraud.

The burden of proof in a civil trial as opposed to a criminal trial is not the same. The standard is much lower in civil trials.

My point however is the information is something that the defense can use. If they use it they will be required to support the accusation with witnesses / testimony / evidence.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The information can potentially create reasonable doubt among the jury.

Especially if it is information a witness (especially a state's witness) disclosed and swore to.

Interesting.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: Xcathdra

The information can potentially create reasonable doubt among the jury.

Especially if it is information a witness (especially a state's witness) disclosed and swore to.

Interesting.


The information needs to be backed up with evidence, no evidence was offered by the defense.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: Xcathdra

The information can potentially create reasonable doubt among the jury.

Especially if it is information a witness (especially a state's witness) disclosed and swore to.

Interesting.


The information needs to be backed up with evidence, no evidence was offered by the defense.


That's actually not quite true. "Evidence" in this instance can be something as simple as a statement made by a witness. It's not the prosecutor's responsibility to verify the witness' statement for the defense. It IS their responsibility to inform the defense about the statement. Then it's up to the defense to do something with it.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: Xcathdra

The information can potentially create reasonable doubt among the jury.

Especially if it is information a witness (especially a state's witness) disclosed and swore to.

Interesting.


The information needs to be backed up with evidence, no evidence was offered by the defense.


That's actually not quite true. "Evidence" in this instance can be something as simple as a statement made by a witness. It's not the prosecutor's responsibility to verify the witness' statement for the defense. It IS their responsibility to inform the defense about the statement. Then it's up to the defense to do something with it.


That's not right, this is about so called knowledge of a legal document in Maryland court, which is common knowledge, (already known) it is probably about an insurance settlement to Gray, but that document does not give any details, so they don't know what the settlement is for.
this is the heading from the Rick Wells page...the source of the story used by the different page the OP linked us to,

Allstate Good Hands For Freddie Gray – Records Indicate Spinal Injury Pre-existing, Part Of Settlement.
See the way the heading says 'indicate' ? and the story itself has no details of accident, all it shows is a record of court hearings, between an insurance company, Gray and another interested party, and is all to do with how Gray would be given his money. There is no details, and it actually says that no details are given for legal reasons.

It even says that in the Wells text, despite his headline,

"One item of interest in a public records search of the Howard Court Civil System website indicates that Gray received a settlement and had engaged with Peachtree Funding to obtain a lump sum payment. The specific nature of this incident must be examined to determine if there is relevance to the death and equally important, to the culpability of the officers. There is wide speculation that this court record is the smoking gun that may lead to a pre-existing condition. It also may not."

so for all we know, Gray could have been run over by a drunken horse, and it looks like the police defense crowd don't know either, since they didn't offer any proof.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Cool. I was talking about what responsibility a prosecutor has to disclose any and all potentially exculpatory evidence, since you stated that information has to be backed up with evidence.

Which is not true.

As the ruling pertains to the Gray case specifically was not the point of my comment. But since we're going down that road, if a person tells the prosecution "yea Freddy liked to do crash for cash scams" then the prosecutor is obligated to tell the defense about the statement. It's up to the defense to prove that it's true.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Pretty sure X is saying it should have been turned over to the defense. And by not doing so, prosecution has been potentially jeopardized. Which is 100% correct.

And that's it.



There is more to it than that. Anybody who carefully examined the video can see there was abuse.


I haven't finished this entire thread yet but, I think the point being made is that the cops may be guilty as hell. But the DA has possibly jeopardized the case. They may go free even if they are guilty. This isn't about what everyone has seen on video. I'm not saying they are innocent or guilty. I think the DA has jeopardized the case procedurally.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: smurfy

Cool. I was talking about what responsibility a prosecutor has to disclose any and all potentially exculpatory evidence, since you stated that information has to be backed up with evidence.

Which is not true.

As the ruling pertains to the Gray case specifically was not the point of my comment. But since we're going down that road, if a person tells the prosecution "yea Freddy liked to do crash for cash scams" then the prosecutor is obligated to tell the defense about the statement. It's up to the defense to prove that it's true.

Well thank you for that, as you said in an earlier post, we are here to discuss.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Any witnesses called that talks about a crash for cash scheme will be asked how they know about it and specifically what they know about Grays involvement in them. Absent the witness stating "I was told by", which is hearsay and would not be allowed, the witness will have to provide specific information about what they were told, when they were told, who they were told by.

It will require the prosecution or the defense, depending on who calls the witness and what they testify to, to impeach the witness testimony by providing evidence that the information they provided is somehow faulty / false. That movies into the possible realm of perjury charges, again depending on what they testify to and what reality is.

If neither the defense nor prosecution can impeach witness testimony then its up to a jury / judge (depending on the setup chosen by the defendants) to weigh the witness testimony accordingly, assuming they are even called as witnesses. If they cant support the crash for cash accusation then I doubt they are goin to be called by either side. If they are called I doubt they would ask the witness about the crash for cash scheme.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join