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:
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.