Reply to Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Prosecutors cheating yet again. When will it stop?[/quote]

Maybe a prosecutor can weigh in here?

[/quote]

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.[/quote]And Baldwin settled with the family, right? Did the armorer do that too?[/quote]

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

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.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics