Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The investigation and prosecution seem to have been a shit show, full of errors and missteps.

Now that this is over, the Baldwins should go live life off camera and social media and out of the public eye. That would be the best thing for their children.

It would be they won’t. I think they filmed a reality TV show prior to this. And they have seven kids under like 10 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Case dismissed with prejudice: prosecution failed to disclose new potential evidence to the defense (ammo found on set by the armorer's friend to the sheriff? Not clear).

This means that Baldwin cannot be charged again. No pronouncement is made on his guilt or innocence.

Does prosecutor or anyone get in any kind of legal trouble for failing to disclose evidence ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The investigation and prosecution seem to have been a shit show, full of errors and missteps.

Now that this is over, the Baldwins should go live life off camera and social media and out of the public eye. That would be the best thing for their children.

They cannot afford to stop working, and their only skill is being famous. Baldwin has trouble getting acting work and the reality show is likely their best bet. He's been signing posters at conventions for money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Case dismissed with prejudice: prosecution failed to disclose new potential evidence to the defense (ammo found on set by the armorer's friend to the sheriff? Not clear).

This means that Baldwin cannot be charged again. No pronouncement is made on his guilt or innocence.

Does prosecutor or anyone get in any kind of legal trouble for failing to disclose evidence ?

The prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case was disbarred for similar IIRC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Case dismissed with prejudice: prosecution failed to disclose new potential evidence to the defense (ammo found on set by the armorer's friend to the sheriff? Not clear).

This means that Baldwin cannot be charged again. No pronouncement is made on his guilt or innocence.

Does prosecutor or anyone get in any kind of legal trouble for failing to disclose evidence ?

Sometimes they get sanctioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will a Trump DOJ bring the hammer down on him for playing him on SNL?

No. It's bizarre that Alex thinks that he and Trump are sworn enemies bc of SNL skits.

Uh, it's more bizarre that Trump thinks that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, he got off because he paid - top dollar for a very skilled defense team which ferreted out discovery violations on evidence which if disclosed properly would not have helped or hurt either side’s case. But Brady/Giglio and the rules of discovery require disclosure of all evidence either exculpatory OR inculpatory and to violate that mandate creates fundamental unfairness in the administration of justice.

I watched the armorers trial and this special prosecutor was not dispassionate or highly professional- she’s technically skilled but hostile in court, sometimes even to the court! She seemed out to get Baldwin which is not a look that any prosecutor should project - of course you think someone is guilty or you wouldn’t charge them, but you are not supposed to be Ahab going after the white whale. Especially not on a case where literally the world is watching, it’s a stain on our justice system to project that look. She should have twisted herself into a pretzel to open her file and let the defense in with a fine tooth comb and instead she fought discovery repeatedly in pretrial motions and made a record of bad conduct that left the judge no choice but to dismiss after this last egregious violation.

Prosecutorial hubris happened here, and Baldwin had enough money for excellent defense attorneys who revealed that hubris to the court at every step and won him what is for a defendant the best of wins - never to have to face an uncertain verdict and potential prison time.

Kari Morrissey is going to have a hard time living this down. I wouldn’t want to be in her head tonight.

Agree. She was awful and came off like an obfuscating blowhard. Her testimony on the last day was excruciating to listen to. It made no sense and her reasoning as to why they didn't consider the evidence was a real reach, when I could figure out her line of reasoning, as she would go off on tangents and just kept talking.

[Anonymous]

Good for the judge.

The criminal case against Baldwin was always weak, IMO. The death of Hutchins was a preventable tragedy, and there are a lot of lessons to be learned here but I could never get past the fact that he believed he was handling an unloaded prop weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutors cheating yet again. When will it stop?

Maybe a prosecutor can weigh in here?

Former prosecutor here.

The evidence was irrelevant, but the violation of Brady/Giglio and the New Mexico rules of discovery was egregious so the dismissal is warranted.

I once dismissed my own case with prejudice during trial when evidence came to light which we had not disclosed to defense and which had not even been shared with me by the cops. I was a defense attorney first and I adhered strongly to the constitutional protections of defendants as a prosecutor too.

