𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎✩
@allmylovesteph.bsky.social
53K followers
14K following
6.1K posts
🟦 𝚍 𝚎𝚖𝚌𝚊𝚜𝚝 | 𝚎𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚕 𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝𝚜 | 𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚕𝚝𝚑𝚌𝚊𝚛𝚎 | 𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚕 𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚕𝚝𝚑
🗽𝚗𝚢 𝚗𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚟𝚎 𝚒𝚗 𝚊𝚣🌵• 𝚜𝚖𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚋𝚞𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚎𝚜𝚜 𝚘𝚠𝚗𝚎𝚛 • 𝚌𝚘𝚏𝚏𝚎𝚎 𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚑𝚞𝚜𝚒𝚊𝚜𝚝 • 𝚠𝚒𝚏𝚎 • 𝚖𝚘𝚖 𝚘𝚏 𝟹 • 𝚍𝚘𝚐 𝚖𝚘𝚖 𝚝𝚘 𝚊 𝚐𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝 𝚍𝚊𝚗𝚎 & 𝚌𝚑𝚒𝚑𝚞𝚊𝚑𝚞𝚊 • 𝚜𝚌𝚒𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝚛𝚘𝚌𝚔𝚜 • 𝚋𝚘𝚘𝚔 𝚠𝚘𝚛𝚖 • 𝚙𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚜 ☆
🇺🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🇺🇦🇨🇦
💥𝙽𝙾 𝙳𝙼𝚜
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Reposted by 𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎✩
Reposted by 𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎✩
Reposted by 𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎✩
Reposted by 𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎✩
JoGo
@mywitsend.bsky.social
· 16h
Reposted by 𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎✩
![MEMORANDUM OPINION
By way of context, a federal prosecutor is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all. The obligation to govern impartially concerns, above all, the state's exercise of coercive power-meaning its power to deprive its subjects of life, liberty, or property... As a representative of the state, a prosecutor's exercise of coercive power must be impartial ... [in] that prosecutorial power may not be exercised vindictivelymeaning that the prosecutor may not punish a defendant for exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right.
United States v. Zakhari, 85 F.4th 367, 384-85 (6th Cir. 2023) (Kethledge, J., concurring) (citations and quotations omitted). This context frames review of Defendant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia's ("Abrego") motion to dismiss his indictment for vindictive and selective
prosecution. (Doc. Nos. 104-05). The Government opposes the motion (Doc. No. 121), and Abrego has replied (Doc. No. 127). Abrego's motion is not ripe for decision because he seeks discovery and an evidentiary hearing because there is some evidence of vindictiveness here. For the reasons that follow, the Court holds that the totality of events creates a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that there is a "realistic likelihood of vindictiveness" that entitles Abrego to discovery and requires an evidentiary hearing before the Court decides his motion. United States
v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449, 457 (6th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 927 (1981).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:qrllvid7s54k4hnwtqxwetrf/bafkreiay66rk6mqrqr2pwlbmqyf4mkqnbj5auaxcwhbsm6fwcwiyhmbr34@jpeg)
Reposted by 𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎✩
Reposted by 𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎✩
Reposted by 𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎✩
Reposted by 𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎✩
