NM v Alec Baldwin 7/8/2024

[Metal god]

They were given to law-enforcement during the Reed trial EDIT : maybe right after . Regardless WAY before this one started . If you wanna link, watch the last 2 1/2 hours of the Baldwin trial. In that hearing, they explain all of that. in short, the guy who turned over that evidence was watching the Reed trial and realized he may have some pertinent evidence . he then drove from I think Arizona to give law-enforcement in New Mexico. The evidence he believed may be helpful. .


The prosecution must disclose all evidence period . It does not matter who and or if either side plans to use it . Every picture , everything collected is evidence. Just because there is evidence does not mean you must, should or need to present it at trial . I’m sure maybe half if not more evidence collected was not used or even relevant . That’s the point of the dismissal , the prosecution does not get to choose for the defense what is pertinent to the defenses case .

As for exculpatory , in the dismissal, hearing the defense sighted a case that was dismissed due to evidence being withheld, and that evidence was inculpatory meaning the evidence withheld proved the client did what the prosecution alleged . Again, if you need a link, watch the last two hours of the Baldwin case . It might be more than that I don’t know.

 

[The Verminator]

The fact that they were "random" cartridges from the supplier is precisely why they could be relevant. Most of the cases had dimpled primers, indicating that they were dummy rounds loaded in previously fired cases. Some of the primers were not dimpled, which would mean that at least the primers were live (which they should not be in dummy rounds), and that the rounds were very possibly live rounds. The value to the defense was that if the supplier had boxes of dummy rounds that included some live rounds on the shelf at his place of business, it's not unreasonable to accept that he might have sent similar boxes of dummies with a few live rounds to the movie set.

So IF the ammo brought in by Troy Teske was in a box marked "dummies" that contained live ammo.......(which I haven't heard before) How would anybody know that Troy Teske hadn't faked it and put that box together himself?

Teske, Reed or someone else could have gotten a box of dummies and inserted some live rounds into it.

Therefore it couldn't prove anything.

Which was why I understood the Reed Defense had rejected it as irrelevant (and a rather blatant but stupid attempt to help Reed at the last minute).

But, if you have information that conflicts with this information........

Please share and help clear this up.

Thanks.

 

[The Verminator]

They were given to law-enforcement during the Reed trial . If you wanna link, watch the last 2 1/2 hours of the Baldwin trial. In that hearing, they explain all of that. in short, the guy who turned over that evidence was watching the Reed trial and realized he may have some pertinent evidence . he then drove from I think Arizona to give law-enforcement in New Mexico. The evidence he believed may be helpful. .


The prosecution must disclose all evidence period . It does not matter who and or if either side plans to use it . Every picture , everything collected is evidence. Just because there is evidence does not mean you must, should or need to present it at trial . I’m sure maybe half if not more evidence collected was not used or even relevant . That’s the point of the dismissal , the prosecution does not get to choose for the defense what is pertinent to the defenses case .

As for exculpatory , in the dismissal, hearing the defense sighted a case that was dismissed due to evidence being withheld, and that evidence was inculpatory meaning the evidence withheld proved the client did what the prosecution alleged . Again, if you need a link, watch the last two hours of the Baldwin case . It might be more than that I don’t know.

Ok, thanks for that.

Although I won't have time to watch two and a half hours of the Baldwin trial.......I'll take your word for it that the answer may be there.



It would prove that this evidence would have been easily discredited on cross examination by the fact that anybody could have inserted live rounds into a box of dummies.

And, of course, being that the guy who brought in the evidence was a friend of the Reed family he would have a strong motive to put together the fake box of ammo.

But, discredited or not, and useless as it was........I'd have to admit that this would qualify as evidence and thus would be subject to the Brady decision rule.

So I now agree--at least with that particular part of the whole disgusting miscarriage of justice.

 

[stagpanther]

Although there was some entertainment value in watching that ignorant judge painstakingly studying the cartridges with gloves on and finally determining that some random .45 Colt cartridges from the supplier were indeed similar to the .45 Colt cartridges used on the "Rust" set.

Well........duh. Of course they would be..........similar.

But even if they were identical.........what could it prove?

That's the big question that nobody has answered.

You should be directing your anger towards the proper direction--the prosecutor.

 

[44 AMP]

You should be directing your anger towards the proper direction--the prosecutor.

IF and only IF the prosecutor is the proper direction.

All we know is what was done, we do not yet know why. We have the defense's accusation that it was intentional, and the judge's ruling that it was enough to toss the case, with prejudice.

I forget who's "razor" it is, but there's a saying about how we should not automatically assume malice in what could be explained by simple incompetence or stupidity.

There ought to be an investigation into the entire matter, to see if it can be determined which it is.

There has been a huge amount of things since the shooting that were not done in "a manner above reproach" on the part of the govt, and the defense has been hammering every one they have found (which is, of course, their job) and that has resulted in the case being tossed.

Certain circumstances were beyond law enforcement control, but mis or malfeasance in the prosecutor's office isn't one of them.

It is unlikely to matter much in the court of public opinion, but I would like to point out that the case being tossed is not the same thing as Baldwin being found innocent.

 

[roscoe]

IF and only IF the prosecutor is the proper direction.

All we know is what was done, we do not yet know why. We have the defense's accusation that it was intentional, and the judge's ruling that it was enough to toss the case, with prejudice.

I forget who's "razor" it is, but there's a saying about how we should not automatically assume malice in what could be explained by simple incompetence or stupidity.

