Defense attorneys appeared to have learned about the ammunition Teske turned over from body camera footage that captured Teske walking into the sheriff's office and telling Poppell that he had critical evidence and offered to give a statement.
People seem to be missing the fact the prosecution are the reason the case was dismissed. They failed to disclose evidence. That’s not ok whether a defendant is guilty or not. It’s not for the prosecution to decide what evidence is relevant to the defence or not.
Defense attorneys appeared to have learned about the ammunition Teske turned over from body camera footage that captured Teske walking into the sheriff's office and telling Poppell that he had critical evidence and offered to give a statement.
I agree. This prosecutor was extremely unlikable. That’s not supposed to matter, but it really does. She comes across as someone who hates Baldwin, and would do anything to convict him. She also seems to enjoy the spotlight.
The person who brought the live bullets on set is in prison. The person who loaded the live bullets into the gun is in prison. The person who assured Baldwin that it was a cold gun is in prison. Whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or not is blatantly irrelevant. If Hannah had done her job, he could pull that trigger all day long without consequence. He didn’t check the gun because that’s not how things work on a movie set. They have a dedicated expert on set for those matters. Unfortunately this set had an incompetent one.
@@rvdxpress I beg to differ. Baldwin, as the actor holding the gun, behaved with recklessness and this behavior definitely played a role in the death of this young DP. If you know about safety protocols when holding a gun on a film set, Baldwin has definitely violated several basic ones.
This prosecutor was just hired for the job and is actually a defense attorney so she’s not gonna face any discipline herself, but the DAs office might.
Yea. Her tistomy was all about this being an accident. But she knows that not a Brady factor. She was just trying to show this was not on purpose for her reputation.
I don't think the prosecutor hid the bullets on purpose. But, since there is no motive inquiry in Brady violations... But this is the right outcome. We cannot have prosecutors determine the relevance of evidence. That is for a judge.
@@randogoatlasagna1343 There wasn’t a good reason for putting that evidence under a different case number instead of the Rust case number like all of the other evidence.
I mean, I'm sorry but you're wrong. The judge found it likely that it WAS intentional. That's why she dismissed it WITH prejudice. During the hearing on the matter, the judge asked the detective why the evidence was put under a different case number, and they said that the prosecuting attorney, Kari Morrisey, DIRECTED them to do that. That's pretty clear evidence of a deliberate conspiracy to bury or hide evidence from the defense.
IMO this is akin to the OJ Simpson case. Evidence & witnesses pointed to the guilt and culpability of Baldwin but prosecution appears to have been incredibly sloppy. I do believe that eventually justice will serve the victim Alyna Hutchins one way or another. I feel sorry for her family.
It's good they caught it now if he had been convicted it would be nearly impossible to get it overturned they would have said we'll that wouldn't have made a difference to the jury and let the conviction stand.
This is OJ Redux - Alec Baldwin, via his actions, inactions, omissions, ego, attitude, holier than though persona, etc., is guilty of some crime here, but the prosecution and their smugness of going after a well-known celebrity and their sloppiness destroyed this case.
In my opinion the lead prosecutor Morrissey was a terrible litigator. Her demeanour showed her dislike for the defendant. She wasn’t honest. She’s right, the court didn’t agree with her so she lost her own case. Good on her
That’s not true. Not in this case. It’s you have a prosecutor and the New Mexico police department hiding evidence. If anything is turned into the police pertaining to a case then you turn everything over. Not hide it under a different case #, and not investigate it. Send to the FBI for testing etc. it’s better to present everything, over investigate then to assume it has nothing to do with the case because the bullets never left Arizona. Baldwin still has to live with the fact he held the gun that went off that killed another person. His ego though i doubt he has any guilt and he’s admitted so. I feel bad for victims family. But, put yourself in Baldwin shoes. Imagine you are fighting for your freedom and your rights according to the constitution were being jeopardized? Throwing out this case was the only decision. That’s why we have the constitution. It has nothing to do with money or fame in this case.
