Exculpatory Evidence and the Judicial Process: Ensuring Fair Trials
Examples of Cases Overturned Due to Withheld Evidence in Washington, DC and the Implications of the Release of 44,000 Hours of Surveillance Video in the January 6th, 2021 Protests at the Capitol
The judicial process is the foundation of the justice system, ensuring that cases are heard and resolved in a court of law. Central to the judicial process is the principle that defendants are entitled to a fair trial. This includes the right to access all evidence that may help their case, including exculpatory evidence.
Exculpatory evidence is any evidence that could demonstrate that the defendant is not guilty or may reduce their culpability. It is the duty of the prosecution to provide the defense with all exculpatory evidence promptly. Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence can infringe on the defendant's constitutional rights and significantly impact the outcome of a trial.
Instances of the withholding of exculpatory evidence have led to the overturning of convictions in the past:
In 2011, Donald Gates was exonerated of a 1981 rape and murder charge after serving 28 years in prison. The prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence, including DNA evidence that did not match Gates, and failed to disclose information that pointed to another suspect.
In 2015, Kevin Martin was exonerated of a 1982 murder charge after serving 26 years in prison. The prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence, including statements from witnesses that contradicted the prosecution's case.
In 2016, Lamar Johnson was exonerated of a 1995 murder charge after serving 13 years in prison. The prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence, including witness statements that pointed to another suspect and undermined the prosecution's case.
Santae Tribble was convicted of murder in 1978 based on faulty hair analysis evidence. Tribble spent 28 years in prison before the Innocence Project took on his case and discovered that the prosecution had withheld evidence that could have exonerated him. Specifically, the prosecution had failed to disclose an FBI report that concluded that the hair evidence was unreliable and could not be used as conclusive evidence of guilt.
Another example is the case of Keith Harward, who was convicted of rape and murder in 1983 based on bite-mark analysis evidence. Harward spent 33 years in prison before DNA evidence proved his innocence and led to his exoneration in 2016. During his trial, the prosecution had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, including the fact that Harward's blood type did not match the semen found at the crime scene.
The release of 44,000 hours of surveillance video related to the January 6th, 2021 protests at the Capitol underscores the importance of ensuring that defendants have access to all exculpatory evidence. The video reportedly contradicts the media and J6 Select Committee's narrative, and if it is true that defendants were convicted without having access to this exculpatory evidence, it highlights a significant breach of due process.
The Case of the QAnon Shaman:
The "QAnon Shaman," whose real name is Jacob Chansley, was one of the most recognizable figures among the protestors at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Chansley, who was seen in photos and videos wearing a fur headdress with horns, face paint, and carrying a spear, became a prominent symbol of the riots.
Chansley was charged with several crimes related to the riots, including violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, obstruction of Congress, and knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority.
In September 2021, Chansley pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. As part of his plea agreement, Chansley acknowledged that he was aware that his actions would disrupt Congress's certification of the 2020 presidential election results, and that he intended to do so. He also admitted to knowingly entering the Capitol building without permission, obstructing an official proceeding, and forcing government personnel to evacuate the building.
The surveillance video reportedly shows a different narrative than the one presented by the prosecution and may have changed the outcome of the case had it been disclosed. For example, the video shows that Chansley's actions on January 6th were less violent or threatening than previously believed. This information could have been used in his defense and may have led to a different verdict or sentence.
Given this new information, Chansley may have grounds to request a retrial based on the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. In fact, some legal experts have already called for a review of the case in light of the new evidence. The question of whether the prosecution intentionally withheld evidence or made a mistake in not disclosing it will likely be central to any appeals or requests for a new trial.
Regardless of the outcome of Chansley's case, the release of the surveillance video has highlighted the importance of exculpatory evidence in criminal proceedings and the need for transparency in the criminal justice system. Defendants have a right to a fair trial and access to all relevant evidence, and the failure to disclose such evidence can have serious consequences. As the legal proceedings continue, it will be important to ensure that all parties are held accountable for their actions and that justice is served.
The judicial process is intended to be fair and equitable. Defendants are entitled to a fair hearing and a trial based on the evidence presented in court. Exculpatory evidence is a critical aspect of this process, as it can mean the difference between a guilty and an innocent verdict, or it can significantly affect the severity of the sentence.
Withholding exculpatory evidence violates the principles of due process and can lead to wrongful convictions. Examples of cases overturned due to withheld exculpatory evidence in Washington, DC highlight the importance of ensuring that defendants have access to all exculpatory evidence. In the cases of J6 protestors who are in process or have been convicted the release of these videos will have a significant impact on the outcome of their cases. In this way, the judicial process can ensure that justice is served and that defendants are treated fairly.
People who claimed the information being portrayed by the Media and the J6 Select committee was not a true representation of the actual events, were censored and ridiculed on social media. The Internet Equality Summit will address this issue of narrative censorship this May. Come be part of the discussion.