Why did the Judge dismiss the case? 

Lets all not forget that the CPS and Police withheld text messages in a rape case that got the case result overruled. Why did none of them go to jail for perverting justice?

I was a juror in a case where we were directed to formally acquit 13 of the 18 charges, after I had spotted a transaction in a bank statement we had been given and asked the judge, "What's this?". No-one could answer at the time when the judge asked the court. The next morning we were held outside the courtroom for ages, so I presume the trial within a trial was going on. So when we were finally admitted again the judge said, "thanks to a sharp-eyed juror I you must acquit her of the following charges". That was then fatal to the rest of the identical chargers Berghaus it was now clear that nobody with any accounting competence could say if any money was missing or not.

Mmm well it made no sense to charge him in the first place. Clearly he had no intention of harming anyone and had no knowledge that the gun held live rounds.

What a surprise the prosecution withholding evidence. Can you imagine how many people are in jail for this egregious intentional Act?

Setting aside, the failure to disclose, how could anyone in such a high profile case get a fair hearing after all the publicity. For that reason is it not reasonable for a Judge to tell the prosecutors, no second bite at the cherry.

The judge DID discuss whether there had been bad faith. She concluded that there hadn't, but that it came close enough to leave scorch marks (her actual words!)

What I can't understand is why they had live rounds on the set. Very interesting. Many thanks. Great scenery

The importance of disclosure is vital in criminal proceedings. Thats why its a tragedy no sub post master took their trial before a jury. The post office had failed its duty of disclosure.A brave barrister is all that was missing

Well the UK prosecutors have been guilty of the same stuff in MANY cases. So they shouldn’t feel so superior.

The prosecutor also claimed that none of the bullets in the new evidence were similar to the one that caused the death. This turned out to be false. She also claimed not to have seen the police report - also false.

In Scotland, this is called, NOT PROVEN!

Let's cut down through all the BS. Baldwin is an actor who used a "prop" gun that had been checked by two different layers of "safety" people who were responsible for making sure the gun was safe. The actor has to focus on acting and making it look real with a gun that had been checked by two different layers of "safety" people who were responsible for making sure the gun was safe. If the gun is not safe, responsibility lies on the two "safety" people who evidently did not actually check the gun, not the actor. The actor is a victim too. He certainly didn't know he was shooting a real gun, he was shooting a "prop" gun, like he had dozens of times before on the set. The real crime here is why were they using a real, fireable gun? Did they specificly request a real gun and not a prop gun? Who brought the real bullets onto the set? Why were the real bullets in the gun? One story I heard was that somone was out shooting cans or catus or something the day before? WTH? With a prop gun? Even if that's true, the two safety people should have caught that there were real bullets in the gun, PERIOD. That was their job and their responsibility.

In the US defendants are not found “innocent”. They are found “not guilty”. There is a distinction.

OJ and Alec were both found not guilty, and rightly so. Declaring them Innocent is a whole different matter.

I was watching the trial from here in the UK and, with the jury out of the courtroom, I thought the proceedings would become very 'dry'; how wrong I was and I was glad I stayed with it. One point that struck me was when Kari Morrisey, the prosecution counsel, insisted that she give evidence herself to clarify her position. On standing, she asked the judge whether she should speak from her table, whereupon the judge said, 'No, take the stand'!

I watched this too, I,m waiting for the sequel :How to destroy your prosecutorial career in two easy lessons .

Hold on. The defense argued for dismissal on several grounds prior to the prosecution giving evidence. The prosecutor chose to give evidence and it blew up in her face. As a lawyer she made a terrible witness and a massive mistake. She knew the disclosure game was up. Her speech on the stand was ridiculous. Her co prosecutor, who quit on the spot knew it too and left the courtroom. The judge herself opened the evidence bag and made the discovery of evidence under a different case number in the courtroom. The judge then explained in detail her reasons for granting the dismissal motion. All the ALEC Baldwin haters need to go watch the entire footage before slamming him. As a side note- Baldwin was not the only producer on that movie. They also carry responsibility? Hmm.

I love your relaxed approach to these videos. Also apprecaite the concise explanation. Thankyou

A few posters need to Google "the presumption of innocence" - and the thumbnail should lose the scare quotes. He's not been found guilty, so he's innocent.

What is interesting/significant about this buried lead is, had the New Mexico authorities allowed ATF (Alcohol tobacco &Firearms a branch of the federal law enforcement) to participate or be involved. Now that this disclosure (I believe) have some interstate element, being that some munitions were in AZ, the federal authorities might enter and rip this open. It is quite unnerving that the munitions company Starline, supposedly manufacturer of non lethal rounds, may have been making material that could be modified or have not been limiting themselves to that scope, is called into question. I believe someone in your country once said "come Watson, the game is afoot"

I think one of the reasons for the 'with prejudice' dismissal was that it had already failed previously. And that there were other irregularities. While justice may not have been exercised here for the victim necessarily, the prosecution seemed so flawed, there could be little faith that other unknown faults may not have been made in procedure or in evidence in favour of the prosecution. Personally, I think it was the right call. The attitude of the technician and prosecutor while giving evidence about the disclosure failure didn't seem forthcoming or unbiased to me. The prosecutor defended the non disclosure while she should have recognised the gravity of the error. Because of that the judge could not trust that other prejudicial failures had not taken place and that the investigation and evidence was not now tainted. Good call. I think the judge might call for an investigation into the Brady violation with possible sanctions for gross incompetence or bad faith if it's found. It's important, you have to trust the investigators and members of the bar.

Thank you! Beautiful location- loved the sound of the sea waves at the end.

I think it was a waste of time and money that Alec Baldwin was indicted on any charges. He was always 100% innocent. The armourer checked that gun, and the assistant director, he was told it was a cold gun. It's not his fault in anyway whatsoever.

The trial was dismissed and justly so. Watching the prosecutor try to justify her actions IN THE WITNESS BOX was very dramatic.

I worked for a port authority in Australia - the captain is still ultimately "responsible" although the pilot can be charged/dismissed etc...

We got cut off at Burgh Island once, walked over, had a mooch around, got a pint, barman said we'd better get a shift on as the tide was coming in, so we started back, and the tide came in quite quickly so we ended up wading.

Good evening to you. Lushington.....a marvellous name and easy on the tongue. A lovely video again, keeping my interest to the end. I do appreciate your brief explanations of vocabulary as it goes along. Thank you. 😊.

I first came across you when you appeared on a Black Belt Barrister piece. He has recently posted about an insurance company that is failing to disclose some information. I commented the similarity with the Post Office. Now, you have explained another disclosure issue and also link to the Post Office. Perhaps we should both keep tabs on BBB's continuing efforts to have the redacted material released.

I think letting the prosecution to "have another go" at it wouldn't work as dissuasion for withholding evidence. What stops the prosecution from hiding evidence from other cases? This evidence was sufficiently well hidden that it was only revealed because someone new came on the team and didn't know it was supposed to be hidden. This prosecutor cost the state a very public case, and has also put the other convictions in jeopardy, and that is going to be a big slap on the wrist to discourage prosecutors from doing that in the future. Most prosecutors will bend over backwards to make sure all their requirements are met because there is a real penalty. I wouldn't be surprised if every single conviction in her career has appeals swamping the court system looking for hidden evidence. As for the families, they're still able to sue civilly and get monetary damages.