So I could have shown up with bullets, and then they would ve evidence. I thought there was "chain of custody"? How was this evidence? Different laws for the rich and connected.
@@blakekaveny Indicted is the same thing the court supplied a affidavit and was signed be the DETECTIVE and the Da had the judge sign the arrest warrant he was arraigned he was on bond . Malicious prosecution cases start when charges are dropped they can’t bring new charges . He can sue for false arrest and false imprisonment. Under the 4th amendment the US Supreme court just ruled a month ago. The malicious prosecution is a fourth amendment violation city of Napoleon Ohio. I bet he sues. To get his reputation back the only way he can do it. Should’ve never had to trial in the first place.
Now, will Hannah Guttierez be given the same consideration as the rich actor. It seems to me that this stain on the same prosecution team has to be considered in any review of her trial.
@@1articoli it’s possible. Some of what was hidden from Baldwin‘s defense team was not hidden from Gutierrez defense team. There were a couple of reports that were hidden from the Gutierrez team though, and that *could* be enough to overturn her entire conviction. Brady violations are *that* serious. (I am not a lawyer, this is commentary on current events.)
Now that prosecuror needs to be investigated for any other cases where she and her team were or are involved and may have withheld evidence. Or other dubious behaviours. It is not for any prosecutor to decide evidential relevance, not is it professional to bleat same after she loses her entire credibility and the case.
The prosecutor testified the defense was aware of this evidence. Listen to court recordings. A prosecutor relies on others such as the police to log the evidence. It is the police that didn’t log as part of rust case. Someone walks in off the street with 2 bullets…there is no chain of evidence these 2 bullets had anything to do with rust case. I think the judge’s decision was premature.
have you watched the trial? A lot of the evidence referenced was mentioned in yesterday’s trial during witness testimony. You’re missing over the point where the lead investigator and the prosecutor made a decision of fact (which is not for them to decide) and failed to disclose evidence. The evidence referenced was not entered into the court as evidence which is why this is an issue. You can have your feelings about Baldwin and his team but the prosecution royally messed up.
Just enough smoke and mirrors by the defense team with "evidence" by Reed's own father two months after the crime. They didn't give it the case number because they weren't sure it was connected to the actual crime. You saw the trial I did. Im not sure what all the other people here saw. And the prosecutor brought in this April quitting on tv..icing on the defense's cake. I just hope AB paid thru the nose for his acquittal farce of a trial.
I didn't realize that was part of the Brady factor analysis in making this decision. I gues you think prosecutors should be allowed to determine relevancy?
I wonder if the journalist actually realizes double jeopardy was set, so dismissal with prejudice was superfluous. (I think the judge was just making certain this case would not come back).
Please explain in succinct details exactly how the legal theory of "Double Jeopardy" was established AND applied here in this case, because Baldwin's attorneys NEVER filed any Motions with regards to the application and establishment of Double Jeopardy to have the case Dismissed upon those legal grounds.
@@normancarter5419 Jeopardy attaches when a jury is selected and trial begins. So jeopardy #1 started for Baldwin when this trial started. If the judge had dismissed this case WITHOUT prejudice or declared a mistrial the prosecution could have gone after him again, which she (judge) apparently considered double jeopardy. The dismissal with prejudice was absolutely not superfluous, in fact it was the point.
@@normancarter5419 Double jeopardy is not determined upon the defendant's lawyers whatsoever except that they show up to defend their client. Double jeopardy is attached when the jury is seated and sworn in - period. Three days into the trial, double jeopardy is absolutely attached. (So say I, and so said the judge in this very trial.) Is that succinct enough for ya.
@@normancarter5419 I just reread your comment and now more fully understand your question. Double Jeopardy is in the Constitution. It is not legal theory but the supreme law of the land. You might try reading that document sometime. You can find a copy online. It's free.
I'm so confused about how the live round got to the set. Also, are they saying that the live rounds look the same as the dummy rounds? That would be insane, like how is looking at the fake bullets gonna help if they look the same as real bullets? Its very confusing. Every "explanation" I've seen so far has failed to answer these basic questions.
