For Immediate Release
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Contact: Mike May 703-623-2085, mike@votemikemay.com
Ashworth Misstates Factual Record in Commonwealth’s Attorney Debate to Cover up Failure to Disclose Evidence as Assistant Prosecutor
Woodbridge, VA – During last week’s final debate (Justice Forum) between Commonwealth’s Attorney candidates Mike May and Amy Ashworth, Ashworth deliberately misled the community and gave incorrect information regarding her record when it comes to “Open File Discovery.” A review of a publicly available court transcript directly contradicts the statements that Ashworth made in defense of her record at the forum.
“Open File” simply means that the Commonwealth’s Attorney allows the accused and his or her defense attorney to review what is in the file as the case progresses. Currently, Virginia law only requires the disclosure of exculpatory evidence; that is, evidence that tends to show the accused is not guilty. Reformers like May have long advocated for more transparency, arguing that allowing the defendant to review the entire file through an open-file policy (while making appropriate redactions to protect victims and witnesses) is more consistent with due process and fundamental fairness. Moreover, employing an open-file system will protect the integrity of criminal convictions because cases will not be overturned as a result of the prosecutor hiding evidence.
Working as an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney for 11 years, Ashworth knew well of her options to employ open file discovery. However, in her last case with the prosecutor’s office (Commonwealth v. Vandiver), she did not do so. In that case, exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defense for over two years. This is particularly troubling since exculpatory evidence should be turned over irrespective of whether an office has open file or not. Not turning it over violates the defendant’s constitutional rights.
When questioned under oath about her failure to turn over the evidence, Ashworth stated that she had not looked in her file because she had not yet begun trial preparations. However, if she had simply employed an open file system from the beginning, the defense would have discovered it and her failure to prepare for trial would not have prejudiced the defense.
When May called for open-file four years ago, Ashworth supported the status quo. As a candidate for Commonwealth’s Attorney, however, Ashworth sings a different tune. She touts her purported support of an open-file policy. But her record does not match the rhetoric. When May pointed out the facts of the Vandiver case during the debate, Ashworth obfuscated and stated, “In the case at hand, everything in that file was turned over, so Mr. May’s facts are incorrect.”
This is simply untrue. When under oath, Ashworth admitted that she had not turned everything over. Then, in a public debate before the community, she claimed “Mr. May’s facts are incorrect.” To be sure, Mr. May’s facts are correct and supported by publicly available court documents. Ashworth’s explanation at the debate directly contradicts sworn testimony in a court proceeding. Ashworth said herself that refusing to employ open file discovery allows for “trial by ambush,” which is exactly what she did in this known instance. If this case is the culmination of the integrity and experience that Ashworth touts, it is not the experience we need in our next Commonwealth’s Attorney for Prince William, Manassas and Manassas Park.
A video clip of the exchange at the forum, a written transcript of said exchange, and a copy of the transcript from the case of Commonwealth v. Vandiver wherein Ashworth acknowledges that she failed to turn over exculpatory evidence can be viewed below.
When reviewing the transcript, please see pages 14 (Ashworth: “In my review of it, there didn’t appear to be a need to turn it over…had I reviewed that and seen anything in it that was exculpatory, I would have turned it over.”), pages 30-31 (Ashworth acknowledges she has obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence and states she did not intentionally violate her duty to turn over such material), and page 37 (Judge states “The sole question that I need to answer is whether or not the withholding of that interview from the defense was intentional.”)
EN 
ES