NM eh?
Was Jimmy McGill or Saul Goodman sitting at the defense’s table?
Was Jimmy McGill or Saul Goodman sitting at the defense’s table?
Alec Baldwin cops a walk
- Thread starter robertrwalsh
- Start date
LVSteve
Member
I agree, I cannot see how this ammo could have helped Baldwin. But is the judge permitted to make that decision? What I found telling is that one of the prosecutors quit just hours before the judge scrubbed the trial. On TV on the court steps she said, "I had not no knowledge of this box of ammo before today." Somebody admitted that ammo into the case as evidence for it to be tested. That a lead prosecutor was never informed (apparently) shows how clueless somebody in that organization must be.
I'm now going to PO a bunch of people, so brace yourselves. Repeatedly in the US we have cases where small jurisdictions simply don't have the smarts and/or experience to deal with high profile/difficult cases. Too often they get help that is too little and/or too late, assuming they have enough sense to swallow their pride and realize they are out of their depth. By then some old, inappropriate, way of doing things has already happened, and the evidence of it sits there like an armed landmine. Once triggered, any defense attorney with two brain cells to rub together has his/her way in.
Last edited:
UncleEd
Member
This seems like a sentiment from someone who has never seen an action movie made in the last 100 years and more.
Doug M.
Member
Chain of evidence goes to weight not admissibility. I do not expect the media generally to report accurately on something of this nature; a lot of lawyers without criminal practice experience don't get it. I personally can't see any potentially exculpatory value to this "evidence", but that may be because the reporting not good.
Regardless - the correct answer is always to disclose, and then argue the legal and factual issues in the proper manner. I seems that one could conclude that the desire for a conviction that Baldwin earned outweighed the proper analysis of what to do. That is never a good thing.
Regardless - the correct answer is always to disclose, and then argue the legal and factual issues in the proper manner. I seems that one could conclude that the desire for a conviction that Baldwin earned outweighed the proper analysis of what to do. That is never a good thing.
Pisgah
Member
Unquestionably, Alec Baldwin is responsible for the death of one person and serious injury of another; whether or not that was a criminal act will never be known, BECAUSE THE CRIMINALITY OF THE PROSECUTION WAS EXPOSED.
Baldwin "got away with it" only in the sense he won't see jail time, but he'll pay in the civil court and before the throne of his Maker. I just hope the prosecutor will pay at least as heavy a price by the utter loss of her credibility and career -- and that prosecutors nationwide will take heed.
Baldwin "got away with it" only in the sense he won't see jail time, but he'll pay in the civil court and before the throne of his Maker. I just hope the prosecutor will pay at least as heavy a price by the utter loss of her credibility and career -- and that prosecutors nationwide will take heed.
How could this help Baldwin? Poison pill. That someone accepted a box of ammo into evidence with no chain of custody two years after the fact in a high -profile prosecution is more than enough to plausibly question the rest of the ammo evidence. At best, that’s questionable; at worst, that taints a critical set of evidence with direct bearing on the prosecution’s case. A questioning mind would ask our LE members here whether that kind of activity is ordinary or extraordinary. A suspicious mind would view that kind of activity as a deliberate act with intent. We’ll likely never know that box of ammo came from; rotten in the state of Denmark.
Fishinfool
Member
Sad fact is the prosecution screwed up royally by withholding evidence from the defense. What made it worse is there were two previous Constitutional violations that the judge caught, corrected, and warned the prosecution, but still allowed the trial to continue. The judge clearly stated it was clear the prosecution didn't forget about the "ammo evidence issue", that they clearly and purposefully hid it from the defense.
Had the ammo evidence been the sole violation, especially if made in error, the judge probably would have given the jury modified instructions and allowed the trial to continue.
Hers were the actions of a very PO'd judge making a point.
Larry
Apparently you've led a sheltered life . You never watched a war movie or a Western ? People have been pointing guns at each other on film since the days of silent movies .
I'm talking in general terms.
Large amounts of money were spent. How else was this case allowed to br dragged out this long?
Do you think a public defender would've been able to do what baldwin's lawyers did - drag it out this long and get the same result?
S42N8,
In my experience, extremely extraordinary.
Our practice was to log in all the evidence, regardless of circumstances of origin, under the case number. Under the rules of discovery, defense is entitled to this information.
Once part of the case it would be the responsibility of the sheriff's investigators or DA investigators to investigate all aspects and circumstances of this (at this point) alleged/claimed evidence. The investigation could be inconclusive if no nexus is established. It could also found to have probative or exculpatory value. All of this has to be furnished to defense counsel. Defense counsel then has the option to investigate on their own. If the evidence has probative value the defense is entitled to investigate to impeach or compromise that claim. If the evidence has exculpatory value the defense is entitled to it as an element of the defense. Of course if the evidence does appear to have exculpatory value then the prosecution has to evaluate the weight of that to determine whether or not to continue the case and if the evidence can be successfully rebutted to where prosecution can continue.
All of these steps take time, so it can be seen why major cases seem to drag on so long.
