Saturday, June 3, 2023
- Advertisement -

DOJ Admits It Has Exculpatory Jan. 6 Evidence; Won’t Release It to Defendants

'Despite our diligent efforts, we are not currently in a position to identify all information that may be material to the defense in this case...'

After having trampled on the 1st Amendment rights of freedom-fighting demonstrators to assemble and petition the government at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, the Biden Justice Department continues to violate political dissidents’ 5th and 6th Amendment rights to due process and a speedy public trial.

According to a recent DOJ filing, the prosecutors also acknowledged that they were withholding potentially exculpatory evidence against some of the the accused.

On Monday, Channing D. Phillips, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, filed a motion claiming that the DOJ needed an additional 60 days to build its case against Couy Griffin—a pro-Trump county commissioner for Otero County, New Mexico, who spoke via bullhorn outside the Capitol but disputes having entered the building illegally, Breitbart reported.

“Although we are aware that we possess some information that the defense may view as supportive of arguments that law enforcement authorized defendants (including Defendant) to enter the restricted grounds, e.g., images of officers hugging or fist-bumping rioters, posing for photos with rioters, and moving bike racks, we are not in a position to state whether we have identified all such information,” said the filing.

According to the document itself, the DOJ has sought repeatedly to deny Griffin’s right to a speedy public trial “on the basis that the ends of justice served by taking such actions outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendant.”

Yet, even while it seeks to delay the case against Griffin, who is charged—despite a lack of public evidence—with “Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building” and “Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building” Phillips said the DOJ could not release all the relevant evidence in its possession.

“[D]espite our diligent efforts, we are not currently in a position to identify all information that may be material to the defense in this case,” he wrote in the brief.

“We do not know the theory of defense, and to the extent that we can surmise what it might be, relevant evidence may be interspersed among voluminous data that we cannot possibly review in its entirety,” he continued. “Further, we are not in a position to turn over the universe of information we possess for Defendant to review.”

Since shortly after the pro-Trump uprising—which may, in fact, have been infiltrated by both US intelligence operatives and members of radical leftist terrorism groups like Antifa—hundreds have been indefinitely detained with few—if any—specific charges and evidence presented against them.

The surreptitious nature of the partisan DOJ probe, and the clear double-standard with the Left’s treatment of violent protestors backing its own causes, have led to rife speculation about what the true motives may be.

Griffin was released of his own recognizance after nearly three weeks in detention, from Jan. 19 to Feb. 5, reported Becker News.

But he remains caught in a Kafkaesque entanglement that is keeping him in legal limbo and wracking up expenses, potentially impacting his own political career.

In its first request for a 60-day continuance, back in March, the DOJ claimed that the case was so complex it would “make the immediate legal proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice.”

However, Griffin challenged that, arguing that the real problem was a lack of concrete evidence.

The DOJ’s own filings explained his objection, while failing to adequately justify their own rationale.

“Defendant asserted that there was nothing complex about his case, which ‘actually involves pictures of [him] with a bullhorn on the Capitol steps,’ argued that the government had mischaracterized its own ‘logistical and manpower burdens’ as a complexity created by the case itself, and essentially accused the government of weaponizing the [special temporary authority] ‘to strategically manage which trials and cases it wishes to put forward to the public first’.”

Astoundingly, the filings claimed that the DOJ was acting in Griffin’s best interest by delaying his day in court, even while it prevented his defense by withholding evidence.

“Contrary to Defendant’s assertions that delay is being contrived by the United States as part of a strategy to determine which cases are tried first (which is untrue), or because the United States purportedly lacks the resources to try such cases (which it does not), the entire basis for the continuance being sought here is to honor Defendant’s constitutional rights,” it claimed.

Nonetheless, the prosecutor’s own actions suggested that the DOJ was trying to save face in its overreaching inquisition of the Jan. 6 uprising.

It recently offered Griffin a plea deal in hopes that it could make its own quandary—as well as his legal dilemma—disappear, the Associated Press reported.

The strategy has been a frequent one for the DOJ, which—after trumpeting its 500-plus arrests—has quietly sought to use duress and threats of indefinite detention and litigation to force pro-Trump dissidents to admit fault.

Many are believed to remain incarcerated, months after their arrest under substandard conditions.

However, Washington, DC, authorities recently refused to allow access to prominent GOP congressional representatives.

Growing pressure and conservative media attention regarding the unconstitutional process have forced the hand of courts to release and process many of the flimsier cases, although many questions remain to be answered.

Copyright 2023. No part of this site may be reproduced in whole or in part in any manner without the permission of the copyright owner. To inquire about licensing content, use the contact form at https://headlineusa.com/advertising.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -


- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -