Why do they keep going after Baldwin? He hired someone who was the daughter of a famous prop master, who was supposed to know what she was doing. She’s the one that put the live bullets in the gun. Baldwin didn’t know. He thought they were blanks because that’s what they were supposed to be.
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
13 points (81.0% liked)
Legal News
221 readers
94 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
Politics.
The prosecutor is a MAGA Republican type, and they hate Baldwin for being a liberal, basically. Unfortunately they're also incompetent and they got caught intentionally withholding evidence in the previous trial.
For fucks sake - I know a lot of people have some sort of hate boner for Alec Baldwin but let it go already.
How would this not be considered double jeopardy by attempting to try him for a crime that has already been dismissed
It isn't double jeopardy for two reasons. First, he wasn't found "not guilty," the charges were dismissed. Second, this is still the same trial; if they can convince the judge to reconsider then it's back on like it never stopped. They can also appeal the dismissal, which would have the same effect if the appeal is successful.
For context though, what the prosecution did yields with a dismissal with prejudice (if caught). It is the prosecution's duty to ensure that any evidence they have is turned over to the defense. Even if that evidence would tank the prosecution's case. That's the whole point. The state can't just railroad you because they can. They must play fair. What they did is pretty much a textbook Brady violation. I seriously doubt that the judge will reconsider, or that appeals will work. Unless the supreme court wants to fuck that up for us too...
First, he wasn't found "not guilty," the charges were dismissed.
Doesn't matter. Jeopardy attaches when the Jury is sworn in. And the jury has already been dismissed. At best, they can ask for a mistrial at this point. There are some cases where you can get a mistrial that allows for a new jury, but that is pretty much impossible if the mistrial was the prosecutor's fault; even if, on review, a mistrial was not nessasary. Essentially, you do not want prosecutors to deliberately induce a mistrial in order to restart a trial that is not going well.
Further, there is simply no mechanism that allows the judge to even consider this motion, and the prosecutor in her brief did not provide a single theory for why it would be proper to consider the motion. This motion was written for the media, not the judge.
This us not out of character. In the hearing that led to the dismissal, there was a conversation with the judge during the lunch break. It subsequently came out that the judge was inclined to dismiss the case. Following that meating, the prosecutor's co-council quit; and the prosecutor called herself as a witness. On its own, a prosecutor calling herself as a witness (subject to cross examination) is crazy enough. But the judge already told them he was dismissing the case. There was no legal reason for her to do so. The only justification for it was PR. In explaining her decision to call herself she said, on the record (but not under):
Court: It doesn't matter to me weather you call yourself as a witness. It doesn't matter to the defense weather you call yourself as a witness. So, if your calling yourself as a witness, there is no one here that is requiring you to be called as a witness.
Prosecutor: The information. Everything that happened in this regard, especially as it pertains to me, needs to come out in the public