are we fucked because the backpack evidence was allowed in? 😭 what did u think about garnet's judgment in general and what can we expect from her in the future? I need yyour analysis pls I was so happy that dp was gone but now i dont know it doesnt look good💔😓
Sorry for late response, but no, we're not f*cked, while it sucks that backpack wasn't suppressed, there were some other thins in Garnett's order that revealed that the fed's case is f*cked actually 😌 As in, there's a high chance that not even jury nullification will be necessary to secure an acquittal. (I've been working w/others @ archive on explaining all this, but it'll have to be its own post as there's a lot of legal stuff to cover)
As for the rest of her order. I hoped this wouldn't be the case, but well.. she's proven an age-old saying: Once a prosecutor - always a prosecutor. The whole judicial system is built upon this notion that one should always give law enforcement (LE) ✨the benefit of the doubt✨ & have 🌺an inherent trust🌸in them (i.e. "presumption of regularity" in legalese)... Which is what Garnett has done to the f*cking extreme... and imo, we should hold LE to a much higher standard.
Her reasoning was so f*cking weak ngl... Not to mention, highly inconsistent. Lemme give you 3 examples, so she pretty much said:
1. APD has "established" & "standardized" policies, even though lots of them are unwritten. But Officer Snyder testified that they do, so it must be true. Even though, Snyder's testimony was all about how sometimes they follow some procedures & sometimes they don't, depending on their mood or tOtALitY Of cIrCuMsTaNcEs
Comment: How tf is that "established" and "standardized" ? Let's not forget that for example multiple APD cops were fighting over the need for the search warrant while at McDonald's. If their policies were oh so "standardized" - everyone would've been in agreement.
2. Prosecutors also provided an undated document about officer training that also must be real and in effect in Dec 2024, because Snyder said so and he trains other officers, so it must be true.
Comment: NY prosecutors didn't rely on this document - never even mentioned it, APD officers didn't mention it at the state suppression hearings. Feds could've very well created it or edited it afterwards to suit their needs, there's no way to tell since there's no date. And everyone in the legal field (prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, etc.) knows that cops lie pretty much all. the. f*cking. time. It's an open secret... but there were even cases were prosecutors told the cops to lie during their testimonies. Since it benefits them both (cops won't ever admit that they did something wrong if they can help it.. especially, if evidence admittance/suppression is at stake)... It's so common there's even a word for it - testilying.
3. McDonald's search was done all according to APD search policies AND when Officer Wasser said she was looking for a bomb she was being truthful and APD did nothin wrong...
Comment: ok ok okaaaaayy... sit with that for a second... because you can't have both. Because if Wasser really "needed to be sure" that there wasn't a "bomb or anything" in the backpack - SHE WOULD'VE CHECKED ALL OF IT AND NOT JUST A FEW COMPARTMENTS... also what kind of "established practice & training of the APD" for the bomb checks is that?? No bomb squad / no evac of civilians - they let civilians walk by!! / opening a tiny cardboard container (where no bomb would fit)
Anyways, the biggest tell was in the footnotes (as always) where she said she would've admitted the evidence either way under the good faith exception even though no one, not even prosecutors, mentioned it before, i.e. she was dead set on admitting that evidence no matter what
So yeah, while Garnett might not be as pro-prosecution biased as Carro (btw - f*ck that mf), she's def on prosecution's side in this case (as you can also tell from her tone in her order dismissing counts 3 & 4). And don't even get me started on the mess that was the federal warrant...