With your knowledge and videos you are making me a wiser person. I could listen to you all day,,,, THANK YOU 🙏 🙏

Absolutely splendid advice for Law students who are striving to become part of the legal system in the future. Jurisprudence ... whilst important ... THIS is the reality of day to day practice ... 👍 @ Art of Law

Gorgeous backdrop 😊

Baldwin wasn't the "Producer" of the film, he was an executive producer ... a big difference

Firstly let’s get the flattery out of the way, I love your videos. Since hearing Baldwin was going to be prosecuted I’ve wondered why? Surly the criminal negligence was the armorer’s. Baldwin is just an actor and relies on the armorer telling him it’s safe. When I did A’ Level Law, many years ago, I remember the term ‘mens rea’ or ‘guilty mind’ being central in any criminal prosecution. That was totally lacking in this case. I live in Devon and there’s lots of little bays like yours, I loved you dog walking story… beautiful dog too.

Corruption

In the USA the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. Jeopardy attaches once a jury has been sworn in or when the first witness is sworn in during a bench trial. For the most part unless there is a hung jury or misconduct on the defense side the trial cannot be repeated.

Actually the prosecution can Appeal, but there is no grounds for it. The Sheriff's department was Biased from the start they lied.

Judge Judy eat your heart out you’ve got nothing on this guy,,,, keep it up!!!!

You're confused. He was not found innocent. The case was dismissed because of evidence that was hidden from the defense. This evidence in no way had any effect on whether or not Baldwin pulled the trigger. I do not believe the case should have been dismissed with prejudice.

This is the best channel 🎉

Ever Given in Suez Canal pilots come under scrutiny after grounding of ship?

You could read a telephone directory and make it sound interesting!

In the United States, the prosecution does not represent victims or families; the represent the People of the State or the United States as a whole depending on the court's jurisdiction.

Attempting to frame someone, just like the Post office did.

Alex Spiro saw the blood in the water--and went in like a shark at the end. He hammered Morrissey on her negative comments about Baldwin directly TO witnesses demonstrating--clearly--evidence supporting bad faith. Morrissey did not and could not deny. She only said she could not recall.

I believe there was also the factor that the prosecution was, arguably, politically influenced. A Special Prosecutor in the case was standing for election to the New Mexico House of Representatives. This did not go down well with the judge.

I had been following the "Rust Trial" since this tragedy occurred. I know very little about Law, hence why I enjoy watching this channel and BlackBeltBarrister... And I know even less about US Law, but one thing I have become keenly aware of about US Law is they do love a show... US Lawyers obviously like any Lawyer are in a Business and in Business you want to get noticed to increase your profits... So, as an outsider - My personal opinion is something never sat right about this! Could Baldwin be considered Negligent and even be considered Guilty of "Involuntary Manslaughter"? - Yes, its plausible on the face of it... Yet to me there woudl be an additional factor I woudl want to take into account had I been sat on a Jury... as it was Involuntary - Does the defendant have any guilt or remorse? Alec Baldwin has indeed been through HELL since this incident... N matter his excuses as to him never actually pulling teh trigger, which given the type of firearm that was being used - Doubtful but it is Plausible... YES, He has more or less already been punished, he will be punished for the rest of his life! He will live with the guilt of taking a life he never intended to take! It is unfortunate that Baldwin was holding the weapon that caused the death... But it was for want of a better word for him at least a "Tragic Accident" As for that Evidence the Prosecution failed to disclose... I think I have kind of gave it away that I have used Prop Firearms in the past ... The props I used though you could easily tell a live round from a Blank... As the Props used a Far Lower Calibre Blank than an actual weapon of the period woudl have fired. I woudl hazard a guess that on a movie set, There should be some kind of identifying Marker on Blank Rounds - Especially when they are using what would otherwise be a "Live Weapon" For the defence, The Question woudl be could Alec Baldwin have known just by Holding the weapon and drawing the Hammer back that what was in the Gun was NOT a Black Cartridge... And if they could have proven there was NO WAY he could have known just by a cursory viewing - Any form of Manslaughter Charge would be null and void! Manslaughter presumes that you MUST HAVE some idea that something may be unsafe... That you are being irresponsible! But having an Armour on set - That responsibility is THEIRS! I feel the Prosecutors were desperate to see Alec Baldwin found Guilty for reasons of media attention with no disrespect intended - Again, I understand their position, but the Trial was as so many American trials are Televised, It was going attention, and had they won... As a Business, their profits woudl have indeed benefited! For American Viewers - Maybe now you understand why here in the UK we are still very averse to Televised Trials... Lawyers be they defence or Prosecution are there to do ONE SINGLE JOB in a Court... The Courts understand they are a Business, but in that room they are there to dispense justice... Not gain Popularity, Not increase Shareholder Interest! I am thankful the person MOST RESPONSIBLE for these deaths has been found Guilty... The fact that there was evidence that suggested they had been using Live Rounds between Takes... TOTALLLY IRESPONSIBLE of an Armourer! That should NEVER HAPPEN, EVER! As for Alec Baldwin, He has to live with the Guilt that he indeed did kill someone innocent... He never intended it, It should never have happened but that guilt will live with him for the rest of his life - My Honest Opinion, He should never have been on trial in the first place Except of maybe charges of Negligence and not doing enough background checks into the staff that were hired. 8:08 Hmmmm... It seems the Judge in the case might be as "Distrustful" as I am... Putting aside personal beliefs, I feel "Dismissing With Prejudice" is sending the wrong message unless the Judge has VERY GOOD REASON to believe that the Prosecution DELIEBERATLY WITHHELD this evidence! I am very distrustful these days - I often say "Trust no one, Not even Yourself!" hence my opening lines about Being a Lawyer in the US being a Business first... Yet I find that without a definitive statement form teh Judge as to if they felt the "Lack of Disclosure was deliberate" - This in my view was a bad judgement!

