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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.