We have been saying all along that there are some “issues” with the District Attorney’s investigation in the corruption scandal.  Now we have proof.

For those not familiar with Brady, here is an excerpt from a previous post:

There is a case entitled Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).  The Wikipedia entry reads (emphasis added):

. . . in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit confessing that he had performed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeal had affirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only of the question of punishment.

The court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process “where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment”; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling was affirmed.

Brady refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.” Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution’s witnesses, and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.

Police officers who have been dishonest are sometimes referred to as “Brady cops” as because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement officials involved in their case has a sustained record for knowingly lying in an official capacity. Brady evidence also includes evidence material to credibility of a civilian witness, such as evidence of false statements by the witness or evidence that a witness was paid to act as an informant.

The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit is headed by Bob Schreiber, a former San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputy.  The senior investigator in the corruption scandal is Bud Randles, a former Los Angeles Police Department detective.

Evidence has been turned over to the defense counsel proving there is a Brady issue with one or more of those overseeing the investigation. With the Attorney General’s office calling the shots and the Federal Bureau of Investigation nosing around for this kind of malfeasance, this turn of events is going to prove interesting.  We shall see what comes of it.

We are hearing there are a lot more Brady issues, including turning off the tape recorder and suggesting that if a person being interviewed will say what they want, their problems will go away.  And they are using other means of intimidating witnesses.  If anyone has additional information, please contact us at sharon@iepolitics.com or (760) 954-0280.  Or any one of the defense counsel or the private investigators in these cases would be interested in speaking with you.  If you don’t know how to contact them, call me and I will put you in touch with them.