The one trap every Trump prosecutor needs to avoid.
Prosecutors in former President Donald Trump’s four criminal cases are knee-deep in producing millions of pages of discovery to ensure he receives a fair trial. The discovery process is not simply a lot of work. It is a land mine for prosecutors—one that has sunk other high-profile cases, such as the 2008 prosecution of then-Sen. Ted Stevens. In the Trump case, the prospects of a discovery error—particularly an accidental one—are significant, and prosecutors must be careful to prevent their cases from imploding on a national stage with some of the highest stakes imaginable. For 60 years, the Supreme Court’s Bradydoctrine has required prosecutors to turn over all evidence to a defendant that is favorable and material. In many cases, the Bradydisclosures are straightforward. In a murder case, for example, favorable evidence might be an eyewitness pointing to someone else as the possible shooter. Favorable evidence also includes anything that would discredit a prosecution witness, such as expressions of bias or prior inconsistent statements. To demonstrate a Bradyviolation, the defendant needs to show that the withheld evidence was material. If a defendant raises the Bradyclaim midtrial, the defendant must show that the withheld evidence would lead to an acquittal. If the defendant raises the Bradyclaim after trial, he also has the burden of showing that he would have been found not guilty if the evidence had been disclosed. Materiality can be an obstacle to defendants winning Bradyappeals, but in a complicated factual case like the ones involving Trump, the materiality standard can be easier to meet. In the Trump cases, prosecutors are stitching together a narrative with the testimony of many witnesses who each contribute small but key pieces of the puzzle. If evidence that is withheld would have undermined any one of those puzzle pieces—for example by contradicting a key witness—that may be enough. So how do the Trump prosecutors avoid committing a Bradyviolation? Well, the first step is to know the types of circumstances in which they happen. Prosecutors commit Bradyviolations in three common situations: First, some prosecutors intentionally hide evidence. Second, prosecutors commit Bradyviolations because they don’t understand the law and inadvertently fail to disclose required evidence. Third, prosecutors fail to turn over evidence held by other members of the “prosecution team,” such as police officers who work outside the prosecutor’s office. The first two scenarios seem unlikely in the Trump cases. The whole world is watching, so it would be absurd for special counsel Jack Smith and the other prosecutors to intentionally hide evidence. And it seems doubtful that these prosecutors, knowing the stakes, would make a legal mistake about their discovery obligations, rather than simply erring on the side of disclosure. The third scenario—turning over all evidence held by the prosecution team—is the trouble spot. The Bradydoctrine provides that prosecutors must turn over evidence not just from their own files but also from the files of everyone on the prosecution team, even if the prosecutors have personally never laid eyes on the evidence. The special counsel team, of course, includes prosecutors and FBI agents who have been working on the Trump cases day and night. But that’s not all. There are other federal prosecutors outside the special counsel’s office, such as those who prosecuted the hundreds of defendants who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. Courts have said that the prosecution team includes other prosecutors with information about the defendant’s case. Then there are the national security agencies involved in gathering evidence about the attack on the Capitol and the “big lie” to overturn the election. Federal courts have said that these agencies are part of the prosecution team that must produce Bradyevidence. Will the special counsel’s office be able to check through those files? And then there’s the House of Representatives’ Jan. 6 committee, which undertook a lengthy investigation of the events at the heart of the D.C. and Georgia criminal cases. Congress is not a law enforcement body. So, in theory, the committee and its dozens of staff are not part of the prosecution team. But we are in uncharted territory. We know little about how closely the special counsel’s team worked with the Jan. 6 committee behind the scenes. It is therefore not outside the realm of possibility that a court could consider the committee’s work to be potential Bradymaterial. Given the scope of the crimes alleged against Trump, there is a mountain of evidence spread all over Washington—not to mention New York, Georgia, Florida, and elsewhere. Highly competent prosecutors have flunked their Bradyobligations in far less complicated situations than this. The special counsel (and prosecutors in Georgia and New York) should therefore have eyes in the back of their heads to look for all possible Bradyevidence. Because the goal of any prosecutor is not just to “win,” but to do so in a way that ensures that the process is fair and that any convictions will be upheld on appeal.Related From Slate
Mark Joseph Stern
The Surprise Ruling That Tosses a Grenade Into the Jan. 6 Prosecutions
Read More Popular in News & Politics
相关推荐
-
NYT Strands hints, answers for August 29
-
Luis Enrique going his own way, for better or worse
-
This ridiculously big AirPod actually works and is Bluetooth compatible
-
Protests intensify upon issuance of warrant for autopsy on farmer
-
We Bought the Cheapest DDR5 RAM Modules We Could Find, Are They Any Good?
-
Lady Gaga addresses all the nonsense body shaming she received after the Super Bowl
- 最近发表
-
- Microwave technique recovers 87% of batteries' lithium in 15 minutes
- Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey says follower counts don't matter
- Trump's proposed Colorado border wall has inspired a lot of Sharpie memes
- David Harbour recreated THAT scene from 'The Shining' and it's frankly terrifying
- World's first green ammonia plant is now open for business
- Chelsea Peretti had the perfect response to this Fox host's AOC Halloween costume
- Super Bowl LI was a bad moment for VR
- Facebook held back on Trump and Russia so Republicans wouldn't get angry
- LG Display starts production of advanced OLED displays for gaming
- This mom dressed her kids up as AirPods for Halloween, and yes, it's as adorable as it sounds
- 随机阅读
-
- Best Labor Day headphones deals: Apple, Bose, Beats, and more on sale
- CAS clears Ecuador to play at World Cup
- David Harbour recreated THAT scene from 'The Shining' and it's frankly terrifying
- Yoon government has last opportunity for North Korea's denuclearization: experts
- What to expect from Apple's September event: iPhone 16, Apple Watch 10, and more
- Namibia has joined Europe in mocking Trump and it's glorious
- Artist fights street harassment through photos depicting Goddesses
- Seoul Mayor to announce presidential bid ‘soon’
- 一针一线串起两代人的传承故事
- Cry of the Week: 'Jane the Virgin' and #TeamMichaelForever
- Gauff eyes uplifting end to season
- Incels.me, a major hub for hate speech and misogyny, suspended by .ME registry
- Amazon Android Days sale 2024: Save on unlocked phones, tablets, and more
- UN special rapporteur for North Korea human rights to visit Panmunjom next week
- Like Steph Curry, The Rock isn't happy Under Armour's CEO praised Trump
- Potter defends misfiring Sterling
- 21 Unexpected Wonders in Colorado’s Vibrant Cities and Small Towns
- Protests intensify upon issuance of warrant for autopsy on farmer
- Hacking gang targeted World Cup critics
- US does not oppose Asian allies to build better ties with China:
- 搜索
-
- 友情链接
-