Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #7

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Betty P said:
Actually, they're pointing out a lot of things the prosecutor did leading up to the GJ hearing that were dishonest, the most important of which was providing the GJ with exculpatory evidence. It (the JG hearing) was a one-sided hearing. The Grand Jury only heard/read the cherry picked information that the prosecutor gave them. That's not how the US criminal justice system is supposed to work. Using today's hearing as example, it would be like holding the hearing only for the defense, not allowing the prosecutor to be present or submit any written argument or evidence.

ETA: I have to take off again, but will finish listening and respond later. Its interesting because its the first time we're hearing testimony about how the prosecution made their decisions in AB's case.
Click to expand...
The grand jury isn't a trial jury. They don't need to see evidence of innocence because a GJ decides 'Is there enough evidence to support the charges?' That's ALWAYS been the purpose of a GJ and the intent when the original laws for GJ were written.
Some states allow or require exculpatory evidence, or a DA will provide it if it's a case they really don't want to try but are obligated to charge. But it's not required in NM apparently.

Innocent or guilty is decided at the trial by the real jury.
 
Judge Sommer now asking Morrissey about interrupting jurors questions to Detective Hanc0ck. Judge believes the detective could’ve answered these questions and Morrissey’s not allowed to interrupt based on the legal authority. Morrissey argues she wanted the grand jury to have the answers from the movie set expert. She didn’t believe the detective would provide accurate answers on those types of questions.
 
Weki said:
I’m about 16 mins into the hearing and all of defense’s arguments fall flat on their face when you consider that AB was offered a sweet plea deal and he didn’t jump to take it. This is malpractice and these attys are trying to cover their behinds by now arguing the state is bloodthirsty for AB! Gimme a break.

They’re arguing “your honor, but, it’s not fair.” The state has the absolute right and discretion to bring these charges. And yes, the state controls GJ proceedings. In fact, NM law is quite generous to defendants in their GJ laws. Still, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. As defense lawyers, it is their job to convince their ego-driven, maniac of a client to take the deal immediately. Dismissal is not gonna happen. That is an extreme remedy. Judges don’t just dismiss cases.

JMO
Click to expand...

How is it "malpractice" when a defense attorney cannot convince an "ego-driven, maniac of a client"
to take the plea deal offered?

This means Alec would have had to plead guilty and I do not think he wanted to plead guilty.
2 reasons for pleas....

1.) Too expensive to go to trial. Alec is the rare individual where money is no problem.

2.) Losing at trial brings a worse sentence than a plea deal sentence. Alec is the rare individual who can afford the most expensive law firm to represent him. His attorneys have a very good chance to win his case.

2 Cents
 
Last edited:
Judge asked Morrissey why she didn’t provide witness credibility instructions to the GJ esp for her expert witnesses (I think that’s what she meant). Morrissey says it didn’t occur to her to give that instruction.

I’m not sure if she’s required to. Why didn’t the judge do it if that’s required?

JMO
 
Cool Cats said:
How is it "malpractice" when a defense attorney cannot convince an "ego-driven, maniac of a client"
to take the plea deal offered?

This means Alec would have had to plead guilty and I do not think he wanted to plead guilty. Especially how it is done, in open court, in person, with victims and general public viewing.

2 reasons for pleas....

1.) Too expensive to go to trial. Alec is the rare individual where money is no problem.

2.) Losing at trial brings a worse sentence than a plea deal sentence. Alec is the rare individual who can afford the most expensive law firm to represent him. His attorneys have a very good chance to win his case.

2 Cents
Click to expand...
Oh I’m glad they didn’t plea! I’m all for going to trial. He will lose imo so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.
 
Slick762 said:
The grand jury isn't a trial jury. They don't need to see evidence of innocence because a GJ decides 'Is there enough evidence to support the charges?' That's ALWAYS been the purpose of a GJ and the intent when the original laws for GJ were written.
Some states allow or require exculpatory evidence, or a DA will provide it if it's a case they really don't want to try but are obligated to charge. But it's not required in NM apparently.

Innocent or guilty is decided at the trial by the real jury.
Click to expand...
IANAL and I assume you aren't either, but most of us understand that GJ's are only for voting whether and which charges to bring. Prosecutors are expected to fairly present evidence in order to allow the GJ to make a fair decision. AB's attorneys also allege the prosecutor didn't give the GJ's proper instruction. A prosecutor is supposed to present a case where jurors can decide if the charges and evidence are sufficient to allow a trial jury to make a decision based on reasonable doubt.

Because prosecutors have total control of what juries see and hear, many states feel the system is open to abuse by prosecutors and stopped using that system. In 23 states indictiments are required for serious crimes.


www.thenation.com

It’s Time to Abolish Grand Juries Once and for All

Whether they’re targeting Donald Trump or Cop City protesters, grand juries are an irredeemable and unaccountable tool of state prosecutorial power.
www.thenation.com www.thenation.com
 
Last edited:
Slick762 said:
The grand jury isn't a trial jury. They don't need to see evidence of innocence because a GJ decides 'Is there enough evidence to support the charges?' That's ALWAYS been the purpose of a GJ and the intent when the original laws for GJ were written.
Some states allow or require exculpatory evidence, or a DA will provide it if it's a case they really don't want to try but are obligated to charge. But it's not required in NM apparently.

Innocent or guilty is decided at the trial by the real jury.
Click to expand...

law.justia.com

2020 New Mexico Statutes :: Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure :: Article 6 - Grand Jury :: Section 31-6-11 - Evidence before grand jury.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes
law.justia.com law.justia.com

New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure
Article 6 - Grand Jury
Section 31-6-11 - Evidence before grand jury​

 

Just randomly clicked on this as it's one of my fave movies. It's got a lot of info in it I never knew.

Anyway, if you skip forward to 08:20 one of the things mentioned is a reference to the fact that in order to make the blanks sound louder and more realistic, someone on the production suggested packing the blank rounds out with a plaster plug to raise the pressure. Hanna Reed, I'm sure, mentioned something similar in one of her police interviews - I think she said that some of the blanks had plaster "bullets" to make them look like live rounds. Just a curious similarity.

It sounds insanely dangerous to me as they were using them in actual gunfight scenes - and clearly was dangerous as several of the cast, including Emilio Estevez, were hit by these clay "bullets" with him actually having to go to hospital to get checked out!

And it was filmed at Bonanza Creek.
 
Cool Cats said:
I'm 50 50 on his wining or losing at trial.

Rejecting a plea offer is a huge gamble.
Click to expand...

I still haven't seen much information about the plea offer, except what the prosecution has said. I'd prefer a more objective source. AB's team hasn't engaged in much pre-trial publicity, so there's more to learn.

I suspect it was a trick they used, for whatever reason - offering the plea deal, the attorneys they had a few weeks to decide, then pulling it shortly after offering it. There's still a great deal about AB's case that I haven't heard about, but suspect we will soon.
 
Weki said:
Judge Sommer has Morrissey on the ropes now. She’s asking her about what efforts she made or didn’t make to get the witnesses that defense wanted there to testify at the GJ. Judge says Morrissey did not address this in her response up to this point.

Judge indicated that the defense can ask for a review of the GJ based on structural issues on top of the prosecutorial bad faith issues. And it seems judge thinks Morrissey hasn’t adequately addressed the structural issues defense has raised.

Morissey goes through all 7 witnesses defense wanted and her efforts to get them at the GJ had the jurors wanted to hear from them. It seems like she didn’t reach out half of these witnesses because she says they had been very cooperative and she felt she could get them there with no issues if GJ requested them.

JMO
Click to expand...

Alec had a right to have all his witnesses heard at the GJ.

law.justia.com

2020 New Mexico Statutes :: Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure :: Article 6 - Grand Jury :: Section 31-6-11 - Evidence before grand jury.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes
law.justia.com law.justia.com

Evidence before the grand jury upon which it may find an indictment is that which is lawful, competent and relevant, including the oral testimony of witnesses under oath and any documentary or other physical evidence exhibited to the jurors.

It is the duty of the grand jury to weigh all the evidence submitted to it, and when it has reason to believe that other lawful, competent and relevant evidence is available that would disprove or reduce a charge or accusation or that would make an indictment unjustified, then it shall order the evidence produced.

