(WATCH) Another Biden Judicial Nominee Can’t Answer Basic Legal Question

Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a habit.

That habit being President Biden’s judicial nominees appearing totally clueless about basic legal questions. And that habit continued with Kato Crews, a nominee for district judge of the U.S. District Court of Colorado, completely unaware of what a fundamental legal procedure known as a “Brady motion” is.

Crews, during a confirmation hearing on Wednesday, was asked by Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) how he would “analyze a Brady motion.”

The nominee replied that he had not “had the occasion to address a Brady motion” during his tenure on the bench.

The motion is one in which a defendant requests prosecutors in a criminal case turn over potentially favorable evidence.

.@SenJohnKennedy Humiliates Biden Judicial Nominee

KENNEDY: “Tell me how you analyze a Brady Motion.”

KATO CREWS: “I don’t believe I’ve had the occasion to address a Brady Motion.”

KENNEDY: “Do you know what a Brady Motion is?”

KATO CREWS: “It’s not coming to mind.” pic.twitter.com/K5lww6EeK4

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 22, 2023

RELATED: Biden Judge Nominee Can’t Answer Basic Questions About the Constitution

Biden Judicial Nominee Kato Crews’ Embarrassing Answer

Sensing something amiss, Senator Kennedy moved in for the kill on Biden judicial nominee Kato Crews. And by kill, we mean he asked him a very simple question.

Kennedy asked Crews if he knew “what a Brady motion is.”

It was clear he does not. In fact, he seemingly confused a ‘Brady motion’ with the ‘Brady Act,’ a bill enacted in 1993 that mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States.

Crews stated that the concept of a Brady motion was “not coming to mind.”

“I believe that the Brady case involved something regarding the Second Amendment,” Crews told Kennedy. “I have not had an occasion to address that.”

Missed it by that much.

Kennedy: “Do you know what a Brady motion is?”

Biden judicial nominee: “It’s not coming to mind… I believe that the Brady case involved something regarding the Second Amendment.”

(It requires prosecutors to disclose evidence to the defense)
pic.twitter.com/WOIuddxvw6

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 22, 2023

RELATED: Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson Can’t ‘Quite Remember’ Basis Of Infamous Dred Scott Case

It’s Becoming a Pattern

And while Kato Crews temporarily morphed into Kato Kaelin intellectually, it’s far from the first time that a Biden judicial nominee has struggled with basic questions.

Kennedy actually tripped up Spokane County Superior Court Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren when asking her about Articles II and V of the Constitution.

“Tell me what Article V of the Constitution does,” the Louisiana Republican challenged during a hearing earlier this year.

“Article V is not coming to mind at the moment,” Bjelkengren replied.

Kennedy pressed: “OK. How about Article II?”

“Neither is Article II,” she said.

He isn’t the first Biden nominee to the federal bench who doesn’t know basic things that are taught in an Intro to the Constitution class.

But at least they’re full of diversity. pic.twitter.com/QcY8jeoOAw

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 22, 2023

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, during her confirmation hearing to the highest court in the land, said she doesn’t “quite remember the basis for the Dred Scott opinion.”

The Dred Scott case is perhaps the most famous of all Supreme Court cases.

I watched little of the hearing today, but was dumbfounded by one comment by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

When asked about Dred Scott, she said she couldn’t recall the core basis of the case.

The first black woman nominated for SCOTUS wasn’t keenly aware of that case?#NoWay

— Karma 9.0 🍊 (@Karma9_0) March 22, 2022

President Biden has described Jackson as “extremely qualified, with a brilliant legal mind.”

In a questionnaire, Crews stated that he had a limited role in criminal cases and that the six cases he presided over that had gone to verdict or judgment were not criminal in nature.

“It’s certainly possible that he never saw a Brady question,” Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, told Bloomberg news. “It may be asking too much to expect him to be intimately familiar with that.”

Would a Trump judicial nominee be given such leeway?