But if the evidence is not linked to the case via file number, then none of this can take place. The question then is why was this evidence was not booked with the case. In this case the prosecution, both the ADA and the investigating officers on the witness stand tried to explain their rationale. But that rationalization could not mitigate the harm to the defense which would have no way to be repaired.
The far more common scenario is to have all the evidence tied in to the case. Then defense counsel is free to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. In CA these are called 1538.5 PC hearings (motion to suppress evidence). I went through one of these. I made a stop on a vehicle appearing (this being at night) to match a suspect vehicle in a home invasion robbery that had taken place in a town about 20 miles distant. I was parked near the freeway looking for the the vehicle as I suspected it would pass where I was. There were four suspects on-board. The victims reported a shotgun being brandished. I was solo on a dark but busy freeway. Once I had seen the vehicle I briefly closed with the vehicle to get the plate number. I saw three aboard. The plate came back to a cosmopolitan neighborhood of the city we were approaching. Since I had no one around me, and not any place to make a stop, I had our dispatcher set up with the PD (and my troops were of course part of this) as to where the stop should be made assuming the vehicle was going to the RO address. The PD suggested the stop be made by a city park which was situated in a depression, meaning the suspects would not be aware of the location until they drove in to it.
When the suspects came over that horizon all they saw was a sea of red lights. Obviously the stop went perfectly. We got the three out and separated them.
At this time the law in CA prevented a trunk search unless something was found in the passenger compartment that would create probable cause to search the trunk.
The three (found to be gang members) all claimed their innocence. Nothing of evidentiary value was found in the passenger compartment - except for a single shotgun round. I decided this was the probable cause I needed to get into the trunk. Once in there we found all kinds of property consistent with what would be taken in such a case, and which was subsequently identified by the victims.
Good solid hard time prison case. So we thought.
Then came the 1538.5 hearing. Since there were three defendants, there were three attorneys. I was the only LEO there as it had been my call to search the trunk. Defense was trying to convince the court that I lacked probable cause to search, and that under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, all of that evidence that followed that decision to search would have to be suppressed. That would seriously damage our case. For about two hours I had the three defense counsels hammering me as hard as they could, and the deputy DA fighting back just as hard. At the conclusion the judge ruled that I had acted completely legally and all the evidence seized was admissible.
So, did win at trial? No, we did not. As we were were leaving the 1538.5 hearing all three defense counsels were trying make plea deals outside the elevator. The deputy DA was having none of it. He told the lawyers his office did not make deals with people who invade homes for the purpose of robbing the inhabitants. All three went to prison. Two came home early in pine boxes. Prison, even for gang members, is no guarantee of longevity, as there are always opposing gang members there.
The third suspect was released on parole a few years later. Very shortly thereafter, he too was murdered.
Just desserts for all three.
We never really knew if there was in fact, a fourth. No shotgun was ever recovered.
This was far longer in writing than I had anticipated. The point here is that major cases can be complex. But those complexities have to play out. Which means no one can put their fingers on the scales our blindfolded lady holds.
What we do in the pursuit of justice, besides the obvious of taking bad people off the streets, is to make sure the lady of justice is given the independence to remain blindfolded.
I taught administration of justice for decades, including law enforcement ethics. I made it clear we would not always win when we should have.
But if we don't play by the rules then who will.
I have a brass statue of the lady of justice. I would place her on the podium so that my students would have a focal point when I spoke of her.
Even decades later, when I would return to where I lived and worked, I have had students from years ago recognize me and recollect those lectures and the effect they had on my (then) impressionable youngsters.
Where were those lessons in New Mexico?
In my experience, extremely extraordinary.
Our practice was to log in all the evidence, regardless of circumstances of origin, under the case number. Under the rules of discovery, defense is entitled to this information.
Once part of the case it would be the responsibility of the sheriff's investigators or DA investigators to investigate all aspects and circumstances of this (at this point) alleged/claimed evidence. The investigation could be inconclusive if no nexus is established. It could also found to have probative or exculpatory value. All of this has to be furnished to defense counsel. Defense counsel then has the option to investigate on their own. If the evidence has probative value the defense is entitled to investigate to impeach or compromise that claim. If the evidence has exculpatory value the defense is entitled to it as an element of the defense. Of course if the evidence does appear to have exculpatory value then the prosecution has to evaluate the weight of that to determine whether or not to continue the case and if the evidence can be successfully rebutted to where prosecution can continue.
All of these steps take time, so it can be seen why major cases seem to drag on so long.
But if the evidence is not linked to the case via file number, then none of this can take place. The question then is why was this evidence was not booked with the case. In this case the prosecution, both the ADA and the investigating officers on the witness stand tried to explain their rationale. But that rationalization could not mitigate the harm to the defense which would have no way to be repaired.
