JUDGE DISMISSES TRIAL WITH PREJUDICE! Join me to discuss!
$10,000 GIVEAWAY ALERT! GRAB YOUR END-OF-WEEK RECAP SHOW SEAT!
Join us LIVE for an exclusive and 100{ebf8267f808eac43d24742043db51eeeb004db6334271e1bb6fe8c21c7925753} free end-of-week recap event where we dive deep into Alec Baldwin’s self-defense case and its implications for self-defense law and concealed carry.
Hosted by Attorney Andrew Branca and special guest Adam Baldwin, this is an event you won’t want to miss!
Event Date: Sunday, July 14th
Time: 5PM EST / 2PM PST
This 100{ebf8267f808eac43d24742043db51eeeb004db6334271e1bb6fe8c21c7925753} FREE end-of-week $10,000 giveaway recap show WILL NOT BE ON SOCIAL MEDIA!
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR FREE NOW!
What to Expect:
- Expert Analysis: Break down the key moments from Alec Baldwin’s trial with legal expert Attorney Andrew Branca.
- Special Guest Insight: Actor Adam Baldwin shares his unique perspective on the case and its broader implications.
- Exclusive Q&A Session: Get your burning questions answered by our experts in real-time.
- $10,000 Giveaway: We’re giving away over $10,000 in gifts! But you must attend the live event to claim your prize.
Highlights Include:
- The critical errors Alec Baldwin made that led to his legal jeopardy.
- The role of celebrity status in legal outcomes: Would Baldwin’s case be different if he wasn’t famous?
- Essential lessons in self-defense and concealed carry laws.
- How to avoid self-incrimination and protect yourself legally.
- This is a limited-seating event, so secure your spot now! Only 500 seats available, and they’re filling up fast!
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR FREE NOW!
Disclaimer – Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Transcript
(PDF Link)
NOTE: All LOSD video/podcast transcripts are prepared in rough form, provided solely for our members’ convenience & documentation, and are not thoroughly reviewed for accuracy. Refer to the original video/podcast for the authoritative form of this content.
And we are back back. We’re back again. Ladies and gentlemen, to the law self defense show, our third live stream of the day. And, uh, we’re gonna wrap up this day with, uh, with the killer news. The killer news that the manslaughter trial against against Alec Baldwin has been dismissed with prejudice with prejudice.
The manslaughter trial against Alec Baldwin has, has been dismissed with prejudice. Prejudice means it cannot be brought again. If it was merely dismissed, the state might have, uh, sought out a new grand jury indictment brought him to court again. But this trial judge has said no, I am taking away from the prosecution, their ability to do that. Dismissed with prejudice.
What are the grounds for dismissing with prejudice? It appears to be based on and I’m gonna play for you. The judge’s order. Uh, she gives a very brief, verbal, oral explanation of why she’s dismissing her prejudice. I think it fails her, her explanation fails to go to the merits of the argument here.
Uh, but I’ll play that all for you so you can see it. It’s not very long and, uh, but it, it’s focused largely on what would be called Brady violations. That the state had evidence that it failed to, uh, provide to, to the, um, to the defense and, uh, as a, as a Brady violation, it, it, uh, and arguing that the, um, the hiding, it was hidden, it was intentional. It was culpable, uh, that dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate sanction here.
Uh, so I’m gonna play that for all of you. It’s, uh, and once I play it for, well, let’s see, how should I go here? Should I explain why I disagree and then play it. So, you know what to listen for. So it’s centered around largely around this ammunition. Um, this ammunition that, uh, was, uh, arguably the source of the ammunition that Hannah Guterres, the live ammo, the Hannah Guterres ended up bringing live rounds onto the set of rust. Um, and, uh, some dude who had some of these from Arizona dropped them off at the sheriff’s office in Santa Fe claimed they had something to do with the shooting of, uh Helena Hutchins and the, the sheriff’s office, uh, checked it into inventory. Um, but put it under a different case number than the Baldwin prosecution case number.
Uh, apparently did not provide it to the defense, uh, as part of the evidentiary sharing. Uh And the, uh, obviously the defense is, the defense wants everyone to focus on stuff that has nothing to do with Alec Baldwin’s criminal liability like where the bullet came from. And so this arguably, I don’t know what it’s, I don’t really understand the argument that it matters where the bullet came from, I guess, and that the state hid that from the defense and therefore it’s a Brady violation. Uh, there was a couple of other things the defense had complained about too, like AAA third report from the state firearms expert that was not shared with the defense. I’m not sure.
I don’t think that mattered. I, I don’t think that was material either. Um, ultimately, any questions raised in that report were resolved later in all pretrial and there were pretrial hearings in that report and there was no dismissible prejudice.
But, uh, the judge did mention that as well. So in any case, uh, the reason I find the judges, um, ruling questionable is, uh, is because, and I don’t claim to be an expert on Brady Law. Ok, Brady is a US Supreme Court decision. Uh, that essentially says that the, the prosecution has a constitutional obligation to share evidence with the defense.
The defense doesn’t have to go search it up for themselves. If the prosecution is in possession of the evidence, then the, the state has an obligation, uh, a proactive obligation, uh, to share that with the defense. And if you don’t do that, it’s a Brady violation dismissal of the case would be an appropriate sanction dismissal with prejudice would be, uh, an appropriate sanction if you believe it was somehow malicious suppression of the evidence and there’s additional elements required. The judge is gonna go through those.
But just in summary, the big problem I have with it and the judge really skips over this and just kind of waves her hand but don’t look too closely at this part. Um, is that the for evidence to be brady evidence? It has to be evidence that’s exculpatory or impeaching information and it has to be evidence that’s material material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant. We’re not talking about punishment here. So it has to be evidence that’s material to the guilt or innocence of the defendant material to some element of the criminal charge or the underlying legal defense. And I didn’t hear any of this evidence that I would perceive as material to the criminal charge. So I don’t think it was Brady material. I don’t think it qualifies as what the objectionable evidence that was suppressed here.
I don’t think it qualifies as Brady material because I don’t think it’s material to the material in the legal sense of the term to the criminal charge here. So what is the criminal charge? Let’s remind ourselves, involuntary manslaughter. Two alternative theories.
One is premised on negligent use of a firearm, which is a separate criminal offense under New Mexico law and misdemeanor. And one theory of involuntary manslaughter is you were engaged in an underlying misdemeanor criminal offense here. Negligent handling of a firearm and someone died as a result because of your negligent handling of a firearm.
The alternative theory of involuntary manslaughter here is premised on a failure to engage with due caution and circumspection when uh engaged in some inherently dangerous activity here, the handling of a firearm. So all of this has to do with Alec Baldwin’s handling of the gun period. That’s what this is about. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether Alec Baldwin loaded the gun or failed to adequately check the gun.
He never checked the gun at all. Um, it doesn’t have anything to do with where the, how the bullet got on set or where the bullet came from or where it was manufactured or where the lead was sourced or the gunpowder was sourced. The criminal charge against Alec Baldwin literally has nothing to do with the bullet except that there was a bullet that came out of the gun, how the bullet got in the gun does not matter. We know it doesn’t matter because New Mexico Law, New Mexico Supreme Court tells us it doesn’t matter.
Here’s a case. State v Guilliam. I’ve covered it many times here in my coverage of this trial. It’s a, uh, involuntary manslaughter case with a gun and everybody, you know, involuntary manslaughter means it was an unintentional harm.
You didn’t mean it, you didn’t mean for it to happen, but you were engaged in reckless conduct and what does everyone say, when they’re holding a gun it goes off and they shoot somebody, they didn’t mean to, they say, oh my God, I didn’t know the gun was loaded, right? Or they say, oh my God, the gun just went off. Well, those kinds of excuses don’t really work when you’re handling something that’s an inherently dangerous instrument, like heavy machinery, explosives, dangerous chemicals, firearms, if you’re handling them and you know, they’re, they’re the risk of death or serious bodily injury is substantial if you don’t handle them with due caution and circumspection and someone dies as a result. That’s involuntary manslaughter. Here’s an involuntary manslaughter with a gun case where the person, the defendant says, well, I didn’t, I didn’t know the gun was loaded. I didn’t load the gun. I had no idea there was a bullet in there. Sound familiar.
And what did the New Mexico Supreme Court say it could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun. We don’t care who loaded the gun. All that is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands, a gun at which at some point had been loaded and that he handled it without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted. That’s the Alec Baldwin case.
Uh, so even if you believe, even if you believe that the uh, defense here, sorry that the prosecution, that the state suppressed evidence about the source of the live ammo. It doesn’t matter where the live ammo came from. All that matters is that Alec Baldwin pointed what he knew to be a real gun at another human being cocked a hammer, pressed the trigger and obviously failed to ensure there was not live ammo in the gun because he killed Elena Hutchins with the round that came out of his gun. So, so I don’t see the materiality here.
Um There’s plenty of people in the chat saying I’m wrong. Show me, I’ll have to see the argument. Um But, but one thing we will be doing before I play the, uh the judge’s ruling and by the way, when the judge gets to materiality, she doesn’t explain how this suppressed evidence is material to the criminal charge. She just concludes summarily that it’s material to the criminal charge. So, uh we are doing a recap of the trial.
It was supposed to be a mid trial recap, but it’s now it’s an end of trial recap on Sunday. Uh I’m gonna do all the highlights of the trial, including this kind of stuff. We’ll have some more research and analysis. Maybe I’ll have some guest lawyers on, they can explain to me why I’m wrong and maybe they’ll make a compelling argument and we can all learn from this. Uh My buddy Adam Baldwin is, uh scheduled to be on, he’s had of course, decades in Hollywood handling guns on sets, he has very strongly held opinions about what’s proper in the handling of guns on sets.
He’s gonna share that with all of us. Uh, and we are giving away $10,000 in prizes, folks, $10,000 in prizes. Now, we’re not doing this on social media.
It won’t be on youtube, it won’t be on rumble, it won’t be on X, it won’t even be live streamed uh to law of self defense members because I don’t wanna run into social media problems. I wanna be able to say whatever I want to say. I want my guest to be able to say whatever they want to say. However, they want to say it.
Uh I may wanna share images or music or video and not run into problems with social media. So we’re doing this as a webinar that I’m hosting. Uh So you have to register for a seat now. It’s 100{ebf8267f808eac43d24742043db51eeeb004db6334271e1bb6fe8c21c7925753} free. Go to Law of self defense.com/trial recap. We’re not charging a penny for this or scan that QR code right there on the screen.
Uh There’s no charge at all. Uh But because I want to rub it, run it as a webinar, the webinar requires you to register for receipt. So uh do that. We’re almost out of seats.
It’s, it’s almost full. Uh first come first serve when the seats are gone, the seats are gone. I, I wanna make sure that we, I can do adequate Q and A with everybody including with Adam on the show. So if you have questions for Adam, feel free and I’ll, I’ll present them. Um So you do have to register. It doesn’t cost anything law of self defense.com/trial recap. When you go to that page, uh you’ll end up here, just click that blue button and secure your seat.
Sunday afternoon, two pm pacific time. Uh 5 p.m. Eastern time. Uh It’ll be an hour or two. I, I would think, um it’ll be a great time. Great time and we can explore all these, all these legal questions in greater greater detail. Uh So, so the trial is done for, for Alec Baldwin, is it possible for the prosecution to appeal this legal ruling by the judge? The answer is yes, absolutely.
Will she do that? I think that’s largely a political question. Not a legal question. Remember Carrie Morsey is a, um, is a special prosecutor she was invited on. She’s basically a contractor. She’s not the elected prosecutor, the elected prosecutors, you know, doesn’t want to deal with this case. And New Mexico is a pretty liberal state. So just for political reasons, they may not want to appeal this decision.
We’ll have to see what happens in, in the coming weeks. Uh But now let me turn to this. Let’s, let’s just listen to, oops, that’s not what I wanted. This is the ruling today from our judge, this is the judge, Judge Summer. Uh, this is the ruling from her today at the end of the day when all was said and done, everybody knew this was coming for hours. Apparently, um, Kerri Morrissey put a lot of stuff into the record. She, she put herself on her oath and testified from the witness stand to create a record for purposes of appeal and probably to, to maintain the conviction of, uh, of, uh, Hannah Guterres.
And, uh, but, uh, through that whole process, the last couple of hours of the day, for sure. I, I’m pretty confident everybody knew that a dismissal with prejudice was coming. I think the judge told him and the rest of it was just going through the motions. So let’s listen to the judge issuing that actual order.
I’ll make myself smaller. Here. I think there we go. And let’s, let’s see. Bump up the volume.
Do I need to bump up the volume a little bit? Everybody ready? Oops. And here we go.
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer:
So, dismissal with prejudice is a very extreme sanction. And, uh, case law is very clear that, um, because it’s a very extreme, I have to go through every single element and I have to make a very good record as to what why I’m, I’m seeing what I’m seeing. So, in order to establish a Brady violation, the defendant must show that the prosecution suppressed evidence, the evidence was favorable to the accused and the evidence was material to the defense material.
So let’s go through the elements, suppression of evidence, the definition of suppression of elements.
This is case versus hatch is while the first element requires proof that the prosecution suppressed or withheld the evidence in question, it does not require a finding of bad faith or any other culpable state of mind on the part of the prosecutor, this prong is satisfied the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office and the prosecution failed to disclose the supplemental report to defense and provide defense an opportunity to inspect the rounds collected into evidence that Mr Teskey gave is the evidence favorable to the accused.
The second Brady element is whether the suppressed evidence was favorable to the accused either as impeachment or exculpatory evidence. This prong is satisfied the suppressed evidence is favorable to the accused. It is impeachment evidence has even been offered in this trial as impeachment evidence and is potentially exculpatory to the defense. Critically, the exculpatory value cannot be analyzed at such a late juncture because of the non disclosure is the evidence material.
While post-trial discovery of evidence under Brady requires a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different discovery of evidence during trial requires an evaluation of whether the late tender has impeded the effective use of evidence in such a way that it impacts the fundamental fairness of the proceedings. And that is uh state versus Huerta cost Castro.
This evidence is material. The late discovery of this evidence during trial has impeded the effective use of evidence in such a way that it has impacted the fundamental fairness of the proceedings. The defense is not in a position to test the state’s theory as to the source of the live rounds that killed Ms. Hutchins.
I’m also going to take a look at Harper State versus Harper. The assessment of sanctions depends upon the extent of the government’s culpability weighed against the amount of prejudice to the state quoting Sherard.
Let’s go through culpability. Our case law generally provides that the refusal to comply with a district court’s discovery order only rises to the level of exclusion or dismissal where the state’s conduct is especially culpable such as where evidence is unilaterally withheld by the state in bad faith or all access to the evidence is precluded by state and transient. The state is highly culpable for its failure to provide this discovery to the defendant.
The state unilaterally withheld a supplemental report. Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Officer made the decision and apparently also with the with the prosecutor is pursuant to Hancock’s testimony, that the evidence was of no evidentiary value and failed to connect the evidence to the instant case. The case agent as well as pursuant to Hancock’s testimony. MS Morsey was aware of the new evidence and yet did not make an effort to disclose it to defense. The state’s willful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate. 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 ouch prejudice. When discovery has been produced, late prejudice does not accrue unless the evidence is material and the disclosure is so late that it undermines the definition the defendant’s preparation for trial.
The court concludes that this conduct is highly prejudicial to the defendant. The jury has been sworn jeopardy has attached and this disclosure during the course of trial is so late that it undermines the defendant’s preparation for trial. There is no way for the court to right this wrong. Lesser sanctions under Harper trial, courts possess broad discretionary authority to decide what sanction to impose when a discovery order is violated. State versus lame.
The sanction of dismissal is the only warranted remedy. The jury has been sworn jeopardy has attached and a mistrial would not be based upon manifest necessity. Further, the sanction of dismissal is warranted. In this case, the state has repeatedly made representations to defense and to the court that they were compliant with all their discovery obligations.
Despite their repeated representations, they have continued to fail to disclose critical evidence to the defendant. Brady and Harper are satisfied.
Dismissed with prejudice warranted. Court also has power, inherent power per state versus lair where dalcovery violations inject needless delay into the proceedings. Courts may impose meaningful sanctions to effectuate their inherent power and promote efficient judicial administration. The state’s discovery violation has injected a needless incurable delay into the instant jury trial. Dismissal with prejudice is warranted to ensure the integrity of the judicial system and the efficient administration of justice.
Your motion to dismiss with prejudice is granted.
So I wanted to share all of that, you know, did you hear the part where the judge says this, this evidence that was suppressed? This is the supplemental report about the the live rounds from Arizona that didn’t resemble any live rounds in the, in the rust um that it was material to the source of the rounds. She said that, but why would the source, the source of the rounds matter? But why does it matter where the round come from where the bullet came from? That’s not New Mexico law. So it’s material to a matter that’s not material to the actual criminal charge or legal defenses in this case.
So that’s what I don’t see about this ruling. But that’s, that’s the wonder by the way, this is for a lot of people making fun of me in the chat. This is good for me. This is good for me. Uh Because this illustrates that money and resources make a difference in your trial in your defense, right? Hannah Guterres didn’t raise his defense. I mean, she didn’t raise it. She actually had the evidence.
Uh They didn’t use it because it, it just shows that the live animal came from Hannah Guterres. So it wouldn’t have helped her. But when you pay millions of dollars for your legal defense, it makes a difference. Uh Normally the state has effectively infinite resources compared to the defense.
Not here, Alec Baldwin’s reputed to be worth tens of millions of dollars, I think, $70 million. Uh, if he spent $10 million on this defense and it wouldn’t surprise me if he has, uh, it’s money well spent, isn’t it given this outcome? Uh I’m a provider of legal services folks. So uh when, when people perceive that the quality of uh your legal defense, your legal team and the resources you can bring to bear matters better to have higher quality and more resources that is good for attorney Andrew Branca. That is good for our platinum program membership. And I don’t have any personal attachment to any of these people. Gary Morris, he’s not my friend.
I, I couldn’t care less how all this works out except from a, a legal analysis perspective. So I don’t see what any of this, any of this ammo from Arizona or the source of the bullet or who loaded the bullet in the gun. Uh has anything to do with the fact that Alec Baldwin incontrovertibly pointed what he knew to be a real gun at another human being cocked the hammer pressed the trigger and killed her when there was a live round in the gun.
Don’t see it but there we are. Uh, I’m not gonna blab today’s show if you want to put questions or comments in for me to, oh, we’re still doing our Sunday show though. So remember that our Sunday, uh, it was gonna be a recap show. Now, it’s, now it’s end of trial show. Uh, but we’ll, we’ll, we’ll cover some, in more detail.
Some of the, the legal questions about this. I don’t claim to be an expert on Brady Law. Uh, by the way. So, uh, this may very well have been an appropriate dismissal with prejudice for Brady violations. Um, I, I don’t know, even if that’s true though, even if you accept that, that’s true. That doesn’t do anything to diminish Alec Baldwin’s legal culpability. Right.
I mean, he can’t be tried again if it’s dismissed with prejudice, uh, unless it’s appealed, I guess, and this decision is overturned, but it doesn’t change what he did. It doesn’t change any of the material facts of this case. I mean, you, you all have to concede that.
Right. So, join us on Sunday afternoon for our end of trial recap. Now, I guess it is. Uh, we’re gonna have a great time. We’re gonna go through some more legal analysis about all this. So perhaps we can have a greater understanding of what actually went down. Um, if it has legal merit, the prospects of appeal, uh, to what extent was this a Brady violation, even though it appears that what was suppressed is immaterial to the legal charge or any legal defenses.
Here. I hear people saying, well, you know, it was, it’s material to impeachment of witnesses. Ok. Impeachment of witnesses. About what about the source of the ammo? Which is irrelevant to Alec Baldwin’s conduct, doesn’t matter how, where the bullet came from. What difference would that make if the bullet had come from a different source? Would it change Alec Baldwin’s legal culpability? No, I don’t think so. So.
Uh if yeah, if you, if you’re in youtube and you want to comment or question addressed, I’ll be happy to do. That needs to be a $10 Super Chat. Uh rumble, same difference and uh make sure I’m streaming in Rumble and um if you’re a loss off defense member and the member chat, I’ll just, I’ll just address your questions but we won’t, it won’t be too in depth. This is the end of the day.
I, I’ve been doing this all day folks. So the in depth analysis will be on Sunday, by the way, on Sunday, we’re giving away $10,000 worth of prizes, $10,000 worth of prizes uh that you can win. Uh But you have to be present to win, you have to be present to win.
Uh So head over to that URL it’ll bring into this page. Click that blue button. Uh Enjoy our legal analysis. I’ll see if I can get some lawyer friends to come on as guests, Adam Baldwin, my buddy will be there uh to talk about his experience in Hollywood handling guns and his personal views on on this outcome of this trial. And uh and we’ll give away $10,000 worth of prizes on the show.
But you do need to be present. We’ll be pulling the winner from uh the uh the people present at the webinar. Again, it’s 100{ebf8267f808eac43d24742043db51eeeb004db6334271e1bb6fe8c21c7925753} free. You just need to reserve a seat because we are doing is in a webinar.
So I’m not constrained by social media uh rules. All right. So let me look at the law of self defense members. Uh Let’s see, he cried twice. Someone right? Once when he mur once, when he got off Scott Free and once, when he murdered Helena, well, he didn’t murder her homicide. People keep saying it can’t be appealed.
It’s, it’s, it’s no, the, the legal decision of the judge, any legal ruling by a trial judge can be appealed. Dismissed with prejudice doesn’t mean it can’t be appealed. It means it would have to be appealed uh in order to reverse the dismissal with prejudice. Uh That’s all. It just means the prejudice just means the, the prosecutors would have to go to the appellate courts and get the ruling overturned before they could re indict if it wasn’t for the prejudice.
They, they could just go re indict but the judge’s legal decision, any legal decision by a trial judge can be appealed if, if it’s preserved by objection, if the appellate court agrees that it was an error, if they believe it was, uh, that it mattered, uh, that it wasn’t harmless error, whether or not it’s appealed is a political decision. I, I can’t speak to that. Uh Let’s see, Terry says, Andrew, why does this have anything to do with Baldwin pointing the gun, cocking the hammer, pulling the trigger? Nothing. It doesn’t have anything to do with any of that. Um, I did not agree with the Brady violation and honestly, I think someone got to her.
I do. Do you mean the judge? I don’t, I don’t know. Uh, Phil says someone powerful in that state wanted all this to go away. You know, I wonder, I mean, I listen, I, I don’t do conspiracy theories so I can’t read people’s minds. I don’t know what’s going on in that respect. It’s, it’s worth keeping in mind that Kerry Morrissey is a career criminal defense attorney. She’s not a prosecutor by, uh, training and experience.
Uh, she was just selected as the special prosecutor for this case and that could matter because as a, as a defense attorney, you see Brady in a completely different light, right? Brady is an obligation on the state to produce evidence to you. She’s Kerri Morrissey her whole career, probably 30 years, maybe more has been the beneficiary, the recipient of Brady materials. Not the provider of Brady materials and she’s not been a state prosecutor so she hasn’t had law enforcement, crime scene technicians, uh, you know, sheriff’s office staff coordinating with her or, and for which, you know, she’s basically a manager of all those people that’s all new to her. Uh, so I wonder to what extent the I’ve mentioned before that sometimes she seems to trip up in this, the mindset of thinking like, um, a defense attorney to thinking like a prosecutor. I wonder to what extent that that was a, that created friction in an administrative sense as well.
I don’t know, maybe that contributed to this because there were missteps, there were uh reports that she should have, the defense should have had that looked like they, they were not provided, not out of malice, but over, you know, misadministration. Basically, I don’t believe for a second that, that Kerry Morrisey was doing anything out of malice here. Um But that doesn’t mean, you know, stuff didn’t happen. I mean, mistakes were being made. Balls were being dropped. No question about that, whether they were material to the prosecution and the defense is a different question.
It was not the smoothest running operation. But listen, we’ve done trials in New Mexico before, right? We did the Dean Cummings trial in which carry Morrissey was a, was a defense attorney for Dean Cummings. This was the former skier who shot a guy in Mexico. Uh He was thinking about buying that guy’s property that had a fight and, uh, carry Mary did a fantastic job defending, uh, Dean Cummings, got him acquitted of murder and the investigation, there was atrocious, it was horrifically bad. Uh I’ve, I’ve not seen the good New Mexico cop yet. Good. I mean, in terms of, you know, talent, uh, I’m sure they exist but I haven’t seen them.
So, and these cops in this case didn’t strike me as being, you know, world class either. So if they were dropping a lot of balls and, and Carrie is really a smart attorney, so she may have been expecting too much from these people. That’s not an excuse for her just trying to kind of understanding how this dynamic could have occurred. Uh, let’s see what else Phil says. Uh, I’m really pissed off. Baldwin is an arrogant prick.
I hope Helena haunts him for the rest of his life. Well, I, I wouldn’t want Alec Baldwin convicted of manslaughter because he’s a jerk. That’s not right. But I, I want him convicted of involuntary manslaughter because he pointed what he knew to be a real gun at another human cock.
The hammer pulled the trigger and killed her because he didn’t make sure there was no live ammo on the gun first. That’s, that’s the reason he ought to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter. And by the way, there, there’s nothing in this decision that changes any of that.
All those facts are still true. And what I see is a lot of people who, who object to the notion that Alec Baldwin could be convicted of involuntary manslaughter on those really undisputed facts. They just don’t want him to be. It’s an emotional desire. They just, they kind of wish that, you know, movie sets were different, there’s different laws, criminal laws on movie sets that, uh, you know, the, the normal law of involuntary manslaughter that applies to all of us shouldn’t apply to Alec Baldwin on the movie set. You’re entitled to feel that way. It’s ok.
I don’t mind, but that’s not reality. Criminal laws apply everywhere. There, there’s not a version of involuntary manslaughter that’s different if you’re an actor in a movie set.
Ah, let’s see. Yeah, it has all this stuff, had nothing to do with the charge or a legal defense. It’s all irrelevant. It’s crazy.
Crazy. I think it’s crazy. Um, I have an open mind if someone can, if someone can make a substantive argument, not just that, you know, you suck, you were wrong. If someone can make a substantive argument, I’m open to it. Uh, let’s see. What else? How soon will the state have to appeal? II, I don’t know.
I’m not an expert on appellate law in New Mexico. Um, I guess we’ll find out, uh, I expect we’ll find out pretty quickly, actually. Um, mm. Now they do have to get over.
So, probably I would expect the legal standard, the appellate court would have to apply is whether or not this granting of dismissal with prejudice is an abuse of discretion by this judge. And I can see room for that argument and then they might reverse on those grounds. And then Baldwin would get a new trial. If he gets a new trial, he can’t do this twice.
Right. Because now the evidence is known to him and he’d have to defend himself on the legal merits. And I don’t think that’s possible on the undisputed facts of this case. All right. I don’t know who the, there’s an older lady crying in the back, you can just see her on the right side of the.
Well, I’ll, I’ll pull it back up the right side of this image just under the court TV symbol. She was weeping. I don’t know who that is. It might be a relative of, of Baldwin’s.
I don’t know. But, but yes, of course, quite, quite emotional. All right. So let’s let me take a look at Super Chats.
Uh Where are my superjets? Here we go. They can even be mean Super Chats. They just have to be a minimum of $10.
So if you want to say mean things about me, I’ll read your Super Chat. It’s fine. I don’t care. Uh It’s all good. Um uh Brendan says, wasn’t it impeachment evidence, impeachment of what impeachment of what material fact, right? So say, say one of the detectives investigating this case, um, um, was speeding on the way to the courthouse, got a speeding ticket and the, the prosecutor didn’t share that information with the defense.
Does that matter? Does it, what if he had a speeding ticket 10 years ago? Does that matter that it wasn’t revealed to the defense? So to my mind, it has to be impeachment of a material fact. Right? A witness testifying about a material fact, the material facts in this case are not in dispute. No one disputes that it was Alec Baldwin holding the gun, right. No one disputes that there was a live round in the gun. That’s the round that killed Helena Hutchins. No one disputes that Alec Baldwin pointed that gun directly at Helena Hutchins.
The bullet struck her. No one disputes that he cocked the hammer. He says he cocked a hammer and the the overwhelming evidence in the case is that he had to have pressed the trigger to drop the hammer on that round. He says he doesn’t, he didn’t, he didn’t say that when he talked to the police.
Uh but he says the only evidence contrary to that is his own self serving claim. Every other expert, every other person who handled the gun, Alec Baldwin himself handled the gun for days prior to the shooting. He never complained about the gun not working, right. So all the other evidence is consistent with him having pressed the trigger. Now you could be on the jury and say, listen, even if all that’s true and it’s almost entirely uncontroverted. I still don’t think this is involuntary manslaughter and the jury is entitled to come to that conclusion. But this ruling doesn’t touch on any of that.
This is just, uh, you know, a procedural dismissal with prejudice because of this really unrelated, uh, technical violation by the prosecution. Now, listen, don’t get me wrong. Brady is important. I, I’m a defense attorney, I believe in Brady.
Uh And this again may be a completely appropriate sanction for a genuine Brady violation. I, I’d have to be convinced because I don’t see the materiality of the evidence in question to the criminal charge or any legal defense. Uh Adam says, hey, you should get Brandon Herrera, the A K guy to talk about the type of firearm that was used in the shooting. Brandon’s already done a video on the, on the revolver. He got a copy of it. He did it months, months and months ago, Brandon Herrera, the A K guy on youtube, you should watch him.
He’s a great dude, great dude. Um I’ve met him many times at the, uh the machine gun shoots that he puts on with uh donut operator. And uh um, oh my gosh, what’s that other guy’s website called youtube Channel Destruction Ranch or something? Uh The, all those guys got together, bought a, bought a very nice range well built their own range basically. Um K swindle. Is that how you pronounce that? $10 Super Chat? The cops in these rus cases appear to be stupid. Well, I, I can’t disagree with that. Do you think they thought they were helping the prosecution by not filing the evidence with the Russ case number or just lazy? II, I just think they were stupid.
I think they, they, and Kerry Morrisey says too, um, remember it doesn’t matter where the bullet came from for, for Baldwin’s criminal charge. So the fact that someone walked into the police station said here’s live ammo that may be the source of the live ammo on the Russ set that killed Helena Hutchins. Why would that be relevant to the prosecution of Alec Baldwin? Uh It’s just not, it’s not relevant to any of the elements in the criminal charge and, and by the way, the they didn’t, it wasn’t like it was found on the set, still wouldn’t be relevant even if it had be. But I think their sense was, well, let’s just keep it safe. We’ll log it and we’ll, we’ll chase this guy down and do an interview with him and, and see to what extent it’s connected to the scene or relevant to the case and they were never able to track the guy down for an interview and then it was just left. I think they just forgot about it frankly that you have to remember there’s, there’s thousands of pieces of evidence, terabytes of discovery data were shared back and forth with the defense. I, I think this, this just got overlooked.
I don’t think there was any malice here because I don’t think it was worth hiding. Why would you hide this? I mean, what, what’s the benefit to the prosecution from hiding this? It doesn’t help. It doesn’t diminish the prosecution’s case if the ammo came from haters, which, which is what this evidence would suggest, which is why Jason Bowles. Hanna Guitar’s lawyer didn’t want to use it in, in the first trial in, in the manslaughter trial of his client.
The same guy came in with the ammo. We gave it to Bowles and Bowles said, oh, crap, get out of here. Just take that stuff away from me.
I don’t want to see that. That looks just like the ammo that killed Helena Hutchins and it came from Hannah Guterres. So, all right. Uh, let me look at rumble.
Not much there. One last look for Super Chats and, uh, oh, there is another one, the squid $10. Thank you so much. Right. So if it’s true that actors don’t check the arms due to liability or whatever. Well, that’s not, that’s not true. I, I any actor is free to, uh, have the gun checked in front of him to make sure it’s got no live rounds in it.
Um, does that shift civil liability only? And that’s how Baldwin was deemed to have some criminal liability. I don’t understand the question. He was deemed to have criminal liability. The state believes because he took what he knew to be a real gun pointed it at another human being cocked.
The hammer pressed the trigger without ensuring there was no live ammo in the gun and killed some. That conduct is the reckless creation of an unjustified risk of death to another. It’s the equivalent of a drunk driving, vehicular homicide.
Uh, you’re not intending to kill anyone when you’re driving home, drunk from a bar, you’re not intending to run anybody over, but you know, driving drunk, you’re creating an unjustified risk of death to others. And if you happen to run granny over in the crosswalk on the way home while driving drunk, that’s involuntary manslaughter. That’s the parallel here.
Uh, let’s see, Liam says, I’ll bet the jury is even happier than Baldwin. Well, the jury doesn’t have to come back on Monday, so I’m sure they’re happy about that for sure. All right, folks, I’m gonna wrap things up for tonight there.
I am back on Sunday, 2 p.m. Pacific, Sunday, Sunday, Sunday, 2 p.m. Pacific 5 p.m.
Eastern. Uh, we’re gonna have my buddy Adam Baldwin on our trial, end of trial recap show. Now, uh, we’ll go over some more legal analysis, the prospects for appeal to what extent this might have been a brady violation.
I’ll try to bring in some other lawyers who may have greater expertise in that area of the law to share their insights with us. My buddy, Adam Baldwin, not related to ALEC any uh many, many decades of gun handling on movie and TV sets. He’ll share his expertise, insights opinions with us and all of that and we’re giving away $10,000 worth of prizes, but it’s not on social media. We’re doing it as a webinar so that I don’t have to worry about getting some kind of strike from social media uh from youtube or rumble or whatever. Uh It’s free. We’re not charging anything to join us but because it’s a webinar.
So I don’t have to worry about social media constraints. Uh You do have to register to get a seat so we can send you the login information you need to sign in on Sunday. Uh So go to this URL or, or scan the QR code with your phone law of Self defense.com/ trial recap. And that’ll take you to this page that you see here.
The big blue button there, register my 100{ebf8267f808eac43d24742043db51eeeb004db6334271e1bb6fe8c21c7925753} free spot. Now, you have to be present present. You have to be at the webinar to win one of those $10,000 prizes. It’s not enough to just have registered. We’re gonna pull names from people who are there on the webinar.
That’s how that works. All right. So what else? I think one last look at Super Chats just to be thorough. That’s it.
So I will remind all of you that if you carry a gun, so you’re hard to kill. That’s why I carry a gun. So I’m hard to kill.
So my family is hard to kill. Then you also oat yourself and your family to make sure you know the law. So you’re hard to convict as well be as hard to convict as Alec Baldwin apparently. And you do that by making good decisions which Alec Baldwin didn’t do and by having world class legal expertise and law, self defense can help you with all of that. So until Sunday, Sunday, Sunday two pm, pacific time five pm Eastern time.
Register law of self defense.com/trial recap. Grab your seat now before they’re all gone and I’ll see you all on Sunday for more fun. Until then I remain attorney Andrew Branca for the law of self defense. Stay safe.
