Polling Results Are In
By Mitch Berg
And apparently “railroading cops into kangaroo court for politicized prosecution to earn favor for a “woke” prosecutor”…
…isn’t polling well in CD2.
6 Responses to “Polling Results Are In”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 21st, 2024 at 8:58 am
Yowch. Apparently the use of force trainer who trained Londregan is saying that the prosecutor provided only cherry picked sections of his testimony to the defense. That’s a prima facie violation of Brady v. Maryland and Kyles v. Whitley, a withholding of exonerating evidence from the defense.
If a review of the interview finds that this is indeed the case, the remedy needs to go well beyond just moving the trial to a new venue. The prosecutors that cherry picked from his testimony need to be disbarred, and a thorough review of internal communications in that office needs to be conducted to figure out whether Moriarty was calling the shots in that regard as well. If she was, she needs to be disbarred as well.
Put gently, Londregan is going through H*** in this prosecution, and prosecutors need to have some basic ethics. Putting someone through the travails of investigation and trial on a garbage case, as this may be, deserves harsh remedies like disbarment and even imprisonment.
March 21st, 2024 at 10:46 am
Okay….
That’s what Angie is saying in public.
But what is she whispering in private?
Now that she is clear of the endorsement process and primary, it’s safe to say things like that — still you don’t want to offend the donor class.
March 21st, 2024 at 12:22 pm
Yeah, have Keith take over, find some volunteer white shoe lawyers to finish the railroading. There’s precedent for it.
March 21st, 2024 at 2:08 pm
^ geez, that’s as scary as it is predictable.
March 22nd, 2024 at 12:22 pm
Bigman states what I was thinking. I don’t know that Hakim X’s office will do justice any better than Moriarty’s. The big deal here, though, is that the prosecutor’s office clearly withheld exonerating evidence from the defense, and if that’s proven, again, it’s grounds for disbarment for every lawyer involved. This is basic Brady v. Maryland.
Overall, it strikes me that what’s needed is a searchable database for police departments, and in that database, you need to have a record of what steps were done by investigators and the prosecution, along with a complete record of evidence. That entire file needs to be shared with the defendant when he is arraigned or indicted, and the lack of key steps–assignment of an investigator, interview of the accuser by a trained investigator, etc..–would be in itself exonerating evidence and reason for discipline of police chiefs and prosecutors.
March 25th, 2024 at 11:00 am
[…] …. I figured there was a reason. […]