Will Bode

I mean, I do think if the prosecutor knows someone is saying something that's not true, they know that to be the fact. I think that there would still be the obligation to correct it. Okay. Right? I mean, so I'm going to pull back the decision. It talks a lot about whether the... prosecutor knew testimony to be false. Yeah.

I mean, I do think if the prosecutor knows someone is saying something that's not true, they know that to be the fact. I think that there would still be the obligation to correct it. Okay. Right? I mean, so I'm going to pull back the decision. It talks a lot about whether the... prosecutor knew testimony to be false. Yeah.

So I think that if it's false, I think that's probably enough.

So I think that if it's false, I think that's probably enough.

But I'm not sure it matters.

But I'm not sure it matters.

Okay. All right. So, but it is this weird thing about like, if you just read the defendant and government's brief, I mean, you, you come away thinking there's this like smoking gun note that says, you know, We're lying and let's not tell anybody. And then when you actually look at it, it does seem a ton more ambiguous.

Okay. All right. So, but it is this weird thing about like, if you just read the defendant and government's brief, I mean, you, you come away thinking there's this like smoking gun note that says, you know, We're lying and let's not tell anybody. And then when you actually look at it, it does seem a ton more ambiguous.

Yeah. And an interesting thing about this is that there is this alternate version of what the note might mean. Which is that actually this is a note about trying to recount Sneed's description of an interview he had with the defense side. Right. Lawyers or investigators. Right.

Yeah. And an interesting thing about this is that there is this alternate version of what the note might mean. Which is that actually this is a note about trying to recount Sneed's description of an interview he had with the defense side. Right. Lawyers or investigators. Right.

And that is advanced not unpersuasively in an amicus brief filed by the DeVantris family by kind of famed victim's rights advocate and former federal judge Paul Cassell. But it's kind of relying on stuff that's not in the record to establish that.

And that is advanced not unpersuasively in an amicus brief filed by the DeVantris family by kind of famed victim's rights advocate and former federal judge Paul Cassell. But it's kind of relying on stuff that's not in the record to establish that.

Which is weird. But, you know, I did remember it was one of those cases where I read the two kind of party briefs and I was like, okay, this is open and shut. And then I read the court opponent amicus and I read the Cassell brief and I was like, this is a lot more complicated. I'm really not sure about this one.

Which is weird. But, you know, I did remember it was one of those cases where I read the two kind of party briefs and I was like, okay, this is open and shut. And then I read the court opponent amicus and I read the Cassell brief and I was like, this is a lot more complicated. I'm really not sure about this one.

And he moved for divided argument. Court denied it. I thought that maybe that would have been appropriate to grant it in that situation.

And he moved for divided argument. Court denied it. I thought that maybe that would have been appropriate to grant it in that situation.

Well, I mean, they could grant it and say, you know, argument shall be limited to evidence in the record. Yeah, that would be a theory. And someone could still advance that interpretation of the note. The note is in the record. And someone could advance that. And honestly, that seemed to me like maybe the most plausible interpretation of some of the other things on the piece of paper.

Well, I mean, they could grant it and say, you know, argument shall be limited to evidence in the record. Yeah, that would be a theory. And someone could still advance that interpretation of the note. The note is in the record. And someone could advance that. And honestly, that seemed to me like maybe the most plausible interpretation of some of the other things on the piece of paper.

All three of those are kind of questionable, like quite questionable.

All three of those are kind of questionable, like quite questionable.