Yeah, if there was nefarious intent (to withhold inconvenient evidence that might benefit the defense), I expect it was in relation to Gutierrez-Reed as opposed to Baldwin. As in “Oh, crap! We just got new evidence after the trial and the same day we convicted her. What, it was from a friend of her father? Oh, it’s probably a scheme. Just file it away somewhere so we don’t have to deal with all that mess. Why does it matter anyway? She still screwed up however the bullets got there.”
Just note that that’s still an “if” statement (re: nefarious intent) and it’s no guarantee at what level such ill-intent was present. It could have been within the Sheriff’s department just as or more easily as in the DA or special prosecutor’s office.
Because, again, where the bullet came from before it got on set should have been irrelevant to Baldwin’s culpability.
Anyway, I suspect we’ll hear more about this in the coming weeks.
No it was definitely hidden. The guy who dropped it off said it was from the Rust set, and despite that case being the most important case the dept has ever been involved in, they filed it in ANOTHER case file. Absolutely no way this was not deliberately hidden.
I don’t buy this. The bar for appeal based on new evidence (that was not known to either side during the trial) is very high. Plus that was a much lower profile trial and a much more solid case for the prosecution. No one was staking their career on the outcome of the Gutierrez-Reed case.
Guttierez-Reed’s trial might not have been the trial of the century, but it was still pretty big, and major news networks covered it if for no better reason than it was a preview of coming attractions.
Burying evidence of no probative value months before the next trial makes no sense. However, burying evidence of minimal probative value a day or two after one trial just ended (before sentencing, and potentially even before the verdict since it was the same day), to avoid the inconvenience of dealing with the “what now?” makes… still not a whole lot sense, but for a bad (or lazy) actor who either doesn’t want to be embarrassed for not coming up with the evidence on their own or who doesn’t want to do the legwork of dealing with it, I can at least see how they might work their way around to just “filing it away.”
ETA: I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that the Sheriff’s office intentionally pulled the wool over the special prosecutor’s eyes. Because if the special prosecutor turns that evidence over to Baldwin’s team, Gutierrez-Reed’s attorney is going to find out too, possibly even from the special prosecutor.
But, again, I just want to emphasize that I am not committed to the idea of a conspiracy. Just saying that if someone did intentionally bury this evidence, it makes a lot more sense that they’d do it because of its relationship to the Gutierrez-Reed trial, not the Baldwin trial.
You may not be convinced, but the judge in this case - you know, the neutral arbiter who has seen all the evidence and testimony and briefings - said: "“The state’s willful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate,” Judge Marlowe Sommer said. “If this conduct does not rise to the level of bad faith, it certainly comes so near to bad faith as to show signs of scorching prejudice.”
Willful, intentional, and deliberate. I don’t know how you can read that and come away with any “ifs.” Now, it’s possible that it was not Ms. Morrissey herself who engaged in the “willful, intentional, and deliberate” conduct, as the judge just said “the state,” but based on what I’ve read in the Times about what happened in court before the dismissal, I personally think she lied like a rug and got caught.
Color me jaded. I don’t accept that just because a judge arrives at a conclusion, that it is correct. Lots of judges arriving at bad decisions lately, you know? Call it a learned skepticism of the judiciary.
Fair enough, hard to blame you for that in general. That said, given the - shall we say - circuitous route to trial this case has taken, I think the prosecution deserves significantly less benefit of the doubt.
The hearing on the evidence was going along and the judge asked the defense if they wanted to call the lead prosecutor to the stand. The defense said that that wasn’t necessary. So the prosecutor called herself to the stand and it’s completely bonkers
Skip to 8:36:30. “Are you saying under oath that you never called the defendant a cocksucker?” “Did you tell another defendant that you were going to teach him a lesson?”
But there is still no reason to commit blatant malpractice to prevent evidence that has a very small chance of effecting the trial coming to light (not to mention that as it was dropped off by a friend of the family, it was reasonable to assume that the Guttierez-Reeds knew about it)
These may not be the greatest legal minds in the country but they are experienced prosecutors, there is zero chance they did this without realizing they were hiding evidence in the Baldwin trial. Even if their primary concerns was the Guttierez-Reed trial (very unlikely iMO) it was still a deliberate conspiracy they knew effected both trials.
