Generally, the defense would have to be prejudiced to get a dismissal due to a procedural error. This came to light before trial, and it doesn’t seem particularly relevant. So, how are they prejudiced? I understand the defense using it to impeach the prosecution’s credibility and motives, but I can’t see it getting very far with the judge.
Your right. The judge may rule against the motion. That could be why testimony is continuing while she makes a decision.
Seth Kenney’s testimony will be interesting. I remember from the last trial the evidence photos showed a mess.
Kenney’s inventory was piled up all over his office. I think he could have shipped a bazooka to the set and not known it. 
Here’s what the NY Times has to say about this:
The trial of Alec Baldwin took a dramatic turn on Friday when a manila envelope of previously unexamined evidence was brought into the courtroom, prompting the judge to put on blue latex gloves, cut it open with a pair of scissors and then get down from the bench to examine ammunition in the well of the courtroom.
You definitely don’t see that in court every day.
Lawyers for Mr. Baldwin, who is on trial for involuntary manslaughter for his role in the fatal shooting of the cinematographer on the set of the film “Rust,” called for the case to be dismissed on Friday, accusing the prosecution of hiding evidence that could help explain how live ammunition wound up on a film set where it was supposed to be banned.
“They buried it,” Luke Nikas, a lawyer for Mr. Baldwin, said in court, accusing the prosecution of failing to disclose that it was given a batch of rounds said to be connected to the case when the defense asked to review all the ballistic evidence. “They put it under a different case with a different number.”
Sounds to me (IANAL) like they are probably arguing this is a Brady disclosure violation.
And then there’s this, which certainly makes it seem like the prosecution was hiding something/lying:
The prosecutor, Ms. Morrissey, said in court that, after viewing a photo provided by Mr. Teske, she had considered the ammunition not relevant to the “Rust” investigation because it did not look similar to the live rounds that were collected on the movie set. “This has no evidentiary value whatsoever,” she said in court.
But when the judge asked to see the ammunition, and it was brought into court, it became clear that at least one round did resemble the ammunition collected on the “Rust” set.
When Judge Marlowe Sommer asked if any rounds were similar to what was collected on the set, Ms. Poppell acknowledged that at least one had a particular kind of casing and primer “similar to what was collected on set.”
Oops.
thank you. That is interesting.
I don’t get this, though. Why does it matter how the ammunition got on the set, for purposes of this case (obviously it matters more generally).
I honestly don’t know, but I might guess that the origin of the live ammunition could be used to point the finger of blame at someone else, thus creating reasonable doubt for Baldwin?? Again, I am not a lawyer.
I watched the earlier proceedings from this morning. Apparently someone tipped off the defense about the rounds that were turned in towards the end of the first trial in 2023.
It was definitely dramatic when the sealed evidence envelope is handed to the judge and she cuts it open.
They ended proceedings for this afternoon. The judge has an important decision. I think there are other remedies she can choose besides dismissal?
Not really. How live ammo ended up on set should in no way affect his culpability (unless maybe it ended up on set with the purposeful design of causing a firearm accident, but even then I’m not sure…). The only thing it might be useful for is attacking the credibility of whatever government witness had anything to do with the… mis-filing. Whether this by itself is enough to constitute a Brady violation is beyond me. IAAL, but IANACLLTPLINM (I am not a criminal lawyer licensed to practice law in New Mexico).
Although I was just in Las Cruces a couple nights ago…
That said, I wouldn’t be holding my breath for a dismissal on this alone.
Well damn. I guess I could have held my breath!
I was wrong. Did not expect that.
Dismissed with prejudice. Prosecutors cannot refile on the same claim.
It didn’t take 15 minutes to reveal that there was evidence never turned over to the defense. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is Baldwin’s ticket out of the trial.
ETA: Holy crap! Dismissed with prejudice.
Um, me neither…
Yup, NBC news says Case Dismissed
Wow. My impression of this case has been that the prosecution was looking for another notch in their gun belt, no matter what it took to nail the rich guy. But instead they’ve shot themselves in the foot.
ETA: Suppression of evidence is a Very Bad Thing for prosecutors to do, also stupid if there’s the least chance of the suppression being discovered. They done blowed up their case real good.
That’s a BIG move by a judge, who apparently said in her ruling that, “The state’s woeful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate.” There should be professional if not criminal consequences for these prosecutors.
It’s not even clear the prosecutors had anything to do with it. Especially since, again, the evidence itself was unlikely to alter Baldwin’s criminal liability.
It’s the dumbest possible way to lose a trial.
Will this help Hannah Gutierrez-Reed’s appeal?
She only got a 18 month sentence and served about 4 months so far.
True.
I’ve been wondering that myself.