Did Baldwin Get Off On A Technicality? -- A Lawyer Explains
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ต.ค. 2024
- Patreon: / runkleofthebailey
Locals: runkleofthebai...
BTC address: bc1qdqzpz6ny6w35qyl2rnasshjm60jvwcjgllwcay
All comments for information only. Do not take anything as legal advice--if you have a legal issue, contact a lawyer directly so that you can received advice tailored to your situation. All views expressed are solely those of the creator.
"If anyone is upset about the dismissal of Baldwin's case, consider this: the prosecution may have intentionally violated the rights of a wealthy white male celebrity, who had the resources to assemble a strong defence team. If this can happen with him, what chance do you have if you find yourself indicted?"
Exactly
Someone joked that the reason why the rich are rarely punished in USA is that their police and prosecution are incapable of doing their work according to laws but the rich are usually the only ones who can afford good enough lawyers to prove this.
That depends. Does the local prosecutor know where to buy a ham sandwich, within an hour's drive of a Grand Jury?
Hear, hear.
The prosecutor was arrogant and screwed up.... 100% of the blame falls on her.
@@AgadorSpartacus don't forget the law enforcement officers. They didn't seem to communicate or investigate well either.
eh, I think more of it falls on the officers involved than Morrisy, but she's also not blameless.
@@sutarikunFrom what I can tell the police investigation is usually shoddy. Only in high profile cases does it usually get exposed.
Morrissey, Hancock, Poppell and Brandle share the blame.
@@sutarikunthey lied straight up
A technicality is "someone messed up some paperwork", not "the prosecuter didn't turn over evidence because it didn't fit the pre-established narrative they had in their head"
They wanted a big high profile win more than they wanted fair justice.
Given the facts of this case, "someone messed up some paperwork" is certainly an element - the information was filed under a different case number, though two of the three prosecutors were still aware of it (the one who left the case during trial literally discovered it at the same time as the Defense: testimony). There's some fuckups on paperwork as well that I think would also qualify as pretty much not just a technicality - for instance, if you fuck up chain of custody on evidence, and you have a missing person, it opens the possibility that the evidence could have been tampered with. Or it could be your search warrant application is missing some information that means you don't even meet the burden of probable cause, or you said you were looking for evidence of the wrong thing.
In my years of transcribing legal proceedings and hearings of these sorts of things, I have never, ever seen a case tossed or sanctions given based on a merely harmless screw up on paperwork. Those screw-ups are pretty important when they happen, especially when the evidence developed after them is fruit of the poison tree.
We all hate paperwork, but "someone messed up the paperwork" in legal proceedings matters a great deal, especially when the stakes can be someone's freedom, or in capital cases, someone's life.
We have to protect the rights of the worst of us so we can preserve the rights for the rest of us.
absolutely beautifully put. Wow.
"Jurisprudence Fetishist Gets Off on Technicality" *is* an all time Onion headline though
Right up there with "Special Olympics T-Ball Stand Pitches Perfect Game"
"Elvis Returns from the Dead with New UFO Sex Diet"
Although that may have been a real headline in the 1980s. And it was likely National Enquirer rather than The Onion.
Don't forget, this is the second time the prosecutors office tried to pull something shady. The first time, back in 2023, resulted in the charges being dropped. They were refiled and here we are.
When the judge goes as far as saying it is more than possible the prosecution acted in bad faith, you better believe it is not a 'technicality'.
Bad faith includes throwing the case
"It's a technicality when I DON'T like the results. It's a founding principle of our democracy when I DO like the results!" -half of America
This kind of remedy is not a founding principle of our democracy. The Brady case is from 1963. We got by for almost 200 years without it.
@evancurran3438
No...many people have gone to prison who are innocent because investigations have been full of fuckery...
...
The fact there has to be a law forcing the justice system to do what the justice system should do or the consequences are "game over...no verdict of guilt or innconce can ever be judged" is very telling
@@evancurran3438 The right to a fair trial is the constitutional principle in question. Brady is just a piece of case law that found that trials are more fair when the state always discloses potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Ultimately, it's about due process, which absolutely is a founding principle in western democracy.
@renx81 Yeah, it's not like the state doesn't have enough power... I don't like the outcome, but agree with it. How does a seasoned prosecutor make such a stupid mistake?
True. But when it's Trump, our justice system bends over backwards to make every tiny detail go against him. But Baldwin, famous for mocking Trump, somehow gets off? I even begin to wonder if someone influenced the prosecution to screw up on purpose.
Being “let off by a technicality” can include “because they were technically innocent”.
