Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6688
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4626

Post by pipistrelle »

Kendra wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:34 pm
@MacFarlaneNews
US Marine Dodge Hellonen is facing the judge in DC right now in newly filed US Capitol riot case

Hellonen tells judge he currently lives inside a barracks room at Camp Lejeune & is prohibited from having personally-owned guns inside barracks.. as judge crafts release conditions
Were they on leave?
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4627

Post by Kendra »

pipistrelle wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:46 pm
Kendra wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:34 pm
@MacFarlaneNews
US Marine Dodge Hellonen is facing the judge in DC right now in newly filed US Capitol riot case

Hellonen tells judge he currently lives inside a barracks room at Camp Lejeune & is prohibited from having personally-owned guns inside barracks.. as judge crafts release conditions
Were they on leave?
Good question.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4628

Post by sugar magnolia »

pipistrelle wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:46 pm
Kendra wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:34 pm
@MacFarlaneNews
US Marine Dodge Hellonen is facing the judge in DC right now in newly filed US Capitol riot case

Hellonen tells judge he currently lives inside a barracks room at Camp Lejeune & is prohibited from having personally-owned guns inside barracks.. as judge crafts release conditions
Were they on leave?
Or maybe just their day off.
User avatar
keith
Posts: 3705
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
Verified: ✅lunatic

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4629

Post by keith »

Maybenaut wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:17 am
noblepa wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:54 am
IANAL, but I believe that, if the judge disallowed the introduction of evidence by the defense, that might be grounds for an appeal; that the jury didn't get to see what the defense believes to be exculpatory evidence. But, absent juror misconduct, you generally can't appeal on the grounds that "the jury got it wrong".
That’s it exactly.
You can in Australia, apparently. See the case of Cardinal George Pell. Jury decided he was guilty of child abuse/paedophilia. He went to jail. Years later the courts decided the original jury could not have found him guilty (oh, but they DID)
Has everybody heard about the bird?
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4630

Post by AndyinPA »

https://news.yahoo.com/maga-anesthesiol ... 27798.html
A board-certified cardiothoracic anesthesiologist from Southern California is facing federal charges over his alleged participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot in support of ex-President Donald Trump.

Austin Brendlen Harris, an M.D. who runs a ketamine infusion clinic in Sherman Oaks, was captured on surveillance video inside the building, comparing Capitol police officers to Nazis, according to a federal complaint unsealed Thursday.

Harris, who was wearing a “Lions Not Sheep” cap during the attempted insurrection, was turned in by a “former friend” who spotted a Facebook post of Harris at the scene and reported it to the FBI.

The complaint says Harris shared video on the social media platform that showed him “kneeling beside the woman shot inside,” presumably referring to Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, who was shot by a Capitol Police lieutenant trying to stop the mob from breaching a door leading to the lobby of the House of Representatives chamber.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4631

Post by humblescribe »

pipistrelle wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:46 pm
Kendra wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:34 pm
@MacFarlaneNews
US Marine Dodge Hellonen is facing the judge in DC right now in newly filed US Capitol riot case

Hellonen tells judge he currently lives inside a barracks room at Camp Lejeune & is prohibited from having personally-owned guns inside barracks.. as judge crafts release conditions
Were they on leave?
Well, I think (paging Maybenaut..pick up white courtesy telephone) leave is the military form of vacation or other pre-approved time off from duty for important personal affairs. Perhaps to attend a funeral, perhaps to move your family to your new assignment, perhaps to tend to an ailing relative for a short period of time.

On the other hand, liberty is when the CO tells the troops that they are free from X o'clock today through Z o'clock the day after tomorrow. The soldiers, sailors, Marines, and air persons can do as they choose during that time, including leaving the base and not be considered AWOL.
o0o
He tells the judge that he is prohibited from having his personal guns inside the barracks. So what? Given the fact that he allegedly committed unlawful acts on Jan the six, is it reasonable to believe that he will follow the rules for Camp Lejeune? Moreover, the fact that he cannot possess his personal weapons on base does not imply that he has personal weapons in proximity to the Camp Lejeune when he is on liberty.

Throw him into the brig until trial, says I.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4632

Post by noblepa »

keith wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:55 pm
Maybenaut wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:17 am
noblepa wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:54 am
IANAL, but I believe that, if the judge disallowed the introduction of evidence by the defense, that might be grounds for an appeal; that the jury didn't get to see what the defense believes to be exculpatory evidence. But, absent juror misconduct, you generally can't appeal on the grounds that "the jury got it wrong".
That’s it exactly.
You can in Australia, apparently. See the case of Cardinal George Pell. Jury decided he was guilty of child abuse/paedophilia. He went to jail. Years later the courts decided the original jury could not have found him guilty (oh, but they DID)
My statement that you can't generally claim the jury was wrong was somewhat of an oversimplification. There are exceptions. A judge, and presumably an appellate court, can overrule a jury if the judge can show that, as a matter of law, the evidence was insufficient to justify a guilty verdict.

An appellate court can find that the jury was biased against the defendant and returned a verdict based on their biases, rather than on the evidence.

But, in general, you can't simply ask the appellate court to give you another chance to argue the merits of the case, unless evidence comes to light that was not available at trial.

Lawyers, please correct me if I'm wrong.
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4633

Post by Slim Cognito »

So you're saying "I don't like the verdict," isn't a viable option?
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
poplove
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Location: Las Vegas NV
Occupation: ukulele ambassador
Verified: ✅💚💙💜☮️💐🌈⚽️✅

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4634

Post by poplove »

humblescribe wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:44 pm
pipistrelle wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:46 pm
Kendra wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:34 pm
Were they on leave?
Well, I think (paging Maybenaut..pick up white courtesy telephone) leave is the military form of vacation or other pre-approved time off from duty for important personal affairs. Perhaps to attend a funeral, perhaps to move your family to your new assignment, perhaps to tend to an ailing relative for a short period of time.

On the other hand, liberty is when the CO tells the troops that they are free from X o'clock today through Z o'clock the day after tomorrow. The soldiers, sailors, Marines, and air persons can do as they choose during that time, including leaving the base and not be considered AWOL.
o0o
He tells the judge that he is prohibited from having his personal guns inside the barracks. So what? Given the fact that he allegedly committed unlawful acts on Jan the six, is it reasonable to believe that he will follow the rules for Camp Lejeune? Moreover, the fact that he cannot possess his personal weapons on base does not imply that he has personal weapons in proximity to the Camp Lejeune when he is on liberty.

Throw him into the brig until trial, says I.
Regarding liberty/time off, there are mileage limits on how far you can travel without taking leave. Not that it would matter to an active duty member looking to participate in an insurrection.
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4635

Post by Kendra »

Before he was convicted by jury in his Jan 6 case, Richard Barnett admitted putting his feet on desk in Nancy Pelosi's office

He argued at trial he was trying to get his US flag back from her office. In this police bodycam video, Barnett says flag is on "steel pipe.. for Antifa"
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4636

Post by Maybenaut »

poplove wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:16 pm
humblescribe wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:44 pm
pipistrelle wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:46 pm
Were they on leave?
Well, I think (paging Maybenaut..pick up white courtesy telephone) leave is the military form of vacation or other pre-approved time off from duty for important personal affairs. Perhaps to attend a funeral, perhaps to move your family to your new assignment, perhaps to tend to an ailing relative for a short period of time.

On the other hand, liberty is when the CO tells the troops that they are free from X o'clock today through Z o'clock the day after tomorrow. The soldiers, sailors, Marines, and air persons can do as they choose during that time, including leaving the base and not be considered AWOL.
o0o
He tells the judge that he is prohibited from having his personal guns inside the barracks. So what? Given the fact that he allegedly committed unlawful acts on Jan the six, is it reasonable to believe that he will follow the rules for Camp Lejeune? Moreover, the fact that he cannot possess his personal weapons on base does not imply that he has personal weapons in proximity to the Camp Lejeune when he is on liberty.

