Who are what is Brady? Please, no Brady Bunch jokes. I couldn’t stand that show.
,
JEFF SESSIONS.
‘
>>Who are what is Brady?<<
From memory, so not sure, but I believe Brady was a case that established the defendant’s right to have all exculpatory evidence held by the prosecution revealed to him. Carter is saying that wasn’t done here and that Flynn wouldn’t have entered a plea agreement if he’d have been made aware of the Justice memo.
The “Brady material” complaint is in reference to the Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, which established the government’s obligation to turn over all exculpatory evidence.
Brady material was NOT produced in the Flynn case, going all the way back to July 2017.
Sean Hannity discussed this situation on his radio show Tuesday with Michael Flynn’s attorney.
The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963).[2]
The rule requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that might exonerate the defendant.
“Brady materials” or “Brady evidence” is exculpatory evidence or witness-impeachment evidence a prosecutor is obligated to share with the defense.
It’s important to note, however, that a conviction is NOT necessarily and certainly not automatically reversed by the revelation of Brady evidence. I do not know if the same can be said over a “guilty” plea. In this case it would not result in an automatic exoneration for Flynn, though it would likely lead there after a few more hearings. (and $30+K)
The requirement that exculpatory evidence MUST be turned over to the defense. The prosecution does not get to decide what is exculpatory so they MUST turn over all evidence
Based on case law with the name Brady
Be-baw be-baw be-baw!
Brady is a court ruling that requires exculpatory materials to be turned over to the defense.
It should be done generally, however Judge Sullivan explicitly gave notice to the prosecution and its members when he took over the case.
That had not been done in the Stevens case, so that was a large part of why it wasn’t prosecutable. In this case, having done that, he can hold the prosecution in contempt.