Now, that was an analogy fit for a lay person like myself. I appreciate you breaking it down that way. This was the right move by the judge. Thanks Runkle.
For me, the most vile character in all this was CST Poppel. She's a crime scene technician...she just gathers and collects evidence...but she was acting like the "Mini-Me" of Morrisey. Poppel was openly venomous and antagonistic to the defense. Maybe I'm naive, but I should think that the person whose job it is to dust for fingerprints and pick up bloody knives at the crime scene should at least try to be impartial and not be joined at the hip to the prosecutor.
Agreed! Poppel’s demeanor in her interview with Treske was so smug! “I know ALL about this case!” was just as egregious as Baldwin’s interview with Stephanopolis stating he was a expert in firearms on a movie set. Sadly, Poppel’s arrogance ensured that a jury could never be able to decide if Alec Baldwin’s arrogance contributed to Halyna’s death. 😢
There's a part of me that thinks she's more vile than Morrissey. A small part, but a part nonetheless....
CSI’s and prosecutors often work together, but it’s vital that they stay professionally distant from the case. The CSI is about fact gathering, not prosecuting.
Hinestly it applies to everybody investigating this, like all of them had a part to play in this mess.
Finally. Someone spoke out about that term: "got off on a technicality." I have been saying everything you just said for years. Basically, I have always said that those "technicalities" are your constitutional rights. They are NOT technicalities!
I respect your opinion. Keri Morrissey and the Investigators are the ones who truly broke the law here and I hope they are held accountable.
They did indeed truly break the law, but you seem to be implying another party has been accused of breaking the law who did not truly do so.
@@CptJistuce technically they did
@@CptJistucenow you will never know whether Alec Baldwin broke the law. Even though he pulled the trigger, he might be set up in that situation which rendered him not liable for the victim’s death😂😂😂
I have been SOOOO looking forward to your epic rant on this topic.
Same!
Me too
The State cannot be allowed to decide how a defendant defends their charges. Choosing what evidence is important or relavent unilaterally is gross conduct and has broken the law.
Great analogy Ian!! “The technicality is the police and/or prosecution breaking the law.” Watching the Read case and the YSL fiasco along with this case has really brought home that these types of misconduct are more prevalent than most realize and sadly most trials are not on camera and will never have even the slightest chance of this behavior being brought to light. I am so grateful for Law Tube being a catalyst for that changing by educating people about our justice system and how it is supposed to work and what our rights and remedies are! Knowledge is power and the more the public knows about our justice system’s rules and procedures, the more we can hold accountable those whose job it is to be fair and just in wielding the power equally to everyone!
It’s appalling to have bullets refiled in another name and lost in the shuffle. I have worked in a bureaucracy where rules and procedures rule the day so for any experienced prosecutor to not turn over relevant evidence is inexcusable. The prosecutor does not determine if the defense gets the evidence in discovery and the result was just.
For what it’s worth Runkle I like and appreciate defense lawyers because at least in the US the Justice system can be very unfair the poor don’t stand a chance
Whole-heartedly agree. If we want the government to accept our rights under Amendment 2, we must insist ALL rights are respected.
Prosecution breaking the law is not "a technicality".
It really is though. Dismissing an entire case with prejudice because of minor prosecutorial/police misconduct is a remedy dreamt up by liberal justices in the 1960s. This did not happen in the US prior to that time. I don't think any other countries do this.
@@evancurran3438 Hiding evidence is not a minor misconduct.
@@evancurran3438 Every country with a justice system worth a damn does it.
You must dream of police states if you don't like it.
@@thorinpalladino2826 Did they actually hide it or just not disclose it because they determined it wasn't relevant?
@@evancurran3438 They put it in a case file not connected with either Balwin's or the armorer's case files. Besides, the prosecution does not get to decide what is useful to the defense.
Thanks, Runkle. Been trying to explain this to people who didn't watch the trial and only reacted to the judge's decision based on emotion, and not based on understanding of what actually happened in court. Judge made the right decision!
My first thought, watching it on stream, was "who else have they done this to?" I volunteer as a non-attorney, Victim's Advocate through a YWCA... I try to have grace...but I am not afraid to share my displeasure with the Courts when they shame Victims....Or go easy on Abusers of women, children, elderly and even Abusers of Men. We were able to get a judge off the bench for treating male victims of domestic violence with distain. (this was almost a decade ago)
Prosecutorial misconduct is not a technicality, this is a simple case of f#ck around and find out.
The defence would have use the fact that the person who possessed and supplied the live rounds had made numerous complaints about the armourer, and had tried to have her fired from the set. They would have presented sabotage as a viable theory.
