On March 4th, The Washington Examiner reported the following:
A federal judge denied a request from a Jan. 6 defendant to access additional Capitol surveillance tapes recently made available by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in an effort to delay her trial and gather more evidence.
U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg denied the request from Jan. 6 defendant Sara Carpenter on Friday, ruling her legal team failed to explain how the supplemental footage of her actions inside the Capitol building would be necessary in her case. Carpenter faces a number of charges for her participation in the Capitol riot, including disorderly conduct and obstruction of an official proceeding.
…Boasberg’s decision is the latest in the saga surrounding the Capitol riot tapes, particularly after McCarthy granted a trove of surveillance footage to Fox News host Tucker Carlson last month. News of the decision prompted an outcry among congressional Democrats, with several calling the move dangerous to national security.
McCarthy has repeatedly defended his decision to release footage to Carlson, noting the exchange fulfills a pledge he made during his bid for House speaker. He also argued the release was important to ensure a transparent investigation into the Capitol riot.
McCarthy also indicated he’d make the tapes more widely available once Carlson’s crew is done sifting through them, and several Jan. 6 defendants said they plan to access the materials.
The article concludes:
Prosecutors are required to provide defendants with any exculpatory evidence they may use in their trials, posing a significant challenge for cases related to the Jan. 6 riot that includes thousands of hours of footage obtained by surveillance cameras, police bodycams, journalists, and the rioters themselves.
Carpenter’s attorneys argued the new tapes made available by McCarthy would help provide additional context in their case, but Boasberg ultimately ruled any missing footage would be “minimal.”
I hope the attorneys for Sara Carpenter demand a mistrial. It seems to me that all possible evidence needs to be seen. If the evidence was on the side of the prosecution, would the judge admit it?