Throw him into the brig until trial, says I.
Regarding liberty/time off, there are mileage limits on how far you can travel without taking leave. Not that it would matter to an active duty member looking to participate in an insurrection.
Each service has its own rules with respect to liberty and leave. I was in the Coast Guard. I could go from the East Coast to Alaska while on liberty, so long as I make it back in time. When I was stationed at the Navy Yard (part of an exchange program) they made me follow the Navy’s rules - if I wanted to travel more than 50 miles I had to put in for leave. And I couldn’t combine leave and liberty, so if I left Fri afternoon and returned a week from Monday, all that time counted (the Coast guard only would have charged me Monday thru Friday). (I’d get the Coast Guard personnel office to fix my leave balance after the fact; they knew the Navy rule was BS).

But you’re not allowed to crime whether you’re on leave or liberty, so his status is irrelevant.

As to weapons in the barracks, every large base has an armory for the storage of personal firearms. So even if he can’t keep his weapon in his room, he can check them in to the armory and check them out again. So any ruling by the judge needs to be specific about possession.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4637

Post by Kendra »

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/2 ... k-00079779
A large contingent of Capitol Police officers is preparing to descend on the federal courthouse in Washington on Friday to attend the sentencing of a Jan. 6 rioter who sprayed their colleague Brian Sicknick in the face with a chemical agent hours before his death.

Also in attendance will be Sicknick’s longtime partner, Sandra Garza, and members of Sicknick’s family as U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan delivers judgment to Julian Khater, 33, who pleaded guilty to spraying Sicknick and has been incarcerated since his March 2021 arrest.

A medical examiner determined that Sicknick’s Jan. 7, 2021, death was the result of natural causes — strokes caused by a blood clot — but noted that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” Sicknick’s family holds Khater primarily responsible for Sicknick’s death, saying the stress of the Jan. 6 attack, punctuated by the spray attack that Khater unleashed, may have caused his health to fail.


The family wrote a series of pained and impassioned letters to the court urging a harsh sentence for Khater. It wasn’t immediately clear whether members of Sicknick’s family would also attend the sentencing hearing.

Prosecutors echoed their sentiment, agreeing that Khater bore responsibility for Sicknick’s death and urging Hogan to impose a 90-month sentence.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4638

Post by sugar magnolia »

Kendra wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:58 pm https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/2 ... k-00079779
A large contingent of Capitol Police officers is preparing to descend on the federal courthouse in Washington on Friday to attend the sentencing of a Jan. 6 rioter who sprayed their colleague Brian Sicknick in the face with a chemical agent hours before his death.

Also in attendance will be Sicknick’s longtime partner, Sandra Garza, and members of Sicknick’s family as U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan delivers judgment to Julian Khater, 33, who pleaded guilty to spraying Sicknick and has been incarcerated since his March 2021 arrest.

A medical examiner determined that Sicknick’s Jan. 7, 2021, death was the result of natural causes — strokes caused by a blood clot — but noted that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” Sicknick’s family holds Khater primarily responsible for Sicknick’s death, saying the stress of the Jan. 6 attack, punctuated by the spray attack that Khater unleashed, may have caused his health to fail.


The family wrote a series of pained and impassioned letters to the court urging a harsh sentence for Khater. It wasn’t immediately clear whether members of Sicknick’s family would also attend the sentencing hearing.

Prosecutors echoed their sentiment, agreeing that Khater bore responsibility for Sicknick’s death and urging Hogan to impose a 90-month sentence.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4639

Post by bob »

noblepa wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:54 pmA judge, and presumably an appellate court, can overrule a jury if the judge can show that, as a matter of law, the evidence was insufficient to justify a guilty verdict.

