Defense attorney Rachel Fiset joins Pat Harvey to provide an in depth look at Friday's dismissal in Alec Baldwin's "Rust" trial, explaining what it all means.
Also, the prosecutor saying “I didn’t think the evidence was relevant”. I don’t believe her. I think she hid it on purpose. Why else put it under a different case number? It’s certainly extremely suspicious.
It is not up to her to decide what is "relevant" to Defense case or any path of discovery that evidence may lead the Defense! Shocking example of concealed evidence! She should be disbarred or at least sanctioned!
Well, also, her saying that is just wrong and she knows it. The prosecutor is not the finder of fact. That's the jury's job, not hers. She can't just take it upon herself to decide that something is not relevant, if it's at all connected to or sworn to be related to the case. Which it was. The person who brought it forward claimed that it was related to the ammo that was on set. Once that claim was made, it's up to the jury to decide whether that's true, not the prosecutor. I think she was lying anyways about that. She knew it was relevant, that's why she colluded with the police department to bury it, she was just trying to save her career in any way possible once the judge found out about that.
Except for Relinda Johnson. As soon as she found out about it she wanted to outright dismiss the case, and when Morrissey refused Johnson asked the judge to be released from the trial and hit the ejection seat switch.
@@Kryssyskingdom But this "evidence" was first presented to Hannah's defense team. They passed on it and said to give it to the prosecution. So it will be hard to argue this in her case.
@@timharris2291 In that case she should know what she would be looking for as a defense attorney. If the prosecution did that to her you know she would have made the same motion to dismiss.
There is no mess up....Prosacutors are legally allowed to do it....Issue is having a lawyer willing to say there is a Brady violation...99% of lawyers will not do it!
When the prop gun was damaged after FBI testing and the defense could not use it for their case it was a red flag already. All of this is simply the domino effect of bad intentions. I have no more words to say about is case.
@@Holmberg_Audio no, he means something totally different. But for a Maga cultist 1 month old account, a clear troll, every conspiracy theory is daily food for a sick mental disorder
Regardless of what the prosecutor did, it doesn’t change the fact that Baldwin killed someone with his gun. So he goes free because of the misconduct? Why not give the defense all the evidence and restart the trial with different jury? Where is the justice for the lady who was killed?
The same thing has happened in the UK and has been called the worst miscarriage of justice in the Uk. Crucial evidence was not disclosed and hidden from the prosecution of hundreds of Post office masters
let me clarify this..... the defense can hide, suppress, not disclose any evidence they want. The defense is not obligated to disclose anything that would harm their case. The prosecution IS obligated to disclose/classify all evidence or information that may or may not be related to the case. That is the big difference.
This never should have been a case. What happened is the same as if someone put poison in the punch bowl at a party. You don't blame the host for filling the cups or the guy who handed a cup to his date.
The DA in New Mexico passed a law and tried to charge Alex Baldwin 7 months after the shooting. A first law student will tell you this is "Ex Post Facto" and violates the US Constitution. You cannot be charged with a crime after that law has been past. This is why the DA delayed the case for so long, he was out to get Alex Baldwin. Those charges where immediately dropped from the case by the Judge.
No it was the DA in New Mexico he appointed her. In fact, he had to go back to State and get special funding just to hire her. This was a total rail road job from the very top.
@@brynneholt1990 No, as long as the prosecution bring in a bad faith prosecution, they can sue, and the judge already said today, on the criminal court, which require an absolute standard, it may not have been bad faith, but it was very close to it. Which mean in a civil court, which you only need a balance of probability, Baldwin would probably be able to win on a bad faith argument, and if he does, he will win the court case. Just because the judge remedy it by tossing it does not take civil action go away, in fact the judge also said action and sanction was reserved, and it is up to the court to decide.
@@AtomicBuffalo No, she was found criminally responsible because she was reckless and didn't check the blanks properly disregarding procedure which caused the 'mistake' of a live ammo in the gun. Live ammo was in the set... However, it could not be proven that she brought it in herself. The other guy denied he had brought in live ammo himself, and she denied it too. There were arguments that it could have been sabotage etc. They didn't have to prove if she brought it in or not. She should have been able to tell as she handled the ammo. She failed. This evidence would have been damaging to her case. The prosecution should not have bagged it away.
2:02 Prosecutor didn’t consider it “hiding evidence”, she considered it “irrelevant to the case” based on a picture of a few rounds that were sent to her years earlier. Apparently nobody actually examined those rounds until the judge put on rubber gloves, got out her scissors, and cut the evidence bag open. Due to bad camera angles we couldn’t see what became obvious as judge & attorneys stood around and organized those rounds. Prosecutors jaw drops & judge picks up and looks carefully at a certain round. Case flip flops at that moment! I suspect the judge understands more about ammunition than anyone realizes.
@@onkelfabs6408because she’s not allowed to decide what is relevant to the defense and, when they were given evidence this past March, instead of telling the defense, she and the cop filed it under a separate case number. Everything related to the trial should have been linked to the same case number
@@impersnickety7450 to my understanding, the cops did that on their own. They could not attach it to the same case number without a witness statement. And they could not get in said witness statement.
@@onkelfabs6408the investigator testified on the stand that they had conversations with the prosecutors and their supervisors and they all decided to file it under a different case number. So the prosecutors were there and they wilfully withheld it
Yeah.. I bet whoever had the money paid the prosecutor and law enforcement to suppress that evidence so the case would be dismissed or even appealed to get the defendant free after months and months of negative press. Sound totally legit that money talked.
I dont agree. What I believe is that the prosecutor detests men and took her hatred out on Baldwin. I believe that that this case was simply a reflection of society today, " all men bad, all women virtuous victims"
Absolutely agree. They were just looking for a big scalp to hang on their wall. This case was silly to anyone with common sense. Even if it had made it to trial, there would be little chance he would have been convicted. Same if this goes to a civil suit - you’re not going to get 12 people to agree that he was guilty of anything. It wasn’t his responsibility to check the props. Why was the prosecution insisting that it was?
I’m thrilled for Alec Baldwin.😢 However, in Newsweek it says that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed texted and asked the Rust prop supplier named Seth Kenney if she could shoot live ammo out of a prop gun!!! Seth Kenney said that he told her it was a bad idea and doing so "always ends in tears,” as quoted in Newsweek. Did Hannah Gutierrez-Reed put live ammo in the gun that killed and wounded two people on the set of Rust? If she did, her 18 month sentence doesn’t match.
@@shashay1344 I listened through a second time and I still don't hear it explained. It's just supposed to be obvious I guess. In my mind, even if there was video proof that someone sneaked live rounds unto the set (and after all, we know *someone* did do so), it doesn't change the fact that Cooper's rule says you always handle a gun as if it is loaded, never point it at anything you don't intend to destroy, let alone pull the trigger -- and Baldwin did all those things. So I ask again, what is it evidence of? The girl also shows incoherence in saying that it "absolutely" affects Hannah's case as well. This "evidence" was given to her defense counsel before it was given to the prosecutor! So how could it even conceivably be an offense with respect to Hannah?
Whoever was responsible for handing Baldwin a gun with live rounds in knowing the gun was to be discharged during the upcoming film scene should have been in court - not Baldwin
She was already tried and was sentenced for it. The other one responsible the Assistant Director pleaded no contest and is serving time for it too. Baldwin should not have been tried at all as an actor..... but... he will / well the company will be liable in civil suits.
This was a railroading of justice by an overzealous prosecutor who thought she was going to take her 15 minutes and become golden. What a joke. A first year law student could have done better.
Involuntary manslaughter. Basically, he was handed a gun and told it was “cold,” I.e., safe. He didn’t then test it himself to confirm, he trusted the person whose job it was to ensure the gun was safe. Spoiler alert - it had a live round. DA said he should have checked it himself, defense said it wasn’t his job.
The real shame is suppose Baldwin really was criminally responsible for this woman's death--the prosecutorial misconduct would have set him free. That's why this misconduct cannot be tolerated. It not only can send the innocent to prison but allows the guilty to walk out of the courtroom with a smirk on their face knowing they beat the system. Those prosecutors must be disbarred and face charges themselves. Alec Baldwin was not guilty of anything to begin with. It was clearly an accidental death on his part. Now, the armorer will get a new trial and deserves one. This is what happens when one side decides they want to cheat.
Safe gun handling is the responsibility of the person who is holding the weapon. Baldwin has been in enough movies to know regardless of who hands you a prop weapon you always check to see if it is safe, loaded or not and you never, ever point any weapon at another person unless you intend to pull the trigger.
People in her circle will never forget the violation of ethical and legal conduct by the prosecutor. How to irreparably damage your career with one case.
that is why this evidence was so crucial.... it could have worked it's way to figure out the source of that live ammo found on set. We may have to wait until the next trial is set... focus on the provider of the blanks provided to the set.
He is now the most hated guy once again. Rich people get off. They set this up for him to escape the charges while the poor girl sits in prison. COWARD!
yeah I bet. Alec Baldwin probably paid the prosecutors to hide that evidence so his trial would be dismissed. He paid the whole bunch... law enforcement, prosecutors and judge. Your logic seems totally legit!
The state should be looking into all convictions dealt at the hands of prosecutor Kari T. Morrissey. I would hope she gets disbarred, but they're all thick as thieves.
How, in such a short period of time, did the defense team gather evidence that phone calls were not made to the guy that turned over the ammunition? The defense didn't know the prosecution testimony would be that she made numerous calls and attempts to the guy but that he never got back to her.
It wasn't a short time. The information was based on previous records they had on the investigation. Nothing on the records pointed out to something being amiss. It was hidden so nothing would be found. There were no notes saying a 'would be' witness was not answering the calls, nothing saying a 'would be' witness had given evidence that was not sorted or verified to have anything to do with the case etc. Nothing indicating that in any of the records. The defense seems to have known about these rounds... However, the defense is NOT required to disclose evidence to the court. They can hide evidence and is totally legal to do so. The prosecution is OBLIGATED to disclose anything that pertains to the case. They are NOT allowed to decide if is relevant or not.
People seem to forget that Baldwin now has the grounds for a civil lawsuit against the DA's office. Attorneys are costly, and Baldwin has easily spent a couple of million on his lawyer. The dude has every right to go after the legal cost of the trial.
Everyone who thinks this is good your a poor human being! A young woman lost her life because of negligence so sleep well at night! Just hope it’s not your daughter working with these people
No one… and I mean NO ONE, who discharges a firearm, is exempt from KNOWING if said firearm has live ammunition in it. While I agree with what this judge did, Baldwin is culpable of mishandling a firearm that caused the taking of a life.
hahaha... did you read your own comment? ' NO ONE, who discharges a firearm, is exempt from KNOWING if said firearm has live ammunition in it'..... Did he know he had live ammo in it? There should NOT have been any live ammo in set period. There should have been blanks in the gun. Then the actor had NO way of knowing or even imagining in their wildest dreams that the gun had live ammo in it. So.. is he as culpable as you are saying? Your own comment denies that he is culpable.
@@jeanhanner9407 ha ha.. I read your comment, and it is clear you know NOTHING about the proper handling of firearms. Baldwin acted negligently. Period.
Great defense attorney.......Got them caught in a lie.....concealing real evidence.....We love u Alec....My original neighbor ur of mom in Skaneateles NY..We here are so happy ur family ✌❤🌎
I've never understood this case against Baldwin. The props girl who allowed a live gun to be handed over to an actor (& do i remember she'd had live ammo on sets before?) can now appeal???? On what grounds!!?
She can appeal on a technicality. She would be the one walking out due to the suppression of evidence. Even if that evidence would have harmed her case.. This is a case of blatant disregard of the right of justice.
The suggestion is that the live rounds came from the ammo supplier, possibly maliciously as he was not happy she got the job, as these rounds were not disclosed during her trial they will argue she was not able to test that theory in court
I don’t believe this affects Hannah at all. The witness was her witness and her attorney did not use him. When they didn’t call him, he didn’t want to keep the evidence and turned it in to the police.
@@longfang98 No, I meant "set up" as in intentionally hid the evidence etc to get a dismissal with prejudice because they didn't want Baldwin prosecuted to start with, they were only doing it because of public pressure.
Prosecutors would not intentionally do this. Failing to disclose evidence is grounds for serious consequences against a DA (Firing, suspension, disbarment, etc.).
Alec Baldwin needs to thank GOD for a second chance. The first thing him and his entire family need to do is get on their knees and THANK GOD!!! This reminds me a little of the OJ Simpson trial (leaving evidence in the trunk of a car for days).
It just wasn't one incident. Going all the way back to the pretrial hearings there was a consistent theme of the State side not playing fair. I feel that this was the straw that broke the camels back! As for anything happening to them, I doubt it; however, I do feel that Kari self-decision (The judge tried to warn her) to put herself on the stand MAY come back to bite her in Civil Court, but I have seen enough bad behavior by the State in other trials in other States and have yet to see anyone sanctioned nor penalized. I think this is why some prosecutors do it because they know they can get away with it, and if they get caught everyone just looks the other way and forgets about it.
Yes there several and also not just prosecution but for investigations and handling of evidence too. Quite a devious tactic to hide evidence under another case file number rather than submit to the case and state clearly where it came from as they should have done then followed protocol after
@@KryssyskingdomI liked it when the judge asked detective Hancock if Kari Morrissey was involved in the decision to file the new evidence in a separate file and she answered yes! At that point the prosecution case was done! The other prosecutor upon finding out about this decision to hide evidence quit the case as she didn't want to be associated with the misconduct. Erlinda Johnson even told Kari Morrissey to drop the case before quitting the team.
I think her defense was the gun was faulty and it was HER responsibility to ensure no live rounds were on set. The jury being told there were even more live rounds on set might not have helped her. And I think the bullets were given to police the day after her conviction so the DA didn’t get the chance to hide it from her
If judge allowed the case to continue, Alec Baldwin could easily win on appeal. Prosecutors disclosing all evidence to defense is one of the biggest principles of criminal justice. Furthermore, she risked being sanctioned or impeached if she did not dismiss.
The “evidence” was a handful of rounds from a state away, that were never on the set, didn’t match any of the ammo that was on the set, and had nothing to do with the case whatsoever. The ruling today is mind boggling.
@@dannyhvac37 but now looking like this might be true......Kenney admitted he had issues with the daughter of his old friend, but he had no power to fire her from Rust. “It’s not that I wanted her fired, she was doing a horrible job at props … I had mixed feelings about it,” he said. “If I really wanted her fired, I could have gotten her fired.” Also, the weapons and ammunitions supplier could not give definite dates of when he drove back and forth from the 1883 set in Texas to New Mexico, travels that possibly saw ammo moving from one location to another. Defense lawyer Bowles, who has stated on a number of occasions on TV and in court filings that he believes Kenney was at least in part responsible for the live ammo getting on the Rust set, was more than a little incredulous that the supplier had not been able to nail down those important travel dates two years after the on-set shooting.
@@tim3172 In order for there to be a dismissal due to a Brady violation, the “evidence” has to be both material and exculpatory. Those rounds were neither.
@@davidcleveland-yv6my but none of that is relevant to this case. Baldwin was charged with negligent handling of a firearm. Not anything to do with ammo.
She through the ours under the bus trying to blame them when she was the one directing the case. The other three prosecution witnesses testified they were told to file the evidence under a separate case No.
There's a woman who died, and no one is responsible for it. Unbelievable. How can a woman die on a movie set and no one is held accountable because of a technicality in the courtroom.
Yes, I still believe there will be someone held accountable, but Hannah’s case maybe reviewed too as it is on appeal but Justice and Lawlessness do not go hand in hand, Prosecution knew better and day three was about Kari covering her own misconduct not about the victim .. shameful conduct and must be addressed and out of respect is not the way for Justice for Halyna Hutchins
Prosecution cannot be the one to determine what evidence is relevant to the defense and this was deeply underhanded in filing it as a document under a separate case number it was completely devious, they should have submitted it to the case, identified where it came from, notify defendant and send for testing while was so much also wrong with the investigation.. the whole thing was riddled with questionable conduct from investigation to prosecution
Revolvers dont go off on their own. Baldwin was pointing the gun at her and pulled the trigger or pulled the hammer back. Either way it went off. He simply cant admit it. He did it no one else. Its called manslaughter.
When there is a gun related case, prosecutors have to prove weapon and ammo were part of the crime. It is not in this case since testing and disclosure were not done as required.
@@jeanhanner9407 He pointed the gun at a human and pulled the trigger killing the person. He may not have know whether there was a live bullet in there or a fake but that is irrelevant. Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. Firearm safety 101. However, since this is the first time something like this has happened and it was partially the fault of another we should be lenient and allow a truncated sentence. That’s just my opinion. I don’t care if it’s a movie, you’ll never see me point a gun at anything I don’t intend to destroy. Is it possible to argue against this?
@johnqpublic8070 He was one of a dozen producers on the movie and he didn't even hire the armorer. Also, if I'm the auto mechanic who's tool killed a coworker, am I responsible? You failed basic math class in grade school. Tragic that someone died, but Baldwin is a scapegoat. Likely the real killer is on the loose. No surprise that stupid people think that's a good thing.
@@joefish4466 I understand what you are saying about the auto mechanic but firearms have well established rules. I don’t think your analogy is directly comparable. In the court you have to prove what a reasonable person would have done in that situation. A reasonable person would not point a firearm at another human. It’s directly under their control and has safety rules associated with it.
@@matthewmosca3984 So if I point a stapler at a person an the person dies from a staple wound, does that mean I'm a murderer? There was no reason Baldwin should have thought the "gun" could have killed anyone, because a movie gun related death was never a thing. That's why he had an armorer. The fault lies with the armorer or who ever brought live rounds onto the set. Baldwin was not at the gun range. He had no reason to think that it was a dangerous situation. Same reason why I drive by the nuclear power plant, because I don't expect it to go off, because morons don't run the nuclear power plant, unlike you and MAGA hats like you.
All the gun expert/table top attorneys now have to select a new attorney....It was apparent they weren't satisfied with the right person being held accountable..
