Arleare13 t1_j6oe6s4 wrote
Wow, that's really embarrassing for the DA's office. They must have been pretty substantial and unambiguous Brady violations for the office to consent to dismissal with prejudice.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j6p9ze0 wrote
Why wouldn't they simply drop the charges if they had exculpatory evidence?
Gavel-Dropper t1_j6pcpw3 wrote
The seems more like a discovery obligation issue. It doesn’t matter if the evidence was exculpatory, if the DA failed to turn it over in the time prescribed by law. Most DAs won’t consent to these dismissals unless whatever was failed to turned over was egregious and late, usually you make some argument. Halfway through a trial seems really late to be turning stuff over if you’ve had it in your possession.
Arleare13 t1_j6pafg2 wrote
“Exculpatory evidence” doesn’t necessarily mean definitive evidence of innocence. It means anything that could conceivably be taken as harming the prosecution’s case. The existence of any exculpatory evidence at all doesn’t mean that the case should have been brought or should be dropped.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j6pcpm5 wrote
Understood.
And they indeed dropped some of the charges. So it may have not been just one or another violation.
>The juror said that problems with evidence being withheld had come to light on Thursday, and that Mr. Tanner had asked for extra time to examine the new material. Shortly thereafter, jurors were told that a witness, Tameeka Baker, who was arrested by Mr. Franco in 2017, was no longer a part of the case and that charges related to her arrest were being dropped.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments