IANAL, but isn’t that getting awfully close to double jeopardy?
Asking law-talking dopers: is this request in the context of an appeal of the court’s dismissal of the case? I can’t tell from the news reports.
There are four kinds of double jeopardy in the US.
-
Being prosecuted again for the same charge after acquittal.
-
Being prosecuted again for the same charge after conviction.
-
Being prosecuted again for the same charge after certain types of mistrials.
-
Being punished multiple times for the same indictment.
Since the case against Baldwin was dismissed, there is no opportunity for double jeopardy, as there was no acquittal, conviction, or mistrial. The case was just dismissed and the trial ended.
(Note that IANAL either, just a guy looking up crap on the web.)
I’d also say to the prosecutor who is asking to get this case started again, I’m sure there’s some legal equivalent of the phrase, “stop digging”.
Dismissed with prejudice, which means that the charges can’t be filed again. AFAIK, the only play left available for the prosecution would be a direct appeal of the dismissal, which is why I’m asking earlier for information about the context of this argument.
Correct, unless some court reverses that ruling somehow. (I don’t know what that mechanism would be, clearly right now they’re asking the judge to change their mind.)
But if that ruling were reversed, it would not be double jeopardy.
Remember what comment I was responding to with my post.
Man, that guy really loves the spotlight.
Gal, if it matters. And apparently conservative, IIRC.
Okay, federal vs. state, but I thought one of the concerns in the Trump docs trial was that Cannon would wait until the trial started and jeopardy attached, then dismiss it - which would preclude ANY trial on the same charges. No mention of getting her reversed and resetting the clock so to speak.
ETA: No trying to start that fight here, just mentioning it as why I thought this case was over.
Note that while initially double jeopardy only applied to federal law, it became part of state law via incorporation (specifically in the 1969 case Benton v. Maryland) per a SCOTUS ruling.
You are correct that jeopardy was applied in this case, as it applies to any case once the prosecution begins. In a jury trial, it begins when the jury is empaneled, and in a bench trial it begins once the first witness is sworn in.
But this would be a continuance of the previous prosecution, which was halted, not concluded. I believe that is why double jeopardy would not apply.
This Wikipedia article talks about the situations where double jeopardy applies. And yes, it’s Wikipedia so not a definitive source, and I’m not a lawyer so I very much can be wrong about this.
Now in searching for specifics to this case, I found this article:
And it says the following:
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer threw out the case, ruling that no other sanction was sufficient.
“The state is highly culpable for its failure to provide discovery to the defendant,” Marlowe Sommer said. “Dismissal with prejudice is warranted.”
Marlowe Sommer ruled that under the principle of double jeopardy, Baldwin cannot be retried. She made clear she was appalled at the prosecution’s failures.
And in this article:
As to whether Baldwin can face another trial in the future over what happened in 2021 on the set of ‘Rust’, Judge Marlowe Sommer ruled that, according to the principle of double jeopardy, Baldwin cannot be tried again.
So the judge is saying that a new trial would be double jeopardy, but I believe the prosecution is asking for the resumption of the previous trial. Though I’m not sure if that is legally possible when a case is dismissed with prejudice.
It certainly, in my opinion, makes the prosecution look bad, particularly after the way the judge completely excoriated the prosecution for their misconduct.
So the judge said ‘nah uh’, the prosecutor is going for but I strenuously object?
“It’s a bold strategy, Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for [her].”
Pretty much, LOL.
The judge refused to consider the filing by special prosecutor Kari Morrissey to reconsider the dismissal of the charges because the 52-page filing exceeded the 10-page limit for such filings.
Morrissey is a fucking clown.
What stuck with me on this case was that a member of the prosecution team actually resigned, before the judge ever ruled on the matter, because of her belief that this “innocent, irrelevant” act amounted to misconduct warranting a dismissal. IANAL, but that seems pretty damning.
In a remote court hearing, an attorney for Hannah Gutierrez-Reed challenged her March conviction for involuntary manslaughter, alleging that prosecutors failed to share evidence including ammunition that might have been exculpatory in the shooting death that occurred on the set of the Western movie “Rust” in 2021.
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer is reconsidering the armorer’s felony conviction after throwing out an involuntary manslaughter case against Baldwin midtrial on similar grounds.
“This pattern of (evidence) discovery abuse occurred in Ms. Gutierrez-Reed’s case in the same manner as it did in Mr. Baldwin’s case,” said Jason Bowles, lead defense attorney to Gutierrez-Reed.
Man, Morrissey must either have a hate on for Baldwin or really love the spotlight here. She is cruising for a disbarment hearing if this keeps up.
I really think this is it. She fell in love with having the camera on her and was planning to turn all of this into a bigger career. Unfortunately, it turns out she skipped the day they taught law at law school.
Hannah is staying put during the Appeal.
All this drama over a 18 month sentence. There’s no appeal for Halyna Hutchins and the kids growing up without a mom.
I expect Hannah will win on appeal because of that prosecutor’s mistakes.
It was about clearing the conviction. She’ll have already served a lot of the term before she gets out, but being legally exonerated is worth something even if it is just on a technicality. She may never work on a set again, but it is easier to get any kind of job if you don’t have to cop to being a convicted felon.
Hannah’s record will be cleared if she wins the appeal. That’s built-into the judicial system.
Hannah should get a chance to start over. Move forward and do something positive with her life.
She should serve most of that 18 months. I didn’t want to see her released now after only being sentenced since April 15. That’s less than six months.
Her job was to maintain the guns and make certain they were handled safely. Her entire approach to the job was irresponsible. The jury found her negligent.
Other people like Assistant Director Dave Halls shared responsibility. But the prosecutor agreed to a deal.
The Western film will now see its world premiere in late November at Poland’s Camerimage International Film Festival.
Anyone know anything about this festival? [My guess is they scraped the bottom of the barrel–that none of the big festivals had any interest.]