|
|
|
|
|
by unfocused
723 days ago
|
|
Private meetings are fine. No issue there. The judge however, erred. He should've never allowed the disclosure to not be disclosed. You can redact information that is harmful to the state, or is not relevant to the case, but in this case, the fact that the system that was being used as the basis of detection of fraud, was in itself being audited, should've meant that it was to be included and disclosed to defense. In my non-lawyer opinion, the judge is the one that erred, and it is compounded that this matter came up in a private meeting without defense, thereby supporting the idea that private meetings should never be had, when there are always exceptions for them. So yes, this looks really bad all around. |
|
Pretty much the only time it's allowed is when there's classified information in the mix, and for that there's a huge process beforehand to make sure the defense has access to enough information to make their defense.