Quote:
Is that how discovery works? Or production of Brady?
Note prosecutors' wording here, "relevant to sentencing" not relevant to guilt, meaning exculpatory evidence.
Mueller toadie, Van Grack has always relied on Flynn's guilty plea and consequent waiver of further discovery as removing any obligation to provide any
Brady material, if they had it and denied it to Flynn's former attorneys at the time he was advised to take the plea deal.
Despite an intervening order regarding
Brady material from Judge Sullivan, Van Grack has not backed down from that position. (FTR: If he did reverse course and provide such
Brady material at this late date, Sullivan would throw him in jail for criminal contempt, most likely. A trap of Van Grack's own making.)
Now you might ask why exculpatory evidence is irrelevant for purposes of sentencing? At the moment, just because Van Grack says it is. It is up to Sidney to convince the judge he needs to intervene here.
She's giving it all she's worth.