In my observation and experience, fewer prosecutors are like I was and more are too ambitious for convictions which clouds their judgment. I think some are pretty bad actors.

I watched the whole trial for the armorer and coverage since and I have to say, it is clear to me that Baldwin is haunted by what happened while the armorer, whose fault it really most was, still fails to exhibit any real remorse. Which is probably why she was so callous and reckless as to have live ammo anywhere near a movie set.

And Baldwin settled with the family, right? Did the armorer do that too?

Exactly. He got off because he PAID. Did he also pay the prosecutor?, is what should be asked.

IANAL, but you are clearly not, either. He paid the family. Whether he paid the family has no bearing on his criminal trial. There, the jury and the judge decide. He did not pay the judge nor any member of the jury, so whether he chose to pay compensation to the family of the victim only forestalled a civil liability trial against him. The settlement means that they won't sue him for liability.

The case that was just dismissed was the criminal trial, which is different from the civil trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, he got off because he paid - top dollar for a very skilled defense team which ferreted out discovery violations on evidence which if disclosed properly would not have helped or hurt either side’s case. But Brady/Giglio and the rules of discovery require disclosure of all evidence either exculpatory OR inculpatory and to violate that mandate creates fundamental unfairness in the administration of justice.

I watched the armorers trial and this special prosecutor was not dispassionate or highly professional- she’s technically skilled but hostile in court, sometimes even to the court! She seemed out to get Baldwin which is not a look that any prosecutor should project - of course you think someone is guilty or you wouldn’t charge them, but you are not supposed to be Ahab going after the white whale. Especially not on a case where literally the world is watching, it’s a stain on our justice system to project that look. She should have twisted herself into a pretzel to open her file and let the defense in with a fine tooth comb and instead she fought discovery repeatedly in pretrial motions and made a record of bad conduct that left the judge no choice but to dismiss after this last egregious violation.

Prosecutorial hubris happened here, and Baldwin had enough money for excellent defense attorneys who revealed that hubris to the court at every step and won him what is for a defendant the best of wins - never to have to face an uncertain verdict and potential prison time.

Kari Morrissey is going to have a hard time living this down. I wouldn’t want to be in her head tonight.

She was a corrupt prosecutor to the core. She hid evidence by taking them from one folder and putting the evidence in a differ t file. She violated all kinds of Brady violations and she did it with confidence. She was confident in her duplicity because she had gotten away with it on prior occasions. The difference is that Baldwin did not have an overworked public defender and was able to pay for good legal counsel. For some prosecutors it is all about the win and their career progression. She cared not about Justice but only about the big win and catching a big publicity generating fish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutors cheating yet again. When will it stop?

Maybe a prosecutor can weigh in here?

Former prosecutor here.

The evidence was irrelevant, but the violation of Brady/Giglio and the New Mexico rules of discovery was egregious so the dismissal is warranted.

I once dismissed my own case with prejudice during trial when evidence came to light which we had not disclosed to defense and which had not even been shared with me by the cops. I was a defense attorney first and I adhered strongly to the constitutional protections of defendants as a prosecutor too.

In my observation and experience, fewer prosecutors are like I was and more are too ambitious for convictions which clouds their judgment. I think some are pretty bad actors.

I watched the whole trial for the armorer and coverage since and I have to say, it is clear to me that Baldwin is haunted by what happened while the armorer, whose fault it really most was, still fails to exhibit any real remorse. Which is probably why she was so callous and reckless as to have live ammo anywhere near a movie set.

And Baldwin settled with the family, right? Did the armorer do that too?

Exactly. He got off because he PAID. Did he also pay the prosecutor?, is what should be asked.

IANAL, but you are clearly not, either. He paid the family. Whether he paid the family has no bearing on his criminal trial. There, the jury and the judge decide. He did not pay the judge nor any member of the jury, so whether he chose to pay compensation to the family of the victim only forestalled a civil liability trial against him. The settlement means that they won't sue him for liability.

The case that was just dismissed was the criminal trial, which is different from the civil trial.

