Mueller Hid Evidence Favorable to the Defense, Manafort's Attorneys Argue in Heavily Redacted Doc

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Law and Crime

Attorneys for Paul Manafort have filed a public version of a previous motion to reconsider a judge’s ruling that the former Trump 2016 campaign chair lied about contacts with a Russian national. This motion argues that government prosecutors unlawfully withheld evidence crucial to the defense.

In a 10-page filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia submitted on Tuesday and made public on Wednesday, Manafort’s defense revealed a few additional details about their motion to reconsider Judge Amy Berman Jackson‘s ruling that their client lied about his contacts with Russian political operative Konstantin Kilimnik–who U.S. authorities claim has ties to the Russian Federation’s military intelligence divisions.

Notably, Manafort’s motion was apparently based on new evidence supplied by special counsel Robert Mueller‘s office.

“On February 26, 2019, the special counsel filed a sealed supplemental memorandum containing information that Mr. Manafort contends was subject to production under Brady v. Maryland and its progeny,” the filing notes. “The supplemental memorandum informed the court that a statement included in the declaration the special counsel submitted on January 14, 2019, which the court relied on when considering whether Mr. Manafort lied during his cooperation, was not accurate.”



Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-hid-evidence-favorable-to-the-defense-manaforts-attorneys-argue-in-heavily-redacted-doc/ar-BBVAF5z?li=BBnb7Kz

---

So how does he get new evidence while the rest of us haven't see the report?

[machoneman]

1. Huh? Confused. Any lawyers here to decipher the pleadings?

Kinda' got it but.....

[DrToast]

3. Mueller provided info that defense says they should have provided before

[Iliyah]

2. Crap . . .

[okaawhatever]

4. Hmmmm........trying to discredit Mueller & protect Trump, no surprise there. We'll see if this means

anything or if it's just another headline grabber. It would be ridiculous for Mueller to hide info in a way that violated Brady. He had Manafort dead to rights on so many things, why make a bogus claim on this one?

[Jarqui]

5. Not so fast

Manafort Lied After Plea Deal, Judge Says
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/us/politics/manafort-mueller.html

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, had breached his plea agreement by lying multiple times to prosecutors after pledging to cooperate with the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.
...
the judge found, he lied about his contacts with a Russian associate during the campaign and after the election.
...
The judge also found that Mr. Manafort had lied about a payment that was routed through a pro-Trump political action committee to cover his legal bills, and about information relevant to another undisclosed investigation underway at the Justice Department.

They have to establish that what Gates said was what Manafort said, etc - that it exonerates Manafort on this lie.

The Gates dialogue happened around February 15th, 2019 - long after the crime, the plea deal and the lying about payments (or the Russians) by Manafort.

http://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/obtaining-favorable-evidence-prosecution-understanding-brady-rule/

Litigating Brady violations is a difficult and complex process because of the high burden on the defendant to prove that not only was favorable evidence withheld from the defense, but that the withheld evidence would have made a difference a trial. Frequently, convictions tainted by Brady violations are upheld because the courts deem a particular violation immaterial in light of the other evidence showing the defendant’s guilt. In order to properly present a Brady claim, it is therefore paramount for a defense attorney to show, in a concise and easy to understand manner, what evidence was withheld and why that piece of evidence was crucial to the defendant’s case at trial.

They already have Manafort pleading guilty to the charges he was sentenced on with his plea deal. Most, if not all of those charges had nothing to do with this. Even if she found he didn't lie, his plea deal would then be enforced - he would still be sentenced.

She already has him lying about the payment - that his appeal does not seem to address and has nothing to do with Gates testimony. So she already found him guilty of lying about that and he doesn't seem to contest it. Therefore, that lie alone forfeited his plea deal.

I'm not sure what he's up to. Maybe he's hoping for a reduction in his sentence. He might get that but I suspect it would be moderate.

I think Manafort has a mountain to climb here.

[PSPS]

6. It's probably just a PR pretext for trump's pardon.

[Mr.Bill]

7. The only thing this proves

is that Manafort hasn't run out of money to pay lawyers yet.