I mean, that’s kind of my point. Inasmuch as it had a very small chance of affecting Gutierrez-Reed’s trial, it had zero chance of affecting Baldwin’s trial provided it was properly filed and disclosed as required. So what’s more likely? That someone lied for nothing with months left to think it over, or that someone lied for next to nothing with only a matter of hours or even moments to make a snap decision that, once done, could not be undone without going back in time?
These may not be the greatest legal minds in the country but they are experienced prosecutors, there is zero chance they did this without realizing they were hiding evidence in the Baldwin trial.
Zero chance? I think there’s a bit more than zero chance that, for example, some low-level Sheriff’s Office employees realized they screwed up or else were going to be embarrassed by inconvenient evidence arriving just at the end of a high profile trial (has anyone else seen many trials coming out of Santa Fe that get aired on national news and have live Court TV coverage? I can think of only two, and Baldwin"s hadn’t happened yet, so it was really just the one at the time), and so decided that the easiest way to resolve the issue was to mis-file the evidence and cover their own asses by intentionally pulling the wool over the special prosecutor’s eyes by just showing her some pictures and assuring her it was a giant nothing-burger.
There are other cases dismissed by judges on that basis. The state had plenty of time to come forward with this information. Doesn’t matter if their failure was willful or not.
I bet there’s also plenty of examples of trial where it doesn’t result in a dismissal. Just probably none of them televised and none of them involving multi-millionaire defendants with high-priced legal teams.
I suppose I should say I’m in favor of judges being skeptical of the state’s motives and holding them to an exacting standard. I suppose where I am jaded is that it does not seem to be the rule at all where less well-off defendants are concerned. They get “harmless error” and a hand-wave from the judge on their way to lengthy prison sentences for even offenses that didn’t involve killing someone.
Well, a strong message has been sent to the Movie Studios. The New Mexico courts were fully prepared to send a prominent actor to jail for 18 months. Over an accident that was clearly the fault of a incompetent and disorganized Armorer.
Perhaps the studios should reconsider film production contracts in New Mexico.
Of course, training requirements for Armorers has to be upgraded. They also need drug testing. There was testimony in Hannah’s trial that she handed off drugs to a crew member before she went to the police station.
My hope is that actors will come away thinking “Damn, that was a close call. Maybe we should refuse to handle weapons capable of firing real bullets in the future, and rewrite our union rules to make sure we aren’t bearing that kind of risk going forward?”
CNN online has a good article today about the dismissal, goes through the three Brady factors for analyzing whether withheld evidence should be grounds for dismissal, quotes the judge’s findings on each prong, and explains in layman’s terms what it all means; also notes that at the very least the armorer’s attorneys will be filing to have her case dismissed as well.
ETA: This whole screwed up case has put me in mind of what an acquaintance said about the OJ Simpson trial and verdict: “That’s what happens when the cops set out to frame a guilty man.”
It sermed like the police initially were treating this as an accident. They started interviewing Hannah and Alec without attorneys. It seemed like they were gathering information for an accident report. A Civil Suit by the victim’s family would need the information
That shifted dramatically as more information came out. The people involved got attorney’s and were interviewed again. This case was a long and convoluted process with a even stranger conclusion.
I really hate hearing that Hannah’s appeal is much more likely to overturn her trial. The testimony detailing her unprofessional approach to guns is very disturbing. The shooting in the church set was an accident just waiting to happen.
I’ll agree with you on that – the armorer’s sloppy incompetence is what led to the death. That others had some role along the way to the shooting, whether major or minor, does not exculpate her.
I’m thinking there ought to be an investigation to find out just who decided to hide this evidence – and to my mind, it was a deliberate attempt to keep it hidden – whether it was someone in the sheriff’s office (most likely) or in the prosecution team (less likely but not impossible). Especially if the prosecutors were blindsided by the cops, they’ll be highly motivated to find someone to point the finger at.
That’s kind of how police operate. They dupe people into talking them without an attorney, and then get them to make statements that can only be used against them later. The police want to interview suspects without an attorney.