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. Continue reading →