I have no idea why this would cause a mistrial in her trial for aiding her husband, the shooter. It’s beside the point unless there is more going on than this story indicates. It has no effect on her actions or his actions in the shooting unless there is something that hasn’t come out yet.
I imagine a good defense attorney is bound by protocol to lodge some sort of trial motion upon discovering his client’s father-in-law was in the employ of the FBI. Especially if that relationship is only divulged to him mid-trial. It’s his job to raise every possible issue in mounting a defense.
Sure but I don’t think it goes anywhere. I would file a motion if I was representing her - of course I would and any defense lawyer would.
I don’t think it affects her situation but they’ll definitely have a hearing on it.
It’s relevant because the whole trial is partially premised on the idea that even if she wasn’t actively abetting her husband’s plot, she became complicit by not reporting what she knew or suspected to the FBI, even if she was in terror for her life. That the suspect’s father was an FBI informant means that there were multiple paths to law enforcement potentially finding out about Mateen’s case, and the wife is no more and possibly even less guilty than the father. The question then is why is she on trial if the father isn’t.
I could research it but the cat litter needs cleaned. What years was Mateen’s father an informant? Was it in a time frame he represented the opportunity to inform on his son, thereby vitiating the wife’s level of responsibility to do so? What was the overlap, if any?
Thanks for that. That explains it pretty well.
OK, that’s weird. Yeah well, it probably should have been known to all sides in preparation before the trial. Sounds like that’s a major boo-boo.
Yeah if they withheld the information the prosecution is in violation of the rules of discovery and I’m sure motions were filed to release everything.
I can’t see what difference it made if she didn’t know. She couldn’t have availed herself of that avenue if she didn’t know it was open at the time.
The crack Cliven Bundy prosecution team was put on this case.
The crack Bundy team belongs to Oregon. They have their own crack team in Florida, obviously.
This isn’t unusual - in fact it’s way too usual. Prosecutors are always hiding evidence.
And maybe some special agents from Boston’s Whitey Bulger investigation.
As much as we hate it sometimes, people have a right to a fair trial with all relevant information and evidence that potentially could be offered to mitigate damages or responsibility for a crime. Its especially relevant if a defense is mounted based on whatever known facts are out there, and something is intentionally held back. That’s grounds for an appeal later on I would think. That’s why It would be a shame if that information had come out later. They can still salvage her defense without throwing out the whole case and starting from scratch however, if that’s how she wants her attorneys to fight this.
Law and Order SE. 17 Ep. 07 (just kidding)
I suppose the obvious difference is that it is irrelevant how many “paths” the FBI had to hypothetically learn of the plot. What is relevant is that - apparently - she is suspected of actually, not hypothetically, knowing and helping. The answer to your question is that she is charged with something and the father isn’t, presumably because there is evidence to support the charges against her and not against his father. But even if there were evidence to charge the father, that would have precisely zero impact on whether or not she is guilty as charged. “But he was worse” or “But he was at least as bad as me” is simply not a defense.
I have no idea why this information was even disclosed. It isn’t Brady information, it has no tendency to establish her innocence. It is irrelevant.
I don’t hate that - If I wasn’t retired I’d be representing people like this. I believe utterly in the right to a fair trial.
I also am too aware of the “harmless error” doctrine. And this didn’t have any real affect on the circumstances around this charge, from what I can tell.
Are you the judge of the case, Someguy, or a member of the Prosecutor’s team? You have no idea how it might or might not be relevant, but the Prosecutors might well know that there’s mitigating information. There have been many cases overturned on appeal because Prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence.
Yeah but it has to be actually exculpatory and I can’t see how this is.
Also relevant: might it have made a difference to the jury?
I thought the same thing. If the argument is one of “well, this guy was just as culpable as my client was and he wasn’t charged” is more an argument for jury nullification to me. It’s not a good look for the Feds, but it doesn’t change the merits or weaknesses of the case against her, at least from what little I’ve read.