Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KaiDaiz t1_j6okf41 wrote

Discovery reforms strikes again...that and covid backlog overburdened the DA office. Letting more perps out in name of reform.

0

Arleare13 t1_j6oo6vk wrote

I get the sense from the limited information available that this was an actual Brady issue (that is, exculpatory material not being turned over), as opposed to an issue with the discovery reforms. I guess one could argue that the Brady material was missed because of the burdens of the new discovery requirements, but that seems speculative at best.

4

KaiDaiz t1_j6opes7 wrote

and we will never know bc case is now sealed. public deserves to know what this discovery violation was

0

Gavel-Dropper t1_j6pdxhq wrote

I didn’t get a sense this was Brady, the article mentioned phone records and other materials. I think this is stuff that should’ve have been turned over years ago but wasn’t. The fact it was done mid trial probably led to the dismissal, as at that point you have double jeopardy concerns and a plethora of other appealable issues. I think this was the discovery reform at play, but a situation where the DAs office didn’t have a rebuttal argument to make. 2 weeks into trial on a 4/5 year old indictment is very late to be turning things over.

0