There ought to be an investigation into the entire matter, to see if it can be determined which it is.

There has been a huge amount of things since the shooting that were not done in "a manner above reproach" on the part of the govt, and the defense has been hammering every one they have found (which is, of course, their job) and that has resulted in the case being tossed.

Certain circumstances were beyond law enforcement control, but mis or malfeasance in the prosecutor's office isn't one of them.

It is unlikely to matter much in the court of public opinion, but I would like to point out that the case being tossed is not the same thing as Baldwin being found innocent.

In an American court, the defendant isn't 'proven' innocent, even in an acquittal. A defendant 'is' innocent until conviction. At least in the eyes of the law.

 

[The Verminator]

IF and only IF the prosecutor is the proper direction.

All we know is what was done, we do not yet know why. We have the defense's accusation that it was intentional, and the judge's ruling that it was enough to toss the case, with prejudice.

I forget who's "razor" it is, but there's a saying about how we should not automatically assume malice in what could be explained by simple incompetence or stupidity.

There ought to be an investigation into the entire matter, to see if it can be determined which it is.

There has been a huge amount of things since the shooting that were not done in "a manner above reproach" on the part of the govt, and the defense has been hammering every one they have found (which is, of course, their job) and that has resulted in the case being tossed.

Certain circumstances were beyond law enforcement control, but mis or malfeasance in the prosecutor's office isn't one of them.

It is unlikely to matter much in the court of public opinion, but I would like to point out that the case being tossed is not the same thing as Baldwin being found innocent.

You are correct.

I'm going to suspend all comment for now.

We just had an assassination attempt on President Trump.

We can get back to this later.

 

[44 AMP]

In an American court, the defendant isn't 'proven' innocent, even in an acquittal. A defendant 'is' innocent until conviction.

I didn't say "proven innocent" I said "found innocent" meaning a finding by a jury.

Also (again, legal experts, correct me if I'm mistaken), I don't think the accused IS innocent, I believe they are "presumed innocent". The presumption of innocence means the accused gets the benefit of the doubt. It is a small matter of words, but words to matter, and matter a great deal in legal affairs.

 

[JohnKSa]

The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The presumption is reality unless/until the state can present sufficient evidence to dispel the presumption beyond a reasonable doubt.

Juries do not find people 'innocent'. The choices are 'guilty' and 'not guilty'. A finding of 'not guilty' means that the state was unable to present sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It means that the defendant will not be penalized and that they can not be tried again for that crime.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I didn't say "proven innocent" I said "found innocent" meaning a finding by a jury.

Also (again, legal experts, correct me if I'm mistaken), I don't think the accused IS innocent, I believe they are "presumed innocent". The presumption of innocence means the accused gets the benefit of the doubt. It is a small matter of words, but words to matter, and matter a great deal in legal affairs.

As JohnKSa has already commented, juries don't find defendants to be "innocent," they find them to be "not guilty." Implicit in that is a qualification -- especially in cases where the jury has difficulty agreeing on a verdict: "not [proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be] guilty."

A finding of "Not Guilty" does not mean that a defendant is innocent. I have no doubt whatsoever that, in the two and a half centuries of the United States, more than a few guilty parties have been acquitted because the state couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[JohnKSa]

I have no doubt whatsoever that, in the two and a half centuries of the United States, more than a few guilty parties have been acquitted because the state couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is actually the intent. The system is set up to err on the side of allowing the guilty to go free in an attempt to make sure that no innocent persons are ever convicted. The idea was that it was far more important to protect the innocent than to punish the guilty.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...guilty-persons-go-free-one-innocent-person-be

"the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer" William Blackstone 1769

“It is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” U.S. Supreme Court, 1895

"It is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer." Benjamin Franklin

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I have no doubt whatsoever that, in the two and a half centuries of the United States, more than a few guilty parties have been acquitted because the state couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is actually the intent. The system is set up to err on the side of allowing the guilty to go free in an attempt to make sure that no innocent persons are ever convicted. The idea was that it was far more important to protect the innocent than to punish the guilty.

Certainly that is the intent, and I did not imply otherwise. My point was to reinforce that courts do not find defendants "innocent," they only find them "not guilty."

Defense attorneys (other than Perry Mason) do not prove their clients innocent, they only convince juries that the prosecution hasn't proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[mehavey]

See "Blackstone's Ratio"

also Franklin and Adams commentary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio

 

[stagpanther]

It's been 40 years or so since I took statistics for my MBA--but I remember we had one case study that examined probabilities in outcomes in homicide trials. The possible verdicts are guilty or not guilty (and whatever permutations of those conditions you want to call them)--but the penalties associated to them under the law are vastly consequential--up to and including death. Because of the seriousness of a potential guilty verdict--death cannot be appealed or retried--the law leans toward absolute and undoubted conviction involving homicide. So, from a statistical point of view, a 10% probability that a guilty person escapes conviction is still desirable over a 1% probability that an innocent person is wrongfully imprisoned for a long time or sentenced to death.

PS--I wrote this before reading the Blackstones thing above--which I think says more or less the same thing.

 

[44 AMP]

I am going to close this thread, not because we have "more important things" to talk about and not to stifle anyone's "free speech" but because the "signal to noise ratio has tipped to unacceptable levels, and, the case is closed, dismissed with prejudice, and that is a done deal, so I don't see any further discussion in this thread being anything useful.

If you disagree, you are free to open another thread to discuss this particular topic.