Jury selection starts today in the trial of Sara Carpenter, despite her attorney’s plea to the judge for time to review the previously undisclosed video that Speaker McCarthy promised to make available to January 6th defendant’s attorneys. Carpenter’s lawyer argued that she should be allowed to view the potentially exculpatory footage before her trial and requested a continuance of 60 days to do so.
Judge James Boasberg
The Dishonorable U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg admitted the request from Carpenter is “certainly not a frivolous request by any means”, but sided with the prosecution regardless. Boasberg violated Carpenter’s Constitutional Rights by turning down her request after lead Prosecutor Michael Graves asked the judge to ignore her plea in a “Government Response to the Motion.” Boasberg complied with the prosecution, denied Carpenter’s request and ordered the trial start this week minus the footage.
Alarmingly, this man is actually set to become Washington D.C.’s chief district court judge and replace the equally unethical Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell. *Boasberg is also a member of Skull and Bones (also known as The Brotherhood of Death) and a former FISA judge. According to legal experts, Boasberg’s decision regarding the footage will not age well and can help Carpenter in her appeals and possibly a Supreme Court case.
Boasberg’s justification for his unlawful ruling is that delaying trials for Jan. 6 defendants (like Carpenter) to allow time for them to review the new trove of Capitol and police surveillance video released by McCarthy’s office for exculpatory evidence could “derail dozens of trials that are set in the next few months.” Boasberg implied the inconvenience the court will encounter having to wait to get the footage to defendants to review supersedes their Constitutional Right to a fair trial.
Mere inconvenience and delay of trials DO NOT SUPERSEDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS. Furthermore, Constitutional Rights are the Supreme Law of the Land, overshadowing all other considerations- particularly matters of housekeeping and logistics (according to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21) and anyone with half a brain.
The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence to the defense.
In Carpenter’s case, the new treasure trove of video has literally just become available to some defendants by McCarthy’s office. By law, the defendants should have a reasonable amount of time to look through it. It is the obligation of the government to act in good faith in helping to facilitate turning over as much of this new material as possible to defendants to review before a trail commences. It is inconvenient- BUT IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
The Feds have had it out for Ms. Carpenter, claiming she “shook a tambourine in the halls of government as other Trump supporters ran amok”. Carpenter is not accused of any violent acts yet faces potential decades in prison due to two felony charges (Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Civil Disorder). Capitol surveillance footage shows Carpenter shaking her tambourine, taking pictures and making videos. *See Carpenter’s Superseding Indictment HERE.
Carpenter (a decorated retired NYPD Policewoman and single Mom) disclosed in our conversations that she became concerned in the Capitol on January 6th when she observed that the Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan Police did not seem to be following proper police protocol that she was familiar with as a retired cop. She began questioning them and shaking her tambourine.
According the the FBI’s ridiculous “Statement of Facts” on Carpenter (where the agent that wrote it obsesses over the tambourine):
“The CCTV video of the Capitol Rotunda next shows the woman cross the room to an exit. Before exiting, however, the woman turns back to the room and raises here hands in the air. In her left hand, she holds a tambourine, which she shakes several times before turning back around and exiting the Rotunda.”
As a result, the Feds raided Carpenter’s apartment in New York City after Carpenter was ratted out to the FBI by a relative after she disclosed she had attended the rally on Jan. 6th and been teargassed. The FBI raid included a battering ram, tanks and a helicopter. During their invasion of her New York City apartment, the feds confiscated the “incriminating” tambourine, her “Keep America Great” red cap, and the clothes that Carpenter was wearing at the Capitol. This “evidence” will be present at her kangaroo court trial in Washington D.C. in the coming weeks.
According to an emergency motion (in italics) filed by Carpenter’s attorney asking the judge for time to review the video:
On February 28, 2023, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced that lawyers representing defendants facing charges stemming from the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, would be granted access to previously undisclosed United States Capitol Security footage. Speaker McCarthy has indicated that he has more than 45,000 hours of footage. Representative Barry Loudermilk, chairman of the House Administration Committee’s oversight subpanel, said in a statement to Politico that the Committee would “make available any relevant documents or videos, on a case-by-case basis, as requested by attorneys representing defendants.”
The video surveillance described by Speaker Kevin McCarthy is far in excess of what was previously disclosed by the government and known to exist. While the government has disclosed voluminous video surveillance, there remain temporal gaps in the footage thus far provided between the moments Ms. Carpenter is shown entering and exiting the Capitol.
Defense counsel has notified the government of our intent to move for a continuance. While the government indicated it would oppose the requested adjournment, it nonetheless acknowledged that it could not state whether the footage described by Speaker McCarthy contains previously undisclosed video of Ms. Carpenter at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The government indicated that it believed that the temporal gaps in the footage of Ms. Carpenter at the Capitol may be a result of her passing through areas not captured by the Closed Circuit cameras but acknowledged it could not say so with any certainty. Further, neither the government nor the defendant has had the opportunity to compare the files obtained by Speaker McCarthy with those previously disclosed to the January 6 defendants. Accordingly, neither party can make any determination about whether the footage described is duplicative of video disclosed previously. Consistent with its discussion with the government today, it is defense counsels’ understanding that during today’s proceedings before Judge Timothy J. Kelly, in United States v. Nordean, et al, 21-CR-175 (TJK), the Department of Justice likewise acknowledged that it does not know whether the material described by Speaker McCarthy contains previously undisclosed footage.
