The government is refusing to provide discovery, despite an explicit order to do so -- and so, the hearing gets kicked, so that Mr. Hecker might be able to prepare for it. But remember -- USDC Judge Crenshaw has seen a lot -- some 3,000 pages. He may just release them in open court, and then cut Mr. Abrego loose -- dismissing this case.
In any event, Mr. Hecker cannot prepare for this hearing, without the government's documents -- and depos -- of its witnesses. We are once again, only one week away. We shall see, but here is the latest:
. . .Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated November 3, 2025, Defendant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia submits the following notice regarding witnesses and exhibits in advance of the forthcoming evidentiary hearing on his motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution, currently set for December 8 and 9, 2025. (See Dkt. 208 at 1). Given that the government’s motion to quash subpoenas issued by the defense remains pending, and the defense is awaiting the production of meaningful discovery, the defense is not currently in a position to identify witnesses or exhibits for the evidentiary hearing.
. . .On October 22, the government produced only two documents -- former Criminal Division Chief Ben Schrader’s resignation letter and the email attaching said letter -- to the defense in response to the Court’s October 3 order granting Mr. Abrego discovery on his motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution. (See Dkt. 140). Although docket entries appear to suggest that the government has provided the Court with more than 3,000 pages of documents for in camera review, Mr. Abrego has received no discovery from the government in response to the Court’s October 27 order granting Mr. Abrego’s motion to compel. . . .
As detailed in Mr. Abrego’s pre-hearing brief, (see Dkt. 195 at 1-3), because Mr. Abrego has established a presumption of vindictiveness, Mr. Abrego has no burden to present any evidence so long as the government has failed to rebut that presumption. See Bragan v. Poindexter, 249 F.3d 476, 482 (6th Cir. 2001) (“If the government fails to present evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption, the presumption stands and the court must find that the prosecutor acted vindictively.”); United States v. Zakhari, 85 F.4th 367, 379 (6th Cir. 2023) (“Once a reasonable likelihood is found, a presumption arises in defendant’s favor and the government must rebut it with objective, on-the-record explanations.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
And though Mr. Abrego has no obligation to prove actual vindictiveness, the government continues to stonewall the defense’s efforts to obtain the necessary documents or call the very witnesses whose testimony would be necessary to do so. The government has stymied defense counsel’s ability to even assess whether it has properly collected and reviewed documents responsive to the Court’s orders granting Mr. Abrego discovery on this motion. (See Dkts. 228, 228-1). And the government continues to show that it is willing even to mislead the courts regarding the practicability of Mr. Abrego’s removal to the country of his choice, Costa Rica, to exact punishment against Mr. Abrego. . . .
Personally, I suspect the able USDC Judge Waverly Crenshaw is fed up. I suspect he will hold the hearings, and find for Mr. Abrego -- and perhaps even hold the US Attorney in contempt -- come end of day, next Tuesday. But we shall see.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment