Legal News

189 readers

26 users here now

International and local legal news.

Basic rules

1. English only

Title and associated content has to be in English.

2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag

Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.

3. Instance rules apply

All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 5 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Prosecutor asks judge to reinstate Alec Baldwin’s film set shooting charge (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

After judge found evidence was intentionally withheld in July, involuntary manslaughter charges were dismissed

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How would this not be considered double jeopardy by attempting to try him for a crime that has already been dismissed

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It isn't double jeopardy for two reasons. First, he wasn't found "not guilty," the charges were dismissed. Second, this is still the same trial; if they can convince the judge to reconsider then it's back on like it never stopped. They can also appeal the dismissal, which would have the same effect if the appeal is successful.

For context though, what the prosecution did yields with a dismissal with prejudice (if caught). It is the prosecution's duty to ensure that any evidence they have is turned over to the defense. Even if that evidence would tank the prosecution's case. That's the whole point. The state can't just railroad you because they can. They must play fair. What they did is pretty much a textbook Brady violation. I seriously doubt that the judge will reconsider, or that appeals will work. Unless the supreme court wants to fuck that up for us too...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

First, he wasn't found "not guilty," the charges were dismissed.

Doesn't matter. Jeopardy attaches when the Jury is sworn in. And the jury has already been dismissed. At best, they can ask for a mistrial at this point. There are some cases where you can get a mistrial that allows for a new jury, but that is pretty much impossible if the mistrial was the prosecutor's fault; even if, on review, a mistrial was not nessasary. Essentially, you do not want prosecutors to deliberately induce a mistrial in order to restart a trial that is not going well.

Further, there is simply no mechanism that allows the judge to even consider this motion, and the prosecutor in her brief did not provide a single theory for why it would be proper to consider the motion. This motion was written for the media, not the judge.

This us not out of character. In the hearing that led to the dismissal, there was a conversation with the judge during the lunch break. It subsequently came out that the judge was inclined to dismiss the case. Following that meating, the prosecutor's co-council quit; and the prosecutor called herself as a witness. On its own, a prosecutor calling herself as a witness (subject to cross examination) is crazy enough. But the judge already told them he was dismissing the case. There was no legal reason for her to do so. The only justification for it was PR. In explaining her decision to call herself she said, on the record (but not under):

Court: It doesn't matter to me weather you call yourself as a witness. It doesn't matter to the defense weather you call yourself as a witness. So, if your calling yourself as a witness, there is no one here that is requiring you to be called as a witness.

Prosecutor: The information. Everything that happened in this regard, especially as it pertains to me, needs to come out in the public

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=03FPAS71YYs&t=24292