Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Misinterpreting a judges order, right-wing media have convinced themselves that Michael Flynn is ab
Misinterpreting a judge’s order, right-wing media have convinced themselves that Michael Flynn is about to reverse his guilty plea https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/02/21/misinterpreting-judge-s-order-right-wing-media-have-convinced-themselves-michael-flynn-about-reverse/219447
Notably, McCarthy and York placed the same sizable caveat in their pieces: In McCarthy’s words, “It could be that this is just Judge Sullivan’s standard order on exculpatory information, filed in every case over which he presides.” But oddly, while such caveats implicitly acknowledge that the story would be much less interesting if Sullivan is among the federal judges who issue standing Brady orders for every one of the criminal cases on their dockets, neither writer seems to have actually bothered to check if that is actually his practice.
I checked, and it is. As he explained in a 2016 law review article calling for the amendment of the rules of federal criminal procedure to incorporate such disclosures, “I now issue a standing Brady Order in each criminal case on my docket, which I update as the law in the area progresses.” Thus, Sullivan’s action was not “unusual” or “curious,” but simply what he does in every single criminal case he oversees.
Napolitano and his ilk seem to have picked up the story York and McCarthy put forth, but stripped off their caveat and instead asserted as fact that Sullivan’s action must be because he suspects some sort of malfeasance from Mueller, or even because, as Napolitano suggested, Flynn was not guilty to begin with.
I checked, and it is. As he explained in a 2016 law review article calling for the amendment of the rules of federal criminal procedure to incorporate such disclosures, “I now issue a standing Brady Order in each criminal case on my docket, which I update as the law in the area progresses.” Thus, Sullivan’s action was not “unusual” or “curious,” but simply what he does in every single criminal case he oversees.
Napolitano and his ilk seem to have picked up the story York and McCarthy put forth, but stripped off their caveat and instead asserted as fact that Sullivan’s action must be because he suspects some sort of malfeasance from Mueller, or even because, as Napolitano suggested, Flynn was not guilty to begin with.
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
This RWNJ conspiracy theory is being pushed by RWNJ media https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/22/no-a-new-court-filing-doesnt-suggest-that-michael-flynn-is-about-to-be-exonerated/?utm_term=.aa40dc68af93
From that point on, Sullivan started a new practice for every case he handled: He would issue what is called a “standing Brady order,” mandating that prosecutors proactively turn over material favorable to the defense.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=
&w=1484
....The problem arose on Dec. 12 of last year, shortly after Sullivan took over Flynn’s case. His clerks filed his standing Brady order — but filed the old version, not the version that was updated in November. That mistake was uncovered and, last week, the new version of the standing Brady order was filed. In making the change, the error was noted:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=
&w=1484
“After this case was randomly assigned to the Court on December 7, 2017,” the docket reads, “such an order was entered on December 12, 2017. Unfortunately, the prior version of the order was inadvertently entered rather than the Court’s current version.”
The current version actually demands less of federal prosecutors, Simpson notes. Before last week’s filings, the government would have had to turn over impeachment evidence to Flynn’s team as well as exculpatory evidence; now any impeachment evidence that might exist could be withheld.
There’s no suggestion that such evidence does exist. This mistake by Sullivan’s clerks seems to have gotten swept up in rampant social media conspiracy theories aimed at discrediting the investigation into President Trump. There’s no indication that Flynn will soon withdraw his plea agreement or that there exists exculpatory evidence that would prompt him to do so.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=
&w=1484
....The problem arose on Dec. 12 of last year, shortly after Sullivan took over Flynn’s case. His clerks filed his standing Brady order — but filed the old version, not the version that was updated in November. That mistake was uncovered and, last week, the new version of the standing Brady order was filed. In making the change, the error was noted:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=
&w=1484
“After this case was randomly assigned to the Court on December 7, 2017,” the docket reads, “such an order was entered on December 12, 2017. Unfortunately, the prior version of the order was inadvertently entered rather than the Court’s current version.”
The current version actually demands less of federal prosecutors, Simpson notes. Before last week’s filings, the government would have had to turn over impeachment evidence to Flynn’s team as well as exculpatory evidence; now any impeachment evidence that might exist could be withheld.
There’s no suggestion that such evidence does exist. This mistake by Sullivan’s clerks seems to have gotten swept up in rampant social media conspiracy theories aimed at discrediting the investigation into President Trump. There’s no indication that Flynn will soon withdraw his plea agreement or that there exists exculpatory evidence that would prompt him to do so.