Wonderful . Thank you

Please do more on “professional embarrassment” as it should be more widely known 😮

I did find this very interesting and informative. Thank you. My sister and I, with our children had a similar experience to your beach / sea exploration at a small inlet. Our season was Winter too, but in Australia this was winter. Waist high water was still scary for us. I enjoy your explanations scenery very much indeed.❤❤❤

The disclosure rules are strict and long standing in the uk it doesn’t have to be deliberate failure if it’s wrong that’s it. Not allowing a retrial is perhaps unusual but fairness must be paramount

Seems a bizarre decision to dismiss _with prejudice_ on these grounds! Declaring a mistrial or indeed dismissing without prejudice seem like reasonable courses of action, but procedural failings on the part of the prosecution wouldn't appear to have any bearing on the material facts of the case... Seems like an appeal would stand a good chance of reversing the decision, but to be honest I'm surprised the prosecution ever thought they had a case worth trying in the first place.

What I don't understand is how an entire trial can be thrown away on the basis of a clerical error involving certain undisclosed "evidence" without any consideration of the exculpatory or probative value of that evidence? If that evidence had been filed under the correct case number it would have been disclosed to the defence. The prosecutor who took the witness stand displayed a photograph showing that the ammunition handed in was not of the same type as the fatal bullet and moreover had been in another state during the relevant time period. It doesn't seem right that the mere fact of a failure to disclose should derail a trial.

Two tiers of justice in America !!!

Interesting to hear the differences between the U.S. and British systems. Even in the U.S., though, Brady violations rarely lead to dismissal with prejudice. Judges have wide discretion to craft other remedies, and they often will find that the evidence in question was not material. In this case, though, the deliberate hiding of the material was considered so egregious by the judge that no other remedy would suffice. And once the jury has been sworn in, jeopardy has attached and a dismissal without prejudice isn’t possible.

One thing that bother's me, is how that "live" round ended up in that weapon? Did someone set him up to give him a scare, and it went horrible wrong?

Should not have gone to trial to begin with. It was an accident, a tragic one but still an accident.

So isn’t that basically the same ethical principle that Baldwin faced himself at an analogous level ? The prosecution who had personal responsibility to ensure the “safety” of the prosecution but failed because of the negligence of a subordinate charged with the responsibility of their role to disclose evidence is comparable to the role where Baldwin as producer employed someone to ensure the safety of the on set weapons.

It’s a small legal distinction, but dismissing charges does not declare him innocent. There is no innocent verdict in the legal system there is only a guilty or not guilty verdict. Dismissing charges typically means that they were invalid charges to begin with or they don’t have the proof that they can bring to court to win a guilty verdict.

I know offically the defence didn't know about the ammo that was turned in but the defence lawyer knew word for word what conversation took place during the handover before the sudden appearance of the body cam footage. What isn't that proof they had knowledge of the evidence and could have pursued it if they didn't want to use it as a means of getting the case dismissed?

Does a British jury HAVE to follow the judge's direction to acquit if asked to?

Correction required, (if you wish.) Access to the beach/mining tunnel must be at low tide, not high tide as stated. Add caption to correct ? By the way, I love your northern accent, and I am proud of you for retaining it, especially in your profession where it could be a disadvantage for you. Where are you from ?

I would have thought it difficult to prove him guilty anyway, but since we didn't here the evidence it's hard to say. Usually it's the fault of the armourer to check and make sure the gun is loaded with blanks that will do no harm. The actor cannot be expected to be an expert in guns and bullets so would not know the difference. I would have thought, but hey, it will never be known now.

Alan if that ever happens again call the coastguard you could have been washed out to sea

Any firearms instructor will teach actors to aim away from anyone, as you will have a discharge and that it could also be live (H/S), actors that have real guns will know this ....Never point at anyone.

I dont understand how if new evidence has come forward that the judge can dismiss the case and never allow it to be retrialled! Yes I understand this case has to be cancelled because of the deceptions going on but it should be allowed to be reopened as a new case due to the evidence that was not disclosed. What about police investigations? If this is new evidence shouldn't it be reinvestigated from a police perspective?

How very interesting. Thank you so much for explaining this. Already, I've been seeing a lot of commentary online that the judge's dismissal of the case was the elites defending one of their own. I don't like Alec Baldwin and I feel that he holds 'some' responsibility for the accident on his set as producer. That said, I like to be fair in my judgements and I felt from the very beginning that to accuse a man of murder just because he happened to be the one to pull the trigger was wrong when one weighs the circumstances of this tragic accident. I believe this was an accident or, at worst, negligence by the armourer. A live bullet on a film set should have never even existed. I don't think that even the armourer should have been convicted for this crime, however awful it was for the innocent victim. I think everyone in this tragedy was a victim of something .... incompetence, negligence (to some extent), sheer accidental inclusion of the fatal bullet among the dummies and blanks. I think this was just one of those flukes of fate, where something goes wrong when it shouldn't have. Can you blame anyone for an accident? I don't think so. I'm glad, in a way, that Alec Baldwin's case was dismissed, no matter how nasty a narcissistic individual he might be. It would have been a worse injustice to convict him of a crime that he never really committed.

The mess known by some as the US Justice system has yet again, denied the victims justice but while I wanted Baldwin to answer the evidence, I fully support the Judge's reaction to one of the countless Brady suppressions US prosecutors use to railroad innocent defendants on a constant basis.

"Cold Gun.."

Alec Baldwin will carry the guilt of the young woman's death with him for the rest of his life. I don't think he has got away with anything.

Where did the "innocent" come from? The charge was dismissed on the basis of procedural definitions. He has neither guilty nor innocent.

I followed this trial on YT,, @6:55 A mistrial they already had last year , jury could not come to to a full agreement , hence 👉🏻 mistrial,, this trial occasion was a 👉🏻 retrial , and the non-disclosed /hidden evidence which was brought into the trial and examined the box with document enclosed with ammunition , it found that the bullets did NOT come from that gun , hence if they had that evidence at the first pretrial , there would be NO TRIAL, the evidence and document of examination findings ,, was logged on another previous trial ,,,, see below trial also not disclosed then of another trial on the same location of a woman found guilty of putting live ammunition on the tray,,, and found guilty ,and serving a sentence in prison ,, now why was this not disclosed AT that trial of that woman convicted ,this will now be brought up of that conviction proves that lady would not be found guilty or even went to trial,, the problem with some of the state in USA , better too pleased guilty for lesser sentence even if you did not commit that office hence in UK PACE was introduced , (with code of practice ) even that gets abused Heads are going to roll here ,, especially there was a "conspiracy between proception and 3 police officers "" caught on BWV 🤷‍♂ on this case hence as it was the 2nd trial and hidden evidence was not from the guns used ,, Judgement had to be "without prejudice " it would only be torturous procedure to have a 3rd trial until they get what they want 🤷‍♂ love your watching your platform , squire , thankyou 👍🏻👌

Innocent and not guilty are two different matters.

It was astounding. I watched day 3 three times. The prosecutor seemed to unravel during the day, contradicted her witness' testimony, and continued to insist that the evidence (under consideration) was not relevant to the case. It is NOT--by law--the prosecution's determination of how the defense argues. She went legally bonkers. She left no alternative but for a dismissal.

Other people commenting on US coverage said that the random block who turned up with bullets claiming to be from Rust was a friend of the armourer's father, and was handed in after her trial in Feb / Mar '24, not soon after it happened. I just feel so sorry for the cinematographer's family. Baldwin didn't need the gun for what they were doing. He did not show any regard for gun safety, regardless of whether he believed the gun was safe or not.

Thank you.

It was called Rust, not Dust.

Cheers once again! You could easily be employed on the set of DUST ...or RUST ?...with your outfit today Alan 😅😊 GORGEOUS backdrop x

I like your couldn't give a toss about the youtube stuff. I have no idea what happened on therust set but I cannot imagine in anyway that someone would expect a gun on a film set to have live ammunition, so I don;t understand why Alec had a case to answer anyway.

The judge could have ruled it a mistrial. However, the prosecution had established a pattern of disclosure violations. Interestingly, the defense knew about this disclosure failure ahead of the trial but took a different approach this time, waiting until after the jury was seated and jeapardy had attached.

Loadsa money cures most things.

Rust (not Dust)

Beautiful dog, beautiful place. Great vlog. Thanks.

Seth Kenny brought the live rounds on set.

In films guns are used with the understanding that they are safe as when guns are handled as if the are always dangerous and loaded but how could you ever film a shoot out were guns are always treated as safe to show the needed realism of a real shoot out that’s why you have a armorer to assure this he could only be found guilty if he knew this person was incompetent

Very good! Did you say an "alvin plea"? US Courts have an Alford plea. There is an implication that you are innocent if you choose that, you let the prosecutor have their win but you claim innocence. They are rare. There is also a no contest plea or nolo contendere. They are much more common and amount to a guilty plea.I think they also have a voir dire in England but are very rare. Great video and the backdrop is fantastic

Not innocent, but not tried unfairly as to process. No justice for Helyna though

Wow, this guy really sucks at analogies! No, Mr. Baldwin didn't shoot anyone. He says he didn't pull the trigger, and no evidence suggests otherwise. The gun was there for a movie, not to shoot someone. The fact that live ammunition was anywhere on-set was the inexcusable breach of conduct, not Mr. Baldwin's acting. Making a movie is nothing like operating a ship. But if you want to draw parallels, the DIRECTOR is like the ship's captain. It's a poor analogy, but since you made it, the producer would be akin to the ship's owner. And the owner isn't criminally responsible for the misconduct of a licensed crew. Under no circumstance would a ship's captain ever be held criminally responsible for an underling who disobeyed orders. That's not how chain of command works. OTOH if a ship's captain (this time the licensed prosecutor) steered her ship to try to harm an innocent person in a lifeboat, that _is_ a crime with malice of forethought.

in the real world you never point a gun at anybody. A movie set is a rarified place where some rules are different. You only want experts responsible for the safety of guns. The last person to check the weapon should be an expert, not an actor who may not know what they are looking at. Saying "the actor should check the gun" adds a weak link to the chain.

