Time in pic is CST.
Mark Levine just brought up a 'Franks hearing'
anons wanna learn what that is tonight?
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110726557332542212
>>19192520 me
Check the highlighted area.
In Franks v. Delaware (1978), the Court made it clear that only where the defense has proof that the affiant lied or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth with respect to some material statement in the affidavit will a hearing regarding such be required. A deliberate falsehood by a nonaffiant, fellow officer may fall within the Franks rule, but an informant's misrepresentation will have no effect on the validity of the warrant.
also read:
To be guilty of 'reckless disregard for the truth,' the officer must have entertained serious doubt as to the truth of the information inserted in the affidavit. The post-Franks decisions express due regard for the confidentiality of informants,but officers should note that courts may require an in camera hearing to ensure the existence of the informant and the fact that the officer has not misrepresented the informant's information.Endnotes and a chart are included.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/misstatements-affidavits-warrants-franks-and-its-progeny
Nice Anon!
Citizens must learn the law of the land in order to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
New one on Mark Levin right now.
Leo Terrel: It's a constitutional right!
The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense. Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant's potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant’s guilt.
Initially, the Brady rule was only applicable if the defendant made a pretrial request for specific information which the prosecution denied. In United States v. Bagley, however, the Supreme Court eliminated this request requirementand stated that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose all material, favorable information in their possession to defendants regardless of whether it is requested.This duty is breached regardless of whether that information is withheld intentionally or unintentionally.
If a Brady rule violation is discovered during trial, the court can either declare a mistrial or prohibit the prosecution from using unfavorable evidence which could be discredited by the withheld information. Because the Brady rule inherently involves a lack of information on the side of the defense, however, violations of the Brady rule are typically only discovered after the defendant is already convicted. As a result, the most common outcome of a Brady rule violation is overturning that conviction. Additionally, if the prosecution withheld Brady material intentionally or knowingly, they may be subject to sanctions.
The defendant bears the burden to prove that any withheld information was both material and favorable. A defendant meets this burden if they can show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the information been disclosed. In Kyles v. Whitley, the Supreme Court clarified four aspects of this test: etc etc
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule
>>19192562 me
FOrgot pic.
These people got a tumor brain Mr. Pig