Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Take your medicine.

[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

Dude. You are not a lawyer. Saying that the judge was paid off without proof is an ethical violation that would get you disbarred. No lawyer would say what you said.

[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

Dude. You are not a lawyer. Saying that the judge was paid off without proof is an ethical violation that would get you disbarred. No lawyer would say what you said.

I said I think he paid the prosecutor and maybe the judge. Not unethical to say what you think.

Why don’t you charming mansplainers tell me how come this prosecutor and judge threw this case out then? And why don’t they throw out Brendan Dassey’s or any other poor person’s? Why do those Brady violations go unpunished for DECADES? What did Baldwin have, other than money? I work at Innocence and we prove up Brady and Gigiio all day long and judges and DAs do not throw cases out. How did Baldwin get this done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Take your medicine.

What an ignorant response.

Tell us already how you think PP is wrong, Alec.

We know you hate dcum for exposing “Hilaria”

Go take your own medicine. Don’t hit anyone with a lobby phone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Take your medicine.

What an ignorant response.

Tell us already how you think PP is wrong, Alec.

We know you hate dcum for exposing “Hilaria”

Go take your own medicine. Don’t hit anyone with a lobby phone.

And the paranoia continues...

[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.

DP—Ms Lawyer you contradict yourself. If you’re an attorney for the indigent you have poor resources, are overworked and probably not very good due to your instinct focus on the small details. You’re probably recommending your client take plea deals from the prosecution instead of combing through the case in preparation for a stellar defense. And then you also lack the means to mount adequate investigation because every dime spent is dependent on what the state is willing to allocate. Baldwin did not have those constraints. He had A++ defense multiple defense attorneys and money to do due diligence with investigators. Their investigators were unable to uncover something an attorney for the indigent would not have uncovered. There’s a reason that the vast majority of cases overturned by the efforts of “The Innocence Project “ are overturned and innocent people are released from prison were convicted while represented by attorneys for the indigent/public defender.

Saying the prosecutors took a bribe is ridiculous. Don’t you think the bribe would have occurred before the indictment or actual trial. Finally holding yourself as an attorney on an anonymous forum is not a flex. Are you a bankruptcy or divorce attorney because a criminal defense or assistant district attorney would not require such an explanation.

[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

If that poster is a lawyer, she’s a tax attorney. Definitely has never conducted a trial

[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.

DP—Ms Lawyer you contradict yourself. If you’re an attorney for the indigent you have poor resources, are overworked and probably not very good due to your instinct focus on the small details. You’re probably recommending your client take plea deals from the prosecution instead of combing through the case in preparation for a stellar defense. And then you also lack the means to mount adequate investigation because every dime spent is dependent on what the state is willing to allocate. Baldwin did not have those constraints. He had A++ defense multiple defense attorneys and money to do due diligence with investigators. Their investigators were unable to uncover something an attorney for the indigent would not have uncovered. There’s a reason that the vast majority of cases overturned by the efforts of “The Innocence Project “ are overturned and innocent people are released from prison were convicted while represented by attorneys for the indigent/public defender.

Saying the prosecutors took a bribe is ridiculous. Don’t you think the bribe would have occurred before the indictment or actual trial. Finally holding yourself as an attorney on an anonymous forum is not a flex. Are you a bankruptcy or divorce attorney because a criminal defense or assistant district attorney would not require such an explanation.

It would be nice if people would stop shaming the poster who is asking WHY Baldwin was able to do what no one else seems to be able to do.

This quoted post is closest I’ve seen so far, but still shames the poster who is asking, which it itself a shame.

[Anonymous]

What was it EXACTLY that Baldwin’s super duper investigators uncovered? I still don’t understand that part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Dude. You are not a lawyer. Saying that the judge was paid off without proof is an ethical violation that would get you disbarred. No lawyer would say what you said.

I said I think he paid the prosecutor and maybe the judge. Not unethical to say what you think.

