• Re: 'Clear causal link': Lawyers accuse Kamala Harris of defying Suprem

    From Harris the cheap slut@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 31 07:56:53 2023
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.nationalism.black, sac.politics XPost: talk.politics.guns

    On 30 Dec 2023, Tranny Trump <elonx@protonmail.com> posted some news:umqp0f$1kcc4$4@dont-email.me:

    Again, Kamala Harris focuses her attention on what cock(s) to suck
    next.

    While district attorney for San Francisco, Kamala Harris withheld evidence
    that could have exonerated defendants on multiple occasions, in violation
    of a key due process ruling by the Supreme Court.

    Between 2004 and 2010, Harris’s office failed to inform defense attorneys
    about criminal and professional misconduct records that raised questions
    about the credibility of government witnesses. The lapses led to the
    dismissal of nearly 1,000 cases and a scathing 2010 ruling by a Superior
    Court judge that accused Harris’ office of breaching due process rights.

    Legal scholars told the Washington Examiner that Harris’ office appeared
    to have violated the Supreme Court’s 1963 Brady v. Maryland decision. The ruling held that prosecutors must turn over potentially exculpatory
    evidence to the defense.

    There is a “clear causal link between Brady violations and wrongful
    conviction” said Craig Trainor, a New York attorney who specializes in due process cases.

    “The reasons for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence range from bad
    faith to inexperience to excessive caseloads to a tunnel vision to get the ‘guilty defendant’ at all costs to rank politics, as we see in Kamala
    Harris’ case,” he said.

    Jason Kreag, a law professor at the University of Arizona and a former
    staffer at the Innocence Project, said Brady is also crucial because it
    “is designed to promote fairness in our system.”

    Kreag said this was particularly true in Harris’ case. “There is no doubt
    that the prosecutor's case is impeached when it is built on information
    from people who have credibility problems, as was the case here. When that happens, prosecutors owe a duty to disclose to the defense things that can
    be used to impeach the state’s case. That was a failure here.”

    He said prosecutors can face disciplinary action or disbarment for Brady violations, but such repercussions are rare.

    In December 2009, Deborah Madden, a long-time technician at the San
    Francisco Police Department crime lab who often testified as a trial
    witness for the district attorney’s office, was accused of stealing
    cocaine from the unit. This was not her first brush with the law,
    according to court records. Madden had been arrested for a domestic
    violence incident at her home in 2007. She was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and later found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence
    charges.

    The police department opened its own disciplinary proceedings for Madden
    after the arrest. Police officials also realized her record might have to
    be disclosed to defendants: Her official file included a Post-it labeled
    “Brady Implications.”

    Top officials in Harris' office were aware of other problems with Madden.
    On Nov. 19, 2009, an assistant district attorney emailed Harris’ deputy
    Russ Giuntini and informed him that Madden seemed to be trying to sabotage
    the work of the crime lab.

    Madden was “increasingly UNDEPENDABLE for testimony,” said the email. “The problem with Deborah Madden does not appear to be isolated … anecdotally I
    am told Debbie is unhappy and strategically picks days and times to be
    sick which have the greatest impact on lab work.”

    After Madden’s drug theft went public, dozens of defendants sought to have their convictions vacated, arguing that the police and district attorney violated their due process rights by withholding material information
    about Madden.

    San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo appeared to
    agree. In a April 2010 ruling, she said Harris’ office violated Brady
    policy.

    “The District Attorney failed to disclose information that clearly should
    have been disclosed,” wrote Massullo.

    When the judge asked the district attorney’s office for its policy on
    handling Brady disclosures, she was told the DA had no such system in
    place.

    “Failure to implement any type of procedure is a violation of [Supreme
    Court rulings] and California’s statutory discovery obligations in
    criminal cases,” wrote the judge.

    The controversy unearthed other cases where Harris’ office had withheld important information on government witnesses. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Harris’ office had compiled a list of over 100 law
    enforcement officials with criminal or misconduct issues but objected to sharing this information with defense attorneys without a court order.

    One toxicologist who worked on drunk driving cases, Ann-Marie Gordon, had
    been rebuked by a Washington state court for engaging in professional
    “fraud” while working at a local crime lab in 2007, according to the
    Chronicle. Gordon started working in San Francisco in 2007. Harris’s
    office did not disclose her background to defense attorneys until the
    spring of 2010.

    Harris’ office was informed of other inadequacies at the police crime lab
    that it declined to make public. In 2007, Harris hired veteran forensics
    expert Rockne Harmon as a DNA consultant, paying him $140,000, according
    to a copy of the contract. As part of his work, Harmon wrote a lengthy
    memo to top officials in the district attorney’s office that raised
    concerns about the reliability of the crime lab’s DNA testing unit in
    April 2010, according to San Francisco Weekly.

    After the Madden scandal broke, Harris insisted she never saw the memo.
    Her office also declined to make the document public. Harmon called for
    the DA to release the memo, saying it was important to understand the
    scope of the problems at the crime lab.

    “I'm not pleased that the full story — the full, true story — is still not
    out there,” Harmon said. “It's just something I'm not used to seeing as a prosecutor.” The memo has still not been released, despite efforts from
    defense attorneys to subpoena the document.

    Harris' campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/clear-causal-link-lawyers-accuse- kamala-harris-of-defying-supreme-court-by-hiding-evidence-from-defense- attorneys

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)