Actually I am a lawyer and your explanation has nothing to do with my comment. I think he (his lawyers) paid off the prosecutor and maybe even the judge in order to get that dismissal. That’s how it works. Good for him. Sure, his lawyers also did the dog and pony work of proving up all the Brady violations, but we do that every day in indigent criminal defense and no one dismisses sh*t. You want a dismissal like Baldwin got? That costs some money. He paid it. I’m glad for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutors cheating yet again. When will it stop?

Maybe a prosecutor can weigh in here?

Former prosecutor here.

The evidence was irrelevant, but the violation of Brady/Giglio and the New Mexico rules of discovery was egregious so the dismissal is warranted.

I once dismissed my own case with prejudice during trial when evidence came to light which we had not disclosed to defense and which had not even been shared with me by the cops. I was a defense attorney first and I adhered strongly to the constitutional protections of defendants as a prosecutor too.

In my observation and experience, fewer prosecutors are like I was and more are too ambitious for convictions which clouds their judgment. I think some are pretty bad actors.

I watched the whole trial for the armorer and coverage since and I have to say, it is clear to me that Baldwin is haunted by what happened while the armorer, whose fault it really most was, still fails to exhibit any real remorse. Which is probably why she was so callous and reckless as to have live ammo anywhere near a movie set.

And Baldwin settled with the family, right? Did the armorer do that too?

Exactly. He got off because he PAID. Did he also pay the prosecutor?, is what should be asked.

IANAL, but you are clearly not, either. He paid the family. Whether he paid the family has no bearing on his criminal trial. There, the jury and the judge decide. He did not pay the judge nor any member of the jury, so whether he chose to pay compensation to the family of the victim only forestalled a civil liability trial against him. The settlement means that they won't sue him for liability.

The case that was just dismissed was the criminal trial, which is different from the civil trial.

Actually I am a lawyer and your explanation has nothing to do with my comment. I think he (his lawyers) paid off the prosecutor and maybe even the judge in order to get that dismissal. That’s how it works. Good for him. Sure, his lawyers also did the dog and pony work of proving up all the Brady violations, but we do that every day in indigent criminal defense and no one dismisses sh*t. You want a dismissal like Baldwin got? That costs some money. He paid it. I’m glad for him.

Oh jeez. You are not a lawyer and that is not how it works. SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutors cheating yet again. When will it stop?

Maybe a prosecutor can weigh in here?

Former prosecutor here.

The evidence was irrelevant, but the violation of Brady/Giglio and the New Mexico rules of discovery was egregious so the dismissal is warranted.

I once dismissed my own case with prejudice during trial when evidence came to light which we had not disclosed to defense and which had not even been shared with me by the cops. I was a defense attorney first and I adhered strongly to the constitutional protections of defendants as a prosecutor too.

In my observation and experience, fewer prosecutors are like I was and more are too ambitious for convictions which clouds their judgment. I think some are pretty bad actors.

I watched the whole trial for the armorer and coverage since and I have to say, it is clear to me that Baldwin is haunted by what happened while the armorer, whose fault it really most was, still fails to exhibit any real remorse. Which is probably why she was so callous and reckless as to have live ammo anywhere near a movie set.

And Baldwin settled with the family, right? Did the armorer do that too?

Exactly. He got off because he PAID. Did he also pay the prosecutor?, is what should be asked.

IANAL, but you are clearly not, either. He paid the family. Whether he paid the family has no bearing on his criminal trial. There, the jury and the judge decide. He did not pay the judge nor any member of the jury, so whether he chose to pay compensation to the family of the victim only forestalled a civil liability trial against him. The settlement means that they won't sue him for liability.

The case that was just dismissed was the criminal trial, which is different from the civil trial.

Actually I am a lawyer and your explanation has nothing to do with my comment. I think he (his lawyers) paid off the prosecutor and maybe even the judge in order to get that dismissal. That’s how it works. Good for him. Sure, his lawyers also did the dog and pony work of proving up all the Brady violations, but we do that every day in indigent criminal defense and no one dismisses sh*t. You want a dismissal like Baldwin got? That costs some money. He paid it. I’m glad for him.