I’ve said this a thousand times now:
The talent is not responsible for the props. The stage manager and armorer are responsible for the props.
Second point- why was there any live ammunition on a movie set? Ehoever brought them is the one who killed that woman.
I love this take and greatly appreciate the way you explain things. This was thoughtful without attacking those who use language you don't like. Always appreciate what you do Runkle!
I sat on the jury of a drugs trial once, (many, many moons ago), in Sydney Australia and the defence managed to successfully argue that the defendant had not understood their rights due to English being his second language. None of the police officers could recall double-checking that he did, in fact, understand what they were saying to him. The judge dismissed the case, and this being Australia, the judge also dressed-down the police officers in a very thorough way in front of the jury. It was very entertaining to witness, we have some very colourful judges down here. The point being that defendants have rights, (depending on which country you live in, of course), and when those rights are violated, the judge can be left with no option but to dismiss the case.
I live in an area where we vote in our judges and I always look for judge candidates that are former defense attorneys. The overwhelming majority of judges in my area tend to come from DA's offices or are former prosecutors and I think our pool of judges should be a bit more balanced.
I don’t have any worship of Baldwin but the D A seemed hell bent on prosecuting Baldwin no matter
Yes...this. I don't particularly care for him (from what I know about him) as a person. But I think we lose sight that the prosecutor's job is to get to the truth no matter what (or who). The job is not personal or political. At least it shouldn't be.
@@sharonbradley4484 Let's say the justice system IS weaponized for political reasons a lot these days in the USA and is weaponized for personal reason all the time, everywhere.
@@end_of_the_world-v8g True, unfortunately
This has been an absolute mess right from the time the movie started rolling & a woman, wife & mother lost her life because of it. Tragedy 😢
What we see with Baldwin is the entire reason Defense Attorneys exist. To try and make the State have some accountability instead of being able to do whatever they please.
While i do agree, I must say that if the people need follow all rules, laws, and regulations, then it should be simple enough for the common person to represent themselves. The need for an a DA in order to be fairly represented in the Court of Law does mean that there is a natural bias towards wealth people in the fact that, even if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you, the wealthy can afford a *better* defense.
@@johnlocke_1 First off, I want to point out that what I’m saying is more about the law/court process and the way it is structured so that if the State is caught “cheating” they are punished for it. Legal principles like “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” or standards on how long someone can be held, that attempt to force the State to play by rules and limit the power imbalance between the individual and the State.
That being said, in regards to the complexity of the law, I do remember seeing a statistic some time ago that private lawyers don’t win that many more criminal cases - you just feel a lot better about the quality of your assistance. The State isn’t going to go for you if they have a *bad* case after all. If they’re putting on the time to go after you you’re already fighting an uphill battle. There’s a lot going on in court, and a lot of ground to cover when you start to read up on whatever laws you are accused of breaking. And then on top of that are “unwritten rules” and certain ways defenses need to be presented. And I mean that in terms of *procedure*, not to mention the matter of having evidence backing them up.
These days with the internet, the average person is pretty able to defend themselves…if they can solely focus on structuring their defense and how they’ll act in court instead of all the other things going on in their lives.
I am frustrated about the media using titles like "The case was dismissed due to claims that evidence was withheld." No, the case was dismissed because a judge reviewed those claims, agreed with them, and acted on them.
The way I see it, law is all “a technicality”, but these technicalities are what separate us from a totalitarian state!
The prosecution definitely did wrong.
The prosecution were negligant...
The other special prosecutor, Erlinda Johnson, immediately quit when the State refused to dismiss the case. She stated that she only found out about the bullets at the same time that the public did. And that she told the State over lunch that it was her opinion that they had an ethical obligation to dismiss the case. They refused and she formally resigned. I gather she was n a high state of pissed-off.
I liked Kari Morrisey when she defended Dean Cummings and got him acquitted. But seeing what she did while she was prosecuting a case kind of changed my mind. As a defense attorney, she really goes hard. It's surprising, or maybe not, to see her behave in such a mercenary manner. A defense attorney should represent their client to the best of their ability, and get them acquitted however they can... but a prosecutor shouldn't convict using dirty tricks. Oh well, it's over now.
@@AceMoonshot She sure was pissed off and rightfully so! I commend her ethics and the judge’s also! It was pretty enlightening watching Judge Sommer go from “we need to keep this trial moving” to “Oh hell no, you cannot and will not play God and decide what evidence seems relevant to you, case dismissed”! The judge’s anger and disgust was all over her face when she made her ruling !