How do you know what you defense is, necessarily, when you don't have all the evidence? That in itself is prejudicial against the accused

What about non disclosure in civil, even after discovery is done, and closed.

The post office shows why the American system is fundamentally more reasonable in this particular regard

He was not practicing , he was actually filming a scene. That is why the director and the DOP were hit, they were standing where the camera was filming to see the view of the scene ass filmed. Regarding his demeanour when the dismissal was announced, you can’t judge his physical reaction because it was not a pre-meditated act. He pulled the trigger in the act of playing a role as an actor in a scene. From footage that has been released through the press (which IMO should not have been), you can clearly see he is shook up and feels guilt as he was the one holding the gun, so from his personal experience he will feel guilt without any admission of guilt. He also has been (unfairly IMO) put through the ringer in this case unfairly as he was filming a scene and it was during that act that the gunshot happened. The only possible reason to prosecute him would be in his role as producer on the movie, and they were not doing that as there are more than one producer on the movie and they all should have been prosecuted. The entire trial has been a sham show trial against Baldwin by prosecutors to raise their own profile. The evidence that was suppressed and hidden away is evidence of how the live rounds got onto the set, and therefore presents strong doubt that it was Baldwin that did this and gives a very plausible way for the defence to create doubt, and point the finger at any number of other people as the culprit. It was a crucially devastating piece of evidence and had it been known when he was charged would likely not have not gone ahead with the trial because of said doubt. So this evidence being hidden shows how much the trial was all about the prosecutor’s PR status and not about finding justice. Though the armourer has been found guilty in her trial, IMO she is guilty for failing to ensure the gun did not have live ammunition in it, but her conviction should be investigated further as if this evidence was not present for Baldwin’s trial, then it was likewise not present for hers. She failed it her job, but having found live ammunition on the set it raises the question if this was done by someone maliciously and intentionally, in which case the argument can be made that someone circumvented her role - and not knowing those bullets had been found would have affected her defence strategy had those been in evidence. I’m not saying her conviction should automatically be quashed, but she clearly did not receive a fair trial, it raises doubt about that prosecution and needs to be investigated.

Multiple Concordance theory , when a series of un lightly events coincide and result in an out come that happens too be overly convenient to a particular party or interest . Nothing to see here move along . 😊

If the prosecution has to share evidence with the defence does it work the other way round?

Silly case, the films armourers are surely responsible, and in good faith Alex Baldwin just did what the script said, he's an actor, not a murderer

There's no plausible theory of the case in which Baldwin, in his capacity as an actor, would have been responsible for live rounds being in the prop gun. Some have suggested he should have checked the gun himself, which flies in the face of longstanding safety practices with firearms on a film set. Actors are not expected to be gun experts (Baldwin isn't), and having them opening up and checking magazines is actually forbidden. Baldwin was told this was a safe prop, and he handled it as such. He should never have been charged. There is the other theory of the case in which Baldwin would have been responsible for the armorer given he was a producer (note: A producer, not THE producer; there were multiple producers on the film, including another who hired the armorer). This was already dismissed before the whole suppressed evidence issue came up. I'll repeat - Baldwin never should have been charged in this case.

I prefer the American system

He wasn't found innocent. The trial was canceled for prosecutorial misconduct. Baldwin pointed the gun and pulled the trigger, two actions that were unsafe and inappropriate for what was to be a blocking sequence. His recklessness killed Halyna. I feel sorry for her family.

It is very rare in the US. The FBI and US Attorney lying in the Bundy case lead to dismissal in 2018, but I can't think of too many others. Judges don't like to do this i the US, but sometimes the bad faith of the government is too overwhelming to allow.