Oh jeez. You are not a lawyer and that is not how it works. SMH

I am. Are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutors cheating yet again. When will it stop?

Maybe a prosecutor can weigh in here?

Former prosecutor here.

The evidence was irrelevant, but the violation of Brady/Giglio and the New Mexico rules of discovery was egregious so the dismissal is warranted.

I once dismissed my own case with prejudice during trial when evidence came to light which we had not disclosed to defense and which had not even been shared with me by the cops. I was a defense attorney first and I adhered strongly to the constitutional protections of defendants as a prosecutor too.

In my observation and experience, fewer prosecutors are like I was and more are too ambitious for convictions which clouds their judgment. I think some are pretty bad actors.

I watched the whole trial for the armorer and coverage since and I have to say, it is clear to me that Baldwin is haunted by what happened while the armorer, whose fault it really most was, still fails to exhibit any real remorse. Which is probably why she was so callous and reckless as to have live ammo anywhere near a movie set.

And Baldwin settled with the family, right? Did the armorer do that too?

Exactly. He got off because he PAID. Did he also pay the prosecutor?, is what should be asked.

IANAL, but you are clearly not, either. He paid the family. Whether he paid the family has no bearing on his criminal trial. There, the jury and the judge decide. He did not pay the judge nor any member of the jury, so whether he chose to pay compensation to the family of the victim only forestalled a civil liability trial against him. The settlement means that they won't sue him for liability.

The case that was just dismissed was the criminal trial, which is different from the civil trial.

Actually I am a lawyer and your explanation has nothing to do with my comment. I think he (his lawyers) paid off the prosecutor and maybe even the judge in order to get that dismissal. That’s how it works. Good for him. Sure, his lawyers also did the dog and pony work of proving up all the Brady violations, but we do that every day in indigent criminal defense and no one dismisses sh*t. You want a dismissal like Baldwin got? That costs some money. He paid it. I’m glad for him.

Oh jeez. You are not a lawyer and that is not how it works. SMH

+1. There are some mentally ill posters here and pp just outed themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutors cheating yet again. When will it stop?

Maybe a prosecutor can weigh in here?

Former prosecutor here.

The evidence was irrelevant, but the violation of Brady/Giglio and the New Mexico rules of discovery was egregious so the dismissal is warranted.

I once dismissed my own case with prejudice during trial when evidence came to light which we had not disclosed to defense and which had not even been shared with me by the cops. I was a defense attorney first and I adhered strongly to the constitutional protections of defendants as a prosecutor too.

In my observation and experience, fewer prosecutors are like I was and more are too ambitious for convictions which clouds their judgment. I think some are pretty bad actors.

I watched the whole trial for the armorer and coverage since and I have to say, it is clear to me that Baldwin is haunted by what happened while the armorer, whose fault it really most was, still fails to exhibit any real remorse. Which is probably why she was so callous and reckless as to have live ammo anywhere near a movie set.

And Baldwin settled with the family, right? Did the armorer do that too?

Exactly. He got off because he PAID. Did he also pay the prosecutor?, is what should be asked.

IANAL, but you are clearly not, either. He paid the family. Whether he paid the family has no bearing on his criminal trial. There, the jury and the judge decide. He did not pay the judge nor any member of the jury, so whether he chose to pay compensation to the family of the victim only forestalled a civil liability trial against him. The settlement means that they won't sue him for liability.

The case that was just dismissed was the criminal trial, which is different from the civil trial.

Actually I am a lawyer and your explanation has nothing to do with my comment. I think he (his lawyers) paid off the prosecutor and maybe even the judge in order to get that dismissal. That’s how it works. Good for him. Sure, his lawyers also did the dog and pony work of proving up all the Brady violations, but we do that every day in indigent criminal defense and no one dismisses sh*t. You want a dismissal like Baldwin got? That costs some money. He paid it. I’m glad for him.

Oh jeez. You are not a lawyer and that is not how it works. SMH

+1. There are some mentally ill posters here and pp just outed themselves.

Right right, I’m mentally ill, sure. Then why don’t YOU tell me how it works?

You don’t want to believe in corruption. That’s your own delusion.