How often do you see a prosecution where the police are witnesses for the defense? Gov. Abbott should just pardon this guy, right now, and stick it up Soros’ @$$. [More]
Yep. Not that the Dementing Moms would agree.
WarOnGuns Correspondent Michael G has more:
Lead detective’s affidavit says Soros-backed Austin prosecutor CRIMINALLY withheld exculpatory evidence in Daniel Perry case! [More]
Evidently, everyone who doesn’t want to see foreign and domestic enemies destroy the Republic is an antisemite.
Looks like Abbott’s up on pardoning. Now let’s see if the Texas AG is up on prosecuting the damn Marxist persecutor. Enough with “law enforcement.” It’s past damn time for some rights enforcement.
UPDATE
Andrew Branca says the “conviction was legally sound.”
The “withholding evidence” complaint is baseless because there is no requirement to show exculpatory evidence to a Grand Jury, only to a trial jury. And unfortunately Abbot doesn’t have unilateral pardoning power, he has to beg a judgment from his state board of paroles first.
Beat me to it. A grand jury’s job is to decide if the state has enough evidence to go to trial. They do not weigh competing narratives or consider exculpatory evidence; that’s the trial jury’s job.
While I suspect there was some railroading by a biased DA’s office, the guy wasn’t a saint, either. The case seemed to largely come down to “he said, they said”, with a bunch more witnesses for the prosecution than the defense, and the defendant opting to not testify to directly tell his side of the story.
That many of those witnesses were fellow rioters — who had strong conflict-of-interest reasons to testify for the state — is a point that hasn’t seemed to occur to many people, and could be interesting to explore further.
But back to the point: not providing exculpatory evidence to a grand jury is allowed and normal.