Why don’t you charming mansplainers tell me how come this prosecutor and judge threw this case out then? And why don’t they throw out Brendan Dassey’s or any other poor person’s? Why do those Brady violations go unpunished for DECADES? What did Baldwin have, other than money? I work at Innocence and we prove up Brady and Gigiio all day long and judges and DAs do not throw cases out. How did Baldwin get this done?

But that's just silly. If he'd paid them off he'd have gotten out of this case a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was it EXACTLY that Baldwin’s super duper investigators uncovered? I still don’t understand that part.

The prosecutor hid exculpatory evidence. And when asked repeatedly if she had turned over all the evidence in the case, she repeatedly told the court that all evidence had been shared with the defense. All evidence had not been disclosed. She took ammo from the Baldwin case and hid it in a different case file and said it wasn’t relevant. It is not up to prosecutors to determine what evidence is relevant or not. That’s the job of the presiding judge. Baldwin’s defense had a right to have their experts examine and compare all evidence, something the prosecutor tried to hide and prevent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Dude. You are not a lawyer. Saying that the judge was paid off without proof is an ethical violation that would get you disbarred. No lawyer would say what you said.

I said I think he paid the prosecutor and maybe the judge. Not unethical to say what you think.

Why don’t you charming mansplainers tell me how come this prosecutor and judge threw this case out then? And why don’t they throw out Brendan Dassey’s or any other poor person’s? Why do those Brady violations go unpunished for DECADES? What did Baldwin have, other than money? I work at Innocence and we prove up Brady and Gigiio all day long and judges and DAs do not throw cases out. How did Baldwin get this done?

But that's just silly. If he'd paid them off he'd have gotten out of this case a long time ago.

And this is the most logical and common sense response for why the judge and prosecutor were not paid off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was it EXACTLY that Baldwin’s super duper investigators uncovered? I still don’t understand that part.

The prosecutor hid exculpatory evidence. And when asked repeatedly if she had turned over all the evidence in the case, she repeatedly told the court that all evidence had been shared with the defense. All evidence had not been disclosed. She took ammo from the Baldwin case and hid it in a different case file and said it wasn’t relevant. It is not up to prosecutors to determine what evidence is relevant or not. That’s the job of the presiding judge. Baldwin’s defense had a right to have their experts examine and compare all evidence, something the prosecutor tried to hide and prevent.

Not a Judge but this would offend me immensely and I think she made the right decision. As for the person decrying poor people not getting their cases thrown out, well, let's see if this starts a trend. This is only a good thing when people play loose with the rules of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was it EXACTLY that Baldwin’s super duper investigators uncovered? I still don’t understand that part.

The prosecutor hid exculpatory evidence. And when asked repeatedly if she had turned over all the evidence in the case, she repeatedly told the court that all evidence had been shared with the defense. All evidence had not been disclosed. She took ammo from the Baldwin case and hid it in a different case file and said it wasn’t relevant. It is not up to prosecutors to determine what evidence is relevant or not. That’s the job of the presiding judge. Baldwin’s defense had a right to have their experts examine and compare all evidence, something the prosecutor tried to hide and prevent.

How did Baldwin’s team find out that the prosecutor did this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was it EXACTLY that Baldwin’s super duper investigators uncovered? I still don’t understand that part.

The prosecutor hid exculpatory evidence. And when asked repeatedly if she had turned over all the evidence in the case, she repeatedly told the court that all evidence had been shared with the defense. All evidence had not been disclosed. She took ammo from the Baldwin case and hid it in a different case file and said it wasn’t relevant. It is not up to prosecutors to determine what evidence is relevant or not. That’s the job of the presiding judge. Baldwin’s defense had a right to have their experts examine and compare all evidence, something the prosecutor tried to hide and prevent.

How did Baldwin’s team find out that the prosecutor did this?

I think it was mentioned in another person’s testimony the day before?