If you're a criminal prosecutor would you want the perp to know what you had on them?

[tenderfoot]

Dear DU legal eagles,

Does the prosecution have to let the defense know what they have to build a case?

I ask due the "inaction" of the DOJ in regard to January 6th.

Please no flaming, as I haven't a clue and admit to it.

Thank you.

[hlthe2b]

1. Any such requirement comes after charges have been filed and prior to trial.

And yes, they are doing so in all the Jan 6 insurrection cases brought thus far.

[marie999]

2. Yes

[ProfessorGAC]

3. I Don't Believe The State Gets Any Surprises

AFAIK, evidence withheld from the defense is a no-no.
Has to do with the defense having no police powers to investigate & develop their own contrary evidence, I believe.

[Effete Snob]

4. At what stage of the investigation?

In order to get what "you had on them", then investigators would have had to have obtained evidence from a variety of sources, not all of which are or can be bound to confidentiality.

Here's the interesting thing about being a criminal. If you have committed a crime, you generally know what crime you have committed and where any surviving relevant evidence is located. You also know who the relevant witnesses to that crime may be.

Let's say last week you shot Two Fingers Joey in the alley, while your buddy Lefty waited in the car at the end of the alley to drive you away.

If the police keep dropping by your buddy Lefty's house and Lefty says they are asking all kinds of questions about why he was parked at the alley that night, then it's not a matter of whether the prosecution is sharing anything with you at that point. You freaking KNOW what the cops are trying to figure out because you KNOW why Lefty was parked at the alley that night.

Does that help you?

[Effete Snob]

5. Here's a funny thing I've noticed

In my career, I've had to deal with a lot of good people who have had bad people do bad things to them.

I've also had to deal with good people who have been in the process of finding out a bad person is doing bad things to them.

The funny thing I've noticed is how often someone who is being conned or robbed feels the need to go back to the conman or crook and say, "You're a conman!" or "crook!" as the case may be.

It's a pointless thing to do. It's like going up to an ice cream truck and shouting "You're selling ice cream!" Yeah, it says so on the side of the truck. The person driving the truck is perfectly aware that's what they do. You telling them that you've figured it out is not news to them.

Same deal with crooks. They know they are crooks. It's sort of the point. Because they KNOW they are crooks, they are also pretty good at knowing when nosy people are getting too close to figuring it out.

But they don't need to be told.

[Effete Snob]

6. Another thing to bear in mind...

…is that there is a class of crimes variously referred to as “process crimes”.

Taking my example above, they might not have enough evidence to charge you, and Lefty might be solid and not talk.

But, if they had enough probable cause to intercept your communications, then they could catch you communicating to Lefty something along the lines of “don’t tell them anything.”

Then, they can get you on witness tampering, and Lefty on lying to federal investigators.

But that’s why you need to establish expectations of loyalty with guys like Lefty up front.