The far more common scenario is to have all the evidence tied in to the case. Then defense counsel is free to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. In CA these are called 1538.5 PC hearings (motion to suppress evidence). I went through one of these. I made a stop on a vehicle appearing (this being at night) to match a suspect vehicle in a home invasion robbery that had taken place in a town about 20 miles distant. I was parked near the freeway looking for the the vehicle as I suspected it would pass where I was. There were four suspects on-board. The victims reported a shotgun being brandished. I was solo on a dark but busy freeway. Once I had seen the vehicle I briefly closed with the vehicle to get the plate number. I saw three aboard. The plate came back to a cosmopolitan neighborhood of the city we were approaching. Since I had no one around me, and not any place to make a stop, I had our dispatcher set up with the PD (and my troops were of course part of this) as to where the stop should be made assuming the vehicle was going to the RO address. The PD suggested the stop be made by a city park which was situated in a depression, meaning the suspects would not be aware of the location until they drove in to it.
When the suspects came over that horizon all they saw was a sea of red lights. Obviously the stop went perfectly. We got the three out and separated them.
At this time the law in CA prevented a trunk search unless something was found in the passenger compartment that would create probable cause to search the trunk.
The three (found to be gang members) all claimed their innocence. Nothing of evidentiary value was found in the passenger compartment - except for a single shotgun round. I decided this was the probable cause I needed to get into the trunk. Once in there we found all kinds of property consistent with what would be taken in such a case, and which was subsequently identified by the victims.
Good solid hard time prison case. So we thought.
Then came the 1538.5 hearing. Since there were three defendants, there were three attorneys. I was the only LEO there as it had been my call to search the trunk. Defense was trying to convince the court that I lacked probable cause to search, and that under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, all of that evidence that followed that decision to search would have to be suppressed. That would seriously damage our case. For about two hours I had the three defense counsels hammering me as hard as they could, and the deputy DA fighting back just as hard. At the conclusion the judge ruled that I had acted completely legally and all the evidence seized was admissible.
So, did win at trial? No, we did not. As we were were leaving the 1538.5 hearing all three defense counsels were trying make plea deals outside the elevator. The deputy DA was having none of it. He told the lawyers his office did not make deals with people who invade homes for the purpose of robbing the inhabitants. All three went to prison. Two came home early in pine boxes. Prison, even for gang members, is no guarantee of longevity, as there are always opposing gang members there.
The third suspect was released on parole a few years later. Very shortly thereafter, he too was murdered.
Just desserts for all three.
We never really knew if there was in fact, a fourth. No shotgun was ever recovered.
This was far longer in writing than I had anticipated. The point here is that major cases can be complex. But those complexities have to play out. Which means no one can put their fingers on the scales our blindfolded lady holds.
What we do in the pursuit of justice, besides the obvious of taking bad people off the streets, is to make sure the lady of justice is given the independence to remain blindfolded.
I taught administration of justice for decades, including law enforcement ethics. I made it clear we would not always win when we should have.
But if we don't play by the rules then who will.
I have a brass statue of the lady of justice. I would place her on the podium so that my students would have a focal point when I spoke of her.
Even decades later, when I would return to where I lived and worked, I have had students from years ago recognize me and recollect those lectures and the effect they had on my (then) impressionable youngsters.
Where were those lessons in New Mexico?
Last edited:
RetCapt -
First, thank you for a clear and detailed explanation. A great example of the kind of discourse and experience we get here - and thank you for your service. Much appreciated. Completely agree that there’s much complexity here, and I suspect we’ll get more in the days to follow. If the prosecution failed to keep the evidence as required, the system did as it should…and it appears that there were other irregularities..
Again, many thanks for the explanation, and the insight. Writing this as the news continues on the shooting at the Trump rally…. Gonna table this for a while. Prayers sent for the families of those killed and the Trumps.
Last edited:
See what those born after the Viet Nam war think of Jane Fonda for affirmation of the above statement.
Was it reported that the ammunition that "materialized" some time after the shooting was obtained from Thell Reed in Arizona after the shooting and that the box, non-matching rounds, whatever, were purported to not have been in NM at the time the fatal round was fired?
I'm looking for the connection of the rounds to the actual fatal incident. It would seem to me that if the rounds were dissimilar and no where NM at the time of the shooting, their evidentiary value is non-existent insofar as Baldwin's case is concerned and their appearance did not warrant the dismissal of the case.
Doug M.
Member
That is the problem I am having with the reporting. I can't see a connection, but that might because of the reporting.
HOUSTON RICK
Member
Like freedom, justice is not free. the more money you have the more justice that you can afford.
You most likely did not see what you thought you saw. Although I am sure that many motion pictures have been made with folks pointing guns at each other, it is just as possible and usually just as easy to create that impression when it never happened.
Edit many motion pictures?
Just wondering...how many of the various opinions in this thread have been influenced by what the poster thinks of Alex Baldwin?
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,875
- Reaction score
- 10,933
It appears to be quite a few. Not the kind of people you'd want for jurors if you were on trial, that's for sure.
Yeah...pretty much what I've been thinking. I'm struck by the irony of people on here complaining that the justice system is unfair, while they display their obvious bias and lack of fairness toward Alec Baldwin.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
