Whelp, the trial opened today.

Prosecution is making an interesting (and I would say flawed) argument. The director who was shot and survived says that the director wanted Alec to pull the gun out of the holster slowly (for dramatic effect). Director says Alec wanted to do it quickly (for dramatic effect).

Yeah, but . . . has anyone proven or even claimed that this accident happened because Baldwin drew the gun quickly? If was a factor and the gun fired because of the speed at which it was removed from the holster, doesn't that mean the gun was defective? And most of all, isn't this just an artistic dispute between a director and an actor on how a scene should be acted, and isn't that what they were trying to figure out when the accident happened?

I'm still with the defense. This is a movie set. How do you expect actors to act in a scene (which is by design divorced from reality) if they are at all criminally responsible to observe gun safety protocols?

Man, I WISH I were on the defense team. Here's the climactic scene from Quentin Tarrantino's "Reservoir Dogs." I would offer this as Exhibit A on how stupid the prosecution's premise that normal gun safety rules apply on movie sets:

https://www.theguardian.com/fi...992-film-anniversary

I don't believe anyone is trying to hold him criminally responsible for doing his job as an actor.

They're trying to hold him criminally responsible because they believe he was criminally negligent. We'll see if they can prove that case. I'm fairly sure they are closer to the evidence than any of us are.

I don’t need evidence.

I can learn what the prosecutors are saying in their opening statements.

Even if I trust them to prove every fact they assert in opening, it’s not nearly enough to convict if I were on the jury.

Baldwin won a key motion today. Prosecutors aren’t allowed to argue that Baldwin bears responsibility for the accident because he was one of several producers. Being a producer does not mean he had a role in selecting or supervising the armorer, the judge correctly reasoned.

The prosecution has all kinds of challenges. The script supervisor called 911. She said the first assistant director was to blame. He pled guilt already.

Baldwin has good lawyers, though. Very impressive.

Case Dismissed ... with prejudice

quote:

A judge in New Mexico dismissed the case against Alec Baldwin on Friday after finding that the state had withheld evidence that could have shed light on how live rounds got onto a film set where the cinematographer was fatally shot.

I understand why the judge dismissed the case after this nth example of prosecutorial malpractice.

I do not see how this is any worse than the tampering with the gun that the judge ignored.

All of this happened while we were wandering around town a few block away.

Wow, finally.

That article shows Baldwin's reaction, very, very relatable.

I'm glad it's over for him. (Although, it's probably not really "over," for any of them. I doubt anyone who was there will ever completely recover from being involved in the accidental death of a coworker).

Yes indeed. He will be haunted by this for the rest of his life. But at least the unethical harassment by the government prosecutors is over. I hope that they will be disciplined for their obvious disregard for legal ethics. Prosecutors have been disciplined before. I recall the resignation, disbarrment, and imprisonment of Durham County prosecutor Mike Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse case a few years back.

Sometimes it’s enough to settle back into the comfy “I told you so” chair.

Anyone who has charges dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct should be able to sue for damages, in the prosecutors’ personal capacity.

That would put a stop to this sort of thing once and for all.

People have spent years in prison due to prosecutorial misconduct. Some have probably been executed.

It needs to end.

That prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself.

He did.