Jacob Chansley’s Lawyers Confront DOJ’s Claim It Didn’t Suppress Jan. 6 Evidence

They absolutely did. They will still probably get him for trespass but he definitely needs help not jail.

Going to be an interesting argument. What is comes down to is if the prosecutors had an obligation to highlight the video or not.

The defense is not arguing that they didn't have access to the 41,000 hours of video - they did. What they are arguing is that the government had an obligation to specifically highlight any exculpatory information instead of saying "here's 41,000 hours of video .. there might be something in there positive for your client"

I'm not a lawyer and have no clue how this argument will go down. I did look up the legal definitions regarding the Brady Rule and what the legal definition of "disclose" means.

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.

Going by this reading (and again, my non-legal interpretation), the government did provide the evidence that would be favorable to the accused.

However, looking at the outcome of court cases (Giglio v United States / Kyles v Whitley / Strickler v Greene) and the DOJ policies (9-5.001 - POLICY REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF EXCULPATORY AND IMPEACHMENT INFORMATION), there is a clear burden on the prosecutors to disclose and it implies there is an obligation to make sure the exculpatory information is made aware to the defendant
• "Because they are Constitutional obligations, Brady and Giglio evidence must be disclosed regardless of whether the defendant makes a request for exculpatory or impeachment evidence."
• "Exculpatory and impeachment evidence is material to a finding of guilt—and thus the Constitution requires disclosure—when there is a reasonable probability that effective use of the evidence will result in an acquittal."
• "Recognizing that it is sometimes difficult to assess the materiality of evidence before trial, prosecutors generally must take a broad view of materiality and err on the side of disclosing exculpatory and impeaching evidence."
• "A prosecutor must disclose information that is inconsistent with any element of any crime charged against the defendant or that establishes a recognized affirmative defense, regardless of whether the prosecutor believes such information will make the difference between conviction and acquittal of the defendant for a charged crime."

So ... as I said, it's going to be an interesting argument.

BTW, according Cornell Law School, the most likely outcome of a Brady violation after a defendant was found guilty and sentenced is a declaration of a mistrial.
-------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-5000-issues-related-trials-and-other-court-proceedings
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule

I hope he cleans their chronometers Brother Dale. He's just a poor misguided Navy Vet.