As the government has previously asserted, their investigation into the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 “is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice.” There is no doubt that the material requested, closed circuit video recordings made by the Capitol Police, is discoverable and within the control of the government. Defense counsel has an ethical obligation to ascertain whether the video footage described by Speaker McCarthy contains video footage of Ms. Carpenter not previously disclosed by the government. Further, given that the existence of the material created by the Capitol Police was only recently disclosed and it was announced just yesterday that defense counsel would be granted access, Ms. Carpenter should not be penalized for failing to request and gain access to this footage up to this point.
It is well established that the need for reasonable time to organize, produce, and review voluminous discovery is an appropriate basis to grant continuances and exclude the time under the Speedy Trial Act. Accordingly, the ends of justice is served by granting this request for a continuance and the reasons for the continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant the motion for a continuance of the trial and set the matter down for a status conference in approximately 60 days to a date convenient to the Court and the parties.”
The Obama Appointed Judge Boasberg acknowledged it makes sense why Sara Carpenter would ask for time to review the possible exculpatory video before her trial. According to an article in Politico and court documents, “Boasberg agreed that the request was legitimate and any attorney would want to see a new batch of potentially exculpatory evidence.” Yet the Dishonorable Judge still denied her request, saying Carpenter could not prove that there was additional footage of her movements that would be exculpatory.
“Obviously Carpenter cannot prove to the judge if there is exculpatory evidence in the “newly discovered” 44,000 hours of footage,” said Tina Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution. “She has not seen the footage and neither has her lawyers! No one has, the government has been hiding it! This Judge should be removed from the bench for violating Carpenter’s Constitutional Right to a fair trail, and an investigation must be started immediately by the House Judiciary Committee into these January 6th judges once and for all. THE JUDGES ARE THE REAL CRIMINALS AND THREATS TO DEMOCRACY. They have virtually no oversight. The Department of Justice only gets away with what the judges let them! There is collusion between the two branches and this must be investigated and exposed by the Republican House of Representatives. There is a long overdue check and balance needed of the Judiciary Branch of Government by the Legislature, and thankfully the Republicans currently hold the House and therefore investigative/subpoena power. They must use it to investigate THE JUDGES partaking in the political pursecution of our fellow American citizens.”
Prosecutors admitted “there’s always the possibility some information may be out there (in the videos)” – but claim they they to do not have full access to what Speaker McCarthy has promised to release.
“These prosecutors know fully well there may be exculpatory evidence in this new cache of video- not only for Sara Carpenter, but for many other January 6th defendants as well that have already been found guilty or rot away in pre-trial detention,” said Ryan. “They don’t care about the law, or the due process rights of the defendants. All they care about is convictions that fit the narrative of their masters in the Biden Regime.”
It is still unclear how all the January 6th attorneys will be able to access the new cache of footage and it is in the process of being sorted out. According to leading January 6th attorney Joseph McBride, the only way he can currently view the footage is in a physical kiosk located at the Capitol. He is not allowed to take the footage or view from outside this “kiosk”. Currently there is only one “kiosk” for attorneys to share, and that is if the attorney has been granted the right to view the footage. So far, many say they have not- despite what Congressional members are claiming. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) and the chairman of the House Administration Committee’s oversight subpanel told reporters that the video footage from McCarthy would be released to Jan. 6 defendants on “a case-by-case basis”.
“It should be released to all January 6th defendants immediately,” said Ryan. “What is this case-by-case nonsense?”
It is also not yet clear how attorneys that do not reside near Washington D.C. will have the time or resources to view the 44,000 hours of footage and why McCarthy is not releasing it to attorneys to view from their offices to get help from staff or to share with defendants. The defendants in pre-trail detention have absolutely no shot at looking through these possibly exculpatory videos.
ALL THE MORE REASON FOR THE JANUARY 6TH PRISONERS TO BE RELEASED FROM JAIL SO THEY CAN TAKE PART IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE BY VIEWING THE VIDEOS THAT CAN POTENTIALLY EXONERATE THEM.
“If all the lawyers had to line up and go through the footage for their clients it would take 50 years to go through that process,” said McBride. “Therefore the logical conclusion is to lift the protective order from the videos. This will let the defendants access their discovery unencumbered and without limitation from the government for the specific purpose of being able to form a defense in the most intelligent, meaningful way possible. We should be able to crowd-source the public to assist in looking through the footage.”
Many attorneys describe the method that the Department of Justice knowingly and now Speaker McCarthy (likely unwittingly) is employing as the “Avalanche Dump Method”. This is a dirty trick prosecutors play by dumping all the footage at once (many times completely unorganized/unmarked and in this case tens of thousands of hours) to a defense attorney to fulfill their disclosure requirements. This “Avalanche” of information makes it physically impossible for the attorney to make sense of or sort through the footage in the time allowed. The private defense attorneys (many working pro-bono) and public defenders do not have the unlimited resources and manpower to organize and view these videos. This is in contrast the monster that is the Department of Justice, which has unlimited manpower and resources to find what they want in the videos to edit together their narrative by piecing together cherry-picked clips. They can possibly ignore exculpatory evidence (although it is their legal obligation to disclose to defendants any potentially exculpatory evidence). Unfortunately, documentation shows this rule has NOT being followed by the DOJ when it comes to January 6th defendants.
See Sara Carpenter’s full motion here asking for 60 days to view the new footage promised to defendants by Speaker McCarthy:
Pray for Sara Carpenter as she faces the biased D.C. judge and jury in the coming weeks.
Remember, in the end GOD WINS.
by Cara Castronuova
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post