Ghislaine Maxwell Prosecution Reveals Nearly 3 Million Pages of Evidence
(www.newsweek.com)
? Notable
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
Justice delayed by a lifetime long crime spree creating 2.7 million pages of evidence that "needs" to be reviewed is not due process in my opinion.
Clearly her lawyers plan to exploit "due process" to circumvent justice. So where does the judicial system draw the line? How does the system decide how much more time needs to be given to the defense?
Keep in mind that the defense has already had plenty of time to review evidence straight from the horses mouth- their client. If she failed to disclose the bulk of her crimes (the evidence) to her lawyers, that's her problem. She also had opportunity to confess. The defense doesn't need any extra time to know what the bitch has done just because the prosecution has compiled an unprecedented mass of evidence. If the defense doesn't already have the bulk of the evidence, then it is because they failed to extract that evidence from their client. Their problem. It's not like this trial has been rushed.
The defense already had plenty of time to prepare an adequate defense- provided their client was cooperating with them. If not, tough shit. Drag their asses kicking and screaming into the court room, and broadcast the trial live.
You lack understanding of what discovery is in the legal process. Discovery is production of EVERYTHING, not “proof of crimes.” I had to be on record for a court case once; the questioning only lasted four hours but it created hundreds of pages of interview transcript. It was up to the jury to determine if the information found during discovery and presented in a legal context by counsel showed a person broke the law beyond a reasonable doubt.
Shawshank Redemption comes to mind. They had “all of the evidence,” but it turns out he didn’t do the crime, and was actually being forced to launder money by the prison warden. I am not saying Maxwell is innocent, but I sure as hell think one more potential victim of corruption because they botched her trial would be shitty.
When you take the emotion out of it, you should want justice done, not a witch hunt. It may be possible Epstein was behind the whole thing and she got left holding the bag. Or, vice versa. Or, they’re both guilty as hell.
My personal bias is they both are guilty as hell. That does NOT mean I think we should be setting a precedent of throwing someone under the bus without a chance to review legal documents before a trial.
Flynn got the shitty end of the stick; when Q says it must be done by the book, he means we cannot become our enemy.
My issue with the "due process" has more to do with the defense being allowed a grossly extended pre-trail review before the actual trial. I understand that evidence needs to be presented to the defense. But the defense should not be allowed to stall a trial either. Stalling a trial is also a violation of due process in my opinion.
There are only (X) number of charges being presented. The time allotted for a defense to review evidence before a trial should be based on the number of charges, not the amount of evidence the prosecution has.
That doesn’t make sense.
Let’s say I bring one charge against you, but it involves hundreds of thousands of documents. The key to proving your innocence may be on only one of those pages, but you run out of time in your search.
Still think that’s a fair idea?
That's not how the law works. I am innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to make a case.
Innocent people do not need loopholes and legal technicalities to "prove innocence."
The defense only need defend against the evidence that the prosecution presents to the jury, or judge, in the courtroom. They don't need to waste time before the trail begins to review what the prosecution has, because they have the defendant. If the defendant has not been forthright with her lawyers in detailing her crimes- or explaining her innocence, then that's her problem.
So you’re saying you should get the same amount of time for review for two charges of class 1 misdemeanor drug possession as two charges of involuntary manslaughter?
No.
I also agree stalling is a violation of due process. The way Nathan is handling this entire thing is a violation of due process in many ways the way she’s picking who to protect information-wise.
But the whole point of what happens pre-trial is so that there are zero surprises and everyone-theoretically-gets their ducks in a row to make things as even keel as possible.
I am actually suggesting that the time allocated for pre-trial review should be based more on the number of charges, and modified by the complexity of the case related to the charges, rather than how much evidence the prosecution has gathered. That's all.
There simply needs to be a legal procedure in place to prevent a defense from stalling a trial (exploiting due process) based solely on the quantity of evidence that the prosecution has gathered.
The defense has had access to the defendant, who has (should have) direct knowledge of the charges against her. If she has failed to give her defense the details needed to prevent a prosecution from proving her guilt, then that's her problem, and it needs to be resolved in the court room, not years before the case goes to trial.
To be clear, I am not saying that a defense doesn't need time to review evidence. But they have direct access to the defendant, and that should count for a large part of the allocated pre-trial review time. They don't need, nor deserve years to review evidence when the defendant can explain what did or did not happen related to the charges.