I think "OJ Lite" just got lucky! There really is no defense to involuntary. Weirdest thing though was when the prosecutor and team members were all seen leaving the court room parking lot in their brand new bling'd out Maclaren's!
Why were the "new" bullets deemed evidence? So the shooting happened in New Mexico and these special bullets never left Arizona so how are they evidence? This is the judges' choice, not the prosecutor's. It's a small technicality that had no bearing on the charges. For the victim's sake, this trial should have been completed and the jury should have had their say.
What a ridiculous ruling by the judge. For a Brady dismissal the evidence must be material and exculpatory. A handful of rounds from a state away that were never on the set, didn’t match any rounds on the set, and had nothing to do with the case, and were randomly dropped off to the police 3 years after the incident, is a very long way from meeting those standards.
@@StinkyWizleteets Everything I said are facts. There is no possible way those rounds from AZ could be considered material or exculpatory by any reasonable person.
@@johnmunro4952 Nobody hid anything. They weren’t filed with the other evidence because some random guy dropped them off 3 years after the incident, stated they they weren’t even from that state, and had no connection to the incident whatsoever. He actually tried to give them to the defense team at the previous trial, and they didn’t want them, so he gave them to the police.
Please give Alex some privacy and I know that the media will milk this for all its worth.The killing of an innocent person can never be right.This does not mean that Alex is responsible and I am happy for his freedom.
@@blacklisted4885 You can’t withhold evidence from the defense, that is a sure fire way to not only have the case thrown out (with prejudice), have all your passed cases looked over with a fine tooth comb, but also have disbarred for life.
@@BuzryHaproMandalorianHunter Why would you have even responded to someone as stupid as the OP? The lead prosecutor is at real risk of losing her law license (which, it goes without saying, she should) and here's the OP babbling like a complete idiot. In fact, I don't believe that he's actually this stupid because no one who can type into a comments section can possibly be. He must just be a troll.
What ever happened to a trial by jury? If you allow a judge to predefine the outcome of a case, justice isn't served. That malfeasant judge took it upon herself to decide the case regardless of the chance to vote by jury about innocence. Why don't we just let that judge use the US Constitution as a doormat to her castle?
Please read Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) if you want to understand why this statement is the opposite of the standard in the U.S. legal system.
Speaking of the constitution, read the 6th amendment about a defendant's right to a fair trial. 😂 Morrisey CANNOT bury potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense because she alone decides it isn't relevant. That's called a Brady violation and she admitted to it under oath on the stand. That's why the judge tossed it.
@littleangel4780 no, the judge tossed it because she and Morrisey were told too. this trial should have been about baldwin's negligence , not the negligence of a forensic investigator, not the negligence of a police officer but it could have been about the negligence of a society that has a multitiered judicial system. These people walked into the courtroom with a prescripted acting line. Think about it this way: you have two locks on your front door. One lock fails to do its job(hannah), then the second lock fails(baldwin's negligence) and the door busts open(halyna's negligent dearh). Please don't piss down my leg and tell me it is raining.
@randogoatlasagna1343 hey lasagna, no, and no. The evidence was not related to baldwin's negligent use of a deadly weapon. Let me pose to you just how this new evidence should have been used in hannah g-reed's trial. Suppose you have a very important front door with t2o locks on it. The door is about to be busted in. The first lock fails(Hannah's safety team) then the second lock fails (baldwin's criminal negligence recklessly and unnecessarily pointing and shooting down two victims), and now the front door is busted(Haylyna's death and a second bystander). Regardless of how that ammunition showed up on stage, baldwin's arrogant negligence on the use of a real pistol negligently took another person's life. Your approach 8s to look at the brushstrokes of a painting and never really seeing the picture. Can't see the forest for the trees. And why did the court system just now realize in 1963 that it could be manipulated with withheld evidence. Thank you for pointing out brady vs Maryland, but for the new mexico governor to direct the outcome of the baldwin negligence trial that is in itself a criminal act. Bad for tourism and movie making business I guess.
