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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Maybe a prosecutor can weigh in here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor claims the new ammo found was not the same as the one used for the fatal shot.

I do not understand how any "new" ammo found would impact the case in any way.

So is this just a technicality because correct procedure was not followed?

You are just WRONG

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor claims the new ammo found was not the same as the one used for the fatal shot.

I do not understand how any "new" ammo found would impact the case in any way.

So is this just a technicality because correct procedure was not followed?

Anonymous wrote:No reason to point a gun and fire -- when the script doesn't call for it.

Anonymous wrote:No reason to point a gun and fire -- when the script doesn't call for it.

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor resigned