Yeah this order looks rather boring to be honest. From my reading of it, government will provide the defense with material showing Sussman's guilt and this order binds the defense to take proper care in securing it.
The only way it gets interesting for us is if the black hats leak something.
It could also mean that the information showing Sussman's guilt would disclose other people who might be indicted, and they want to control the release of that info.
If that was the case, the indictment would be sealed. They definitely have to tell the defendant the real names of the people in the indict like the guy they called Tech Executive 1, because that person Is a witness. This must be revealed.
In discovery, the government is required to show everything related to the evidence the prosecutors intend to show at trial. It's broader than just "showing guilt". You also have to include exculpatory evidence too. For example, if cops say you committed a robbery at 9pm on the west side of town, but they have a parking ticket for your car on the east side of town for 9:05 pm.
Or
If the eyewitness who identified you, spent the previous six hours in a bar.
Or
If the police interview shows the witness saying they were 35% sure the night they saw you was the same night as the crime.
All of these need to be disclosed or else there could be a Brady rule violation and a mistrial declared.
Yeah this order looks rather boring to be honest. From my reading of it, government will provide the defense with material showing Sussman's guilt and this order binds the defense to take proper care in securing it.
The only way it gets interesting for us is if the black hats leak something.
It could also mean that the information showing Sussman's guilt would disclose other people who might be indicted, and they want to control the release of that info.
yup, the last part is about designating information as "sensitive" at will.
Bingo. They want to keep a lid on future prosecution targets.
Probably not.
If that was the case, the indictment would be sealed. They definitely have to tell the defendant the real names of the people in the indict like the guy they called Tech Executive 1, because that person Is a witness. This must be revealed.
Exactly, but they dont want to leak the identities of people like Teck Executive 1 just yet, even if they have to share it with the defense
They can't reveal the names. It's against DOJ policy. Only the person being indicted is named.
Tech Executive 1 would know immediately they were talking about him. They aren't hiding anything from him.
Also everyone from that indictment have come forward and indentified themselves
Which they will when they feel the squeeze as the python wraps around their throats
<rubs hands together>
This is getting good!
In discovery, the government is required to show everything related to the evidence the prosecutors intend to show at trial. It's broader than just "showing guilt". You also have to include exculpatory evidence too. For example, if cops say you committed a robbery at 9pm on the west side of town, but they have a parking ticket for your car on the east side of town for 9:05 pm.
Or
If the eyewitness who identified you, spent the previous six hours in a bar.
Or
If the police interview shows the witness saying they were 35% sure the night they saw you was the same night as the crime.
All of these need to be disclosed or else there could be a Brady rule violation and a mistrial declared.