* * *

But, in general, you can't simply ask the appellate court to give you another chance to argue the merits of the case
Sufficiency of evidence is a common-enough appellate claim. And it, essentially, is rearguing the merits.
unless evidence comes to light that was not available at trial.
Newly discovered evidence never would be part of an appeal; the record is what the record is.

Habeas corpus, and other post-conviction remedies, on the other hand....
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4640

Post by Maybenaut »

bob wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:19 pm
noblepa wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:54 pmA judge, and presumably an appellate court, can overrule a jury if the judge can show that, as a matter of law, the evidence was insufficient to justify a guilty verdict.

* * *

But, in general, you can't simply ask the appellate court to give you another chance to argue the merits of the case
Sufficiency of evidence is a common-enough appellate claim. And it, essentially, is rearguing the merits.
unless evidence comes to light that was not available at trial.
Newly discovered evidence never would be part of an appeal; the record is what the record is.

Habeas corpus, and other post-conviction remedies, on the other hand....
Well, most* appellate courts are limited to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, which is an objective standard under which “no reasonable jury” could have found the appellant guilty. As a practical matter, that means that the government must have failed to present any evidence on one of the elements of the offense. As long as there is some evidence in support of every element, the appellate court will find the evidence legally sufficient.

* The military Courts of Criminal Appeals also examine the record for factual sufficiency. They’re free to re-weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses. So in addition to legal errors, most of the briefs I write include a section on factual sufficiency, which is really just another shot at a closing argument. It’s rarely successful, but lightning has been known to strike occasionally.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4641

Post by bob »

Maybenaut wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:42 pm Well, most* appellate courts are limited to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, which is an objective standard under which “no reasonable jury” could have found the appellant guilty.
To close this circle: Which means arguing (to the trial or appellate courts), essentially, the jury got it wrong. Or, rather, super wrong.

Sufficiency claims are rarely successful because (most) courts don't evaluate witnesses' credibility, and do make inferences that could support the verdict.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4642

Post by Maybenaut »

bob wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:01 am
Maybenaut wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:42 pm Well, most* appellate courts are limited to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, which is an objective standard under which “no reasonable jury” could have found the appellant guilty.
To close this circle: Which means arguing (to the trial or appellate courts), essentially, the jury got it wrong. Or, rather, super wrong.

Sufficiency claims are rarely successful because (most) courts don't evaluate witnesses' credibility, and do make inferences that could support the verdict.
No. The argument to the appellate court is that the government got it wrong by failing to present evidence on an element of the offense. That the jury didn’t pick up on that fact is immaterial.

ETA: The reason that it’s the government that got it wrong and not the jury is that a jury cannot commit legal error. Only the government or the judge can do that. I suppose another argument is that the judge also got it wrong by sending the charge to the jury for consideration.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4643

Post by realist »

Maybenaut wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:45 am
bob wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:01 am
Maybenaut wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:42 pm Well, most* appellate courts are limited to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, which is an objective standard under which “no reasonable jury” could have found the appellant guilty.
To close this circle: Which means arguing (to the trial or appellate courts), essentially, the jury got it wrong. Or, rather, super wrong.

Sufficiency claims are rarely successful because (most) courts don't evaluate witnesses' credibility, and do make inferences that could support the verdict.
No. The argument to the appellate court is that the government got it wrong by failing to present evidence on an element of the offense. That the jury didn’t pick up on that fact is immaterial.
Lawyer fight1 Lawyer fight!

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4644

Post by Maybenaut »

:rotflmao:
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4645

Post by noblepa »

bob wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:19 pm Newly discovered evidence never would be part of an appeal; the record is what the record is.

Habeas corpus, and other post-conviction remedies, on the other hand....
Perhaps I got my terminology or my knowledge of legal procedure wrong.

If conclusive evidence exonerating a defendant comes to light after the conviction, when and how would that evidence be brought before a court to, at the very least, get a new trial for the defendant, if not at appeal?

