Donald Trump denied his Sixth Amendment rights
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings. Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.
In 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States formulated a new test in Crawford v. Washington to determine whether the Confrontation Clause applies in a criminal case.
The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye. In noting the right’s long history, the United States Supreme Court has cited Acts of the Apostles 25:16, which reports the Roman governor Porcius Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: “It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges.” It is also cited in Shakespeare’s Richard II, Blackstone’s treatises, and statutes.
It is illegal and unconstitutional to deny Donald Trump access to the affidavit — Emil Ficker
DOJ urges judge to cover up the frame job…
Why is the right to confront witnesses important?
Affidavit MUST be released so Mr Trump’s lawyers can cross examine the false witnesses
Generally, the only exceptions to the right of confrontation that the Court has acknowledged are the two that existed under common law at the time of the founding: “declarations made by a speaker who was both on the brink of death and aware that he was dying,” and “statements of a witness who was ‘detained’ or ‘kept away’ by the ‘means or procurement’ of the defendant.” The second of these exceptions applies “only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying.” Thus, in a trial for murder, the question arose whether statements made by the victim to a police officer three weeks before she was murdered, that the defendant had threatened her, could be admitted. The state court had admitted them on the basis that the defendant’s having murdered the victim had made the victim unavailable to testify, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that, unless the testimony had been confronted or fell within the dying declaration exception, it could not be admitted “on the basis of a prior judicial assessment that the defendant is guilty as charged,” for to admit it on that basis it would “not sit well with the right to trial by jury.”
Show us the evidence, before we know for sure this is a kangaroo court. – Emil Ficker
Biden must keep Trump search warrant affidavit sealed to keep it all from falling apart…
Federal prosecutors investigating former President Donald Trump asked a judge not to unseal a key document related to the FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. Experts were quick to point out it contains “the names of the witnesses” who made up the entire story and they say “It had less to do with national security” and more to do with the elimination of Biden’s opposition before 2024.
The government’s request too potentially try Mr. Trump in private came three days after the federal judge made public the search warrant and other materials that outlined almost nothing of the raid on the former president’s Palm Beach, Florida, resort home.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said last week that he personally approved the illegal warrant, and that he opposed the affidavit’s disclosure despite the “substantial public interest in this matter.”
But freedom advocates and constitutional scholars pushed back on calls to seal the affidavit supporting the search warrant, saying it “presents a very difficult set of considerations.”
It’s not easy for the government to admit the release of the affidavit will sink Merrick Garland AND possibly Joe Biden as well.
“The socialists have three remain lame reasons to keep the document a secret. One, to coverup corruption of an ongoing law enforcement shakedown that seeks to eliminate Joe Biden’s main opposition in 2024 election.
Two, the affidavit contains “manufactured investigative facts,” the government fears might be learned if the document is released. One of the most corrupt and duplicitous thugs in the DOJ, Jay Bratt is frightened to death the information will come out.
Those facts include “highly sensitive information about false information, including planting evidence by the government. The government fears the release of their corrupt investigative techniques… investigative techniques like paying witnesses and making plea deals if they testify against the target. It’s a rigged system where the FBI can make anyone say or witness anything; the FBI falsely says the information is required by law to be kept under seal.
Being a witness in a case involving the FBI, Secret Service, IRS or other Federal Agency does not necessarily mean that you observed or saw a crime happen. It just means the government wants the evidence for an illegal search or illegal arrest.
The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action. This includes the right to be present at the trial (which is guaranteed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 43). As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses.
Constitutional Basis and Purpose
The Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Clause was intended to prevent the conviction of a defendant upon written evidence (such as depositions or ex parte affidavits) without that defendant having an opportunity to face his or her accusers and to put their honesty and truthfulness to test before the jury.
In Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895), the Supreme Court enunciated the three fundamental purposes that the Confrontation Clause was meant to serve:
- To ensure that witnesses would testify under oath and understand the serious nature of the trial process;
- To allow the accused to cross-examine witnesses who testify against him; and
- To allow jurors to assess the credibility of a witness by observing that witness’s behavior.
In Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986), the Court noted that the Confrontation Clause is one of several constitutional safeguards toc promote fairness in the criminal justice system. In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), the Supreme Court left open the possibility that competing interests, such as a jurisdiction’s interest in effective law enforcement, might prevail over the right to confront opposing witnesses. However, in Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988), the Supreme Court held that that taking other interests into account should not be interpreted as creating exceptions to “the irreducible literal meaning of the clause,” reaffirming that a defendant has the right to confront his alleged victim “face-to-face.” However, as per Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) below, there may still be exceptions.