At least twenty-four hours before grand jury proceedings begin, the target (Alec) or his counsel may alert the grand jury to the existence of evidence that would disprove or reduce an accusation or that would make an indictment unjustified, by notifying the prosecuting attorney who is assisting the grand jury in writing regarding the existence of that evidence.
 
Betty P said:
I still haven't seen much information about the plea offer, except what the prosecution has said. I'd prefer a more objective source. AB's team hasn't engaged in much pre-trial publicity, so there's more to learn.

I suspect it was a trick they used, for whatever reason - offering the plea deal, the attorneys they had a few weeks to decide, then pulling it shortly after offering it. There's still a great deal about AB's case that I haven't heard about, but suspect we will soon.
Click to expand...

Right.

I just assumed it was a normal plea offer but this Prosecution I dont trust. Could be a game. Could have not been a serious offer.
 
Cool Cats said:
Alec had a right to have all his witnesses heard at the GJ.

law.justia.com

2020 New Mexico Statutes :: Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure :: Article 6 - Grand Jury :: Section 31-6-11 - Evidence before grand jury.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes
law.justia.com law.justia.com

Evidence before the grand jury upon which it may find an indictment is that which is lawful, competent and relevant, including the oral testimony of witnesses under oath and any documentary or other physical evidence exhibited to the jurors.

It is the duty of the grand jury to weigh all the evidence submitted to it, and when it has reason to believe that other lawful, competent and relevant evidence is available that would disprove or reduce a charge or accusation or that would make an indictment unjustified, then it shall order the evidence produced.

At least twenty-four hours before grand jury proceedings begin, the target (Alec) or his counsel may alert the grand jury to the existence of evidence that would disprove or reduce an accusation or that would make an indictment unjustified, by notifying the prosecuting attorney who is assisting the grand jury in writing regarding the existence of that evidence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, his attorneys discussed all of this today. They anticipated the prosecutor would try to stonewall them on the 24 hr notice and notified Morrissey of the evidence anyway. They also kept asking if she was going to present AB's case to the GJ as it was deliberating on other cases. She wouldn't answer them, but then notified the GJ at the last minute, sent in her evidence and cut the defense off. That's just a summary of what I recall them saying. There are more details in their testimony at today's hearing, but they basically assumed Morrisey would try to do something like that, planned ahead and covered their bases so that they could bring it up now.
 
Morrissey closes out her argument by pointing out to the judge that all these questions she asked her about the testimony etc are NOT structural issues like the judge said. They are evidentiary issues and the rule for review of the GJ proceedings based on evidentiary issues requires the defense to show bad faith on the part of the prosecutor. From what I’ve heard, there is nothing to prove bad faith, certainly not enough to throw out the indictment. But I think the judge just wants to put these specific questions and answers from Morrissey on the record for appellate review.

Highly doubtful the judge will dismiss. AB is going to trial one way or another!

JMO
 
Morrissey is not a prosecutor. She’s a defense attorney and a civil rights lawyer - a special prosecutor just for this case. I think that’s worth repeating because it helps put her demeanor in context. I haven’t seen anything from her that demonstrates untrustworthiness. Literally, nothing. I can see how her demeanor might put people off but it doesn’t mean she’s deceptive. She checked Spiro at the end of the hearing for totally misrepresenting what she said. JMO
 
In New Mexico grand jury proceedings, the defense does not have the right to call witnesses during the presentation of a case. Instead they can submit a letter to prosecutors that includes evidence that could help exonerate their client, including any favorable witnesses or documents. Mr. Baldwin had the right to testify during the proceedings, but he did not.
www.nytimes.com

Judge to Rule Next Week on Whether to Dismiss Alec Baldwin Case

During a heated hearing, Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers claimed prosecutors had improperly presented evidence to the grand jury considering the fatal shooting on the set of “Rust.”
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 2,488 (members: 156, guests: 2,332)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
2,332
Total visitors
2,488
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,179
Messages
18,020,857
Members
229,596
Latest member
Ebg8
Back
Top