Isn't that basically how The Innocence Project was able to obtain the release of quite a few men convicted of rape twenty years prior, when DNA evidence was not available? New tests, that were not available at the time of trial, conclusively showed that those defendants could not have been the rapist.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4646

Post by Maybenaut »

noblepa wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:30 pm
bob wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:19 pm Newly discovered evidence never would be part of an appeal; the record is what the record is.

Habeas corpus, and other post-conviction remedies, on the other hand....
Perhaps I got my terminology or my knowledge of legal procedure wrong.

If conclusive evidence exonerating a defendant comes to light after the conviction, when and how would that evidence be brought before a court to, at the very least, get a new trial for the defendant, if not at appeal?

Isn't that basically how The Innocence Project was able to obtain the release of quite a few men convicted of rape twenty years prior, when DNA evidence was not available? New tests, that were not available at the time of trial, conclusively showed that those defendants could not have been the rapist.
That sort of evidence is usually* not considered on direct appeal because it is not a part of the appellate record.

Instead, the convicted person would file a writ of habeas corpus, which is essentially a civil suit against the warden, claiming that he’s being held illegally. This is also where claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are heard.

After all the DNA exonerations, many states also permitted inmates (and even those who have served their time) ti file a writ of actual innocence. Each state’s requirement is different, so what might have been timely or successful in one state might not be in another.

These are all considered collateral attacks on the conviction. I say usually, because where I practice you can raise all of this stuff in direct appeal.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4647

Post by Kendra »


Caravan of Capitol Police arrived at US District Courthouse for 1p sentencing of Julian Khater, in Jan 6 assault of officer Brian Sicknick

I’ll be in the courtroom. Sicknick’s mother will speak. Police are here as show of support for family. Khater will seek sentience of “time served”

The hallway outside courtroom for sentencing hearing is jammed with Capitol Police. Dozens of them. Waiting for seat to watch …
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4648

Post by Kendra »

Scott MacFarlane
@MacFarlaneNews
Haven’t seen this before in any of the Jan 6 cases. So many US Capitol Police officers have shown up in person for the Julian Khater-George Tanios case sentencing … the courthouse opened an overflow room. And even more officers flooded into it.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4649

Post by bob »

Maybenaut wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:45 am No. The argument to the appellate court is that the government got it wrong by failing to present evidence on an element of the offense. That the jury didn’t pick up on that fact is immaterial.
That the jury convicted despite the government presenting no evidence for at least one element of the charged crime is, essentially, arguing the jury got it wrong. Because the jury convicted when it shouldn't have.

A test sometimes used is "no rational juror." Implying the defendant was convicted by only irrational jurors.


Regardless, I expect many of the J6 defendants to argue insufficient evidence. Attacking either the evidence of their intent, or that their actions didn't constitute a crime listed in the indictment.

And I expect those claims to lose on appeal.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#4650

Post by Gregg »

noblepa wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:30 pm
bob wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:19 pm Newly discovered evidence never would be part of an appeal; the record is what the record is.

Habeas corpus, and other post-conviction remedies, on the other hand....
Perhaps I got my terminology or my knowledge of legal procedure wrong.

If conclusive evidence exonerating a defendant comes to light after the conviction, when and how would that evidence be brought before a court to, at the very least, get a new trial for the defendant, if not at appeal?

Isn't that basically how The Innocence Project was able to obtain the release of quite a few men convicted of rape twenty years prior, when DNA evidence was not available? New tests, that were not available at the time of trial, conclusively showed that those defendants could not have been the rapist.
If, after trail, evidence of a wrongful conviction is found, it's sometimes more proper for the person to be pardoned by the Governor/President. There usually isn't any legal basis for the court to just have a do over.

In a twisted kind of way, after you've been convicted, being innocent isn't in and of itself any reason to be let off.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
Post Reply

Return to “The January 6 Insurrection, including Criminal Cases”