Strange turn of events in the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Spanos
In a December 20, 2017 letter to Rhetta Daniel, Attorney for Nickolas Spanos, the Henrico Commonwealths Attorney's office is refusing to provide Brady Materials in connection to Commonwealth v. Spanos case.
In our earlier blogs, we focused on the numerous constitutional and due process violations in the Spanos case which undoubtedly would be used in filing for a motion to dismiss the 13 pending indictments issued against Spanos.
Also we exposed the irregular actions of the Henrico County Commonwealth Attorney's office & Henrico Police Department which spans over 20 years, which includes tainted evidence/testimony, perjury within Grand Jury indictments, inappropriate behaviour between HPD investigators and their main witness and most of all, human rights violations pertaining to malicious prosecution/illegal arrest.
What better way for the HCCA Shannon Taylor to make this nightmare go away? Refuse to provide Brady Materials, thus a violation of due process which would lead to suppressing all evidence. For certain a motion to dismiss would be filed and case dismissed.
This is a win-win situation for HCCA Shannon Taylor:
The Brady Rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. A "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favourable to the accused--evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness
If the prosecution does not disclose material exculpatory evidence under this rule, and prejudice has ensued, the evidence will be suppressed. The evidence will be suppressed regardless of whether the prosecutor knew the evidence was in his or her possession, or whether or not the prosecutor intentionally or inadvertently withheld the evidence from the defense.
Further, in cases subsequent to Brady, the Supreme Court has eliminated the requirement for a defendant to have requested a favorable information, stating that the Prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose, that is triggered by the potential impact of favorable but undisclosed evidence See Kyles v. Whitley 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1955); United States. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).
In our earlier blogs, we focused on the numerous constitutional and due process violations in the Spanos case which undoubtedly would be used in filing for a motion to dismiss the 13 pending indictments issued against Spanos.
Also we exposed the irregular actions of the Henrico County Commonwealth Attorney's office & Henrico Police Department which spans over 20 years, which includes tainted evidence/testimony, perjury within Grand Jury indictments, inappropriate behaviour between HPD investigators and their main witness and most of all, human rights violations pertaining to malicious prosecution/illegal arrest.
What better way for the HCCA Shannon Taylor to make this nightmare go away? Refuse to provide Brady Materials, thus a violation of due process which would lead to suppressing all evidence. For certain a motion to dismiss would be filed and case dismissed.
This is a win-win situation for HCCA Shannon Taylor:
- the Spanos files would never have to be produced, thus any incriminating evidence against the HCCA would remained sealed.
- HCCA Shannon Taylor cleans up the mess created for over 20 years by the three generations of Commonwealth attorneys.
- Spanos would be satisfied as he feels that justice has been served by his indictments being dismissed.
- It spares the Henrico judicial and law enforcement branches a great deal of embarrassment.
It will be an interesting turn of events to follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment