The Truth About Kamala Harris Viotating Yoiur Constitutional Rights and Lying About It When Joe Biden Confronted Her

This is the truth about how Kamala Harris,asthe an Francisco District AttorneyA, committed reckless violations of Contitutional Law. meant to keep innocnet people from going to jail. She failed to turn over to the attoreny's for those charged under her office, exculpatory evidence. This is evidence that may have a tendency to show that the defendant may be innocent and has been extended to impraching evidence of witnesses This evidence is called Brady material, after the case Brady v. Maryland 373 US 83 (1963) The facts were that brady was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. Brady admitted his participation, but said his companion Bobbit did the actual killing. The defense attorney requested all statements of Bobbit, and got some, but did not get the one where Bobbit admitted he shot the victim. This did not come to defense notice until after conviction and sentence to death. The Maryland court of Appeals held that the suppression of evidence by the prosecution denied Brady due process, and remanded the case for a new trial as to punishment. As to this issue the United State Supreme court held: Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused who has requested it violates due process when the evidence is either material to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. In rationale the Court stated; Society not only wins when the guilty are convicted, but when criminal trial are fair; our system of justice suffers when any accused is not treated unfairly. A prosecution which withholds evidence on demand of an accusedwhich, if made available, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty helps shape a trial that bears heavily on the defendant.That casts the prosecutorin the role of an architect of a proceeding that does not comport with the standards of justice...( violation of 14th amendment due process) Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, is a 1972 Supreme Court case involving the prosecution’s obligations in regards to criminal discovery and disclosure. Prior to Giglio, the Supreme Court had found in Brady v. Maryland that due process is violated when the prosecution “withholds evidence on demand of an accused which, if made available, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty.” In Giglio, the Court went further and held that all impeachment evidence falls under the Brady holding. This means that the prosecution is obligated to disclose all information or material that may be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses (including situations where police officers act as witnesses for the prosecution). Because of the severe harm failure to turn over Brady/ giglio material can cause, an innocnet person gets convicted) the department of Justice has preepared guideline for their proecutors regarding how to compile and precisly what is Brady material.