Excellent job !! I too was in the alec has responsibility in this! It was very cool to watch Justice work the way it should. Can we send this judge to Canton MA?
so who holds the people that messed up accountable?
Runkle's videos and lives especially on this were amazong
I appreciate the heck out of you, Runkle. Sticking to your values and giving it to us straight is admirable
Dismissed with prejudice!? Gracious... That's a huge deal, I am so curious now... Not been tracking this, was waiting for you to summarize this, as I do not really have time to watch full videos about this trial.
I so agree with you about the cries about technicalities.
I had to offer evidence to discovery and also testify for a [mere] Worker's Compensation case, and I insisted on making my lawyer enter so much evidence on my behalf that the Insurance Company was protesting every day!
I hope people do not unsub due to your honesty about this dismissal, come ON. Facts are Facts, emotional utterances CAN be truth; the law demands FACTS. You explained this factually, no one should fault you for that!
Its fundamental issue that evidence was not shared, but he had a excellent legal team.
He got lucky. A whistle blower saved his arse.
BTW trying to blame Baldwin was always insane. In what world should he expect a live round on a film set? I have been around movies for 50 years and have never seen a live round on a film set.
@@rorykeegan1895 But they do have blank rounds, don't they? And blank rounds can be quite dangerous. Ask Brandon Lee. I'm not Baldwin's fan, I cannot name a single movie of his, but I still think he is not guilty. It's armorer's fault.
@@andys.9300True which is why Brandon's death was because nobody checked the gun for broken bits that ended up killing him. This while involving a similar weapon, had different bullets and circumstances.
Well said Runkle! I had a human today scream at me because I said "The Prosecution failed to turn over evidence, his rights were violated".
Ah pooness! Nobody should be screaming at you.
@@l.baughman1445 I am fairly used to it. I hate the division in my country.
i guarantee this didn't happen to you, but i'm glad you got some likes and attention from it. just know that you don't have to lie or exaggerate your experiences.
@@ducciwucci Sir, or Ma'am, you have zero clue about me or my life. Personally or professionally. I volunteer in many arena's, and I got this from someone sticking their nose in something not even said to them. I was wearing my "Victim's Advocate" hat in Court yesterday. Answering questions of a DV victim. Those comments, and raised voices, caused her to shrink in fear.
Judge Marlowe was an example of justice granted!! Baldwin isn’t a role model but that doesn’t mean he deserves a shady process. Constitutional rights are to be abide by regardless of the person and Morrissey knew that but failed to do her job properly.
no, she was not.
she took justice into her own hands - where justice did not belong.
it belonged to the jury.
@geebee3100 Sadly, you think the Constitution is just a piece of paper & not the rules by which prosecutors shall abide!! The judge wasn't in the wrong. It was the state who failed your ideas.
@@geebee3100The prosecution took justice into their own hands by suppressing evidence.
That is a serious problem, made even worse by the fact that it seems to be irrelevant evidence that they hid from the defense "for the lulz"
Agreed. I wish she had done her job properly. I feel sad for a dear lady who lost her life and her family,husband, and young son.❤
She dismissed the case with prejudice because of a piece of evidence that is not relevant to the charges and is not favorable to the defendant. She lied about the evidence being favorable.
Becoming a lawtuber has made me very conscious of innocent til proved guilty.
I think for what happened it's easy to miss exactly what happened. Yes, the prosecution didn't hand over evidence that they claim was not relevant. But it was more than that. They (to me anyway) actively stonewalled collecting it (they knew about it right after the event...and various attempts by police to get it in their hands either failed or just didn't happen). When the police were more or less forced to accept this evidence...the police and prosecution met secretly, and decided to hide the evidence in a different log number. Then as bits and pieces of this came to light, actively lied about it to keep it from coming out, and later to hide the fact that it happened at all.
This wasn't an error. It wasn't a lapse in judgement. It was a plan to convict Alec Baldwin no matter the cost, innocent or guilty.
And the only reason if I recall, that the defense team even knew about it was because the armorer's legal team gave them a heads up. So onw team got it but another one didn't.
@@Ashbrash1998 I don't remember if that was established, but it came to light to someone other than the lead investigator and prosecutor near the end of the armorer's trial. Maybe it was too late at that point. Maybe there was more to the story (since anything the prosecutor says is suspect).
Really, the desire to jail Baldwin no matter what imo started with offering sweet plea deals to the two most responsible, David Halls and Gutierrez-Reed. Halls got 6 months probation for lying about inspecting the gun, then telling Baldwin the gun was safe when it wasn't. 6 months probation. That is crazy.
That was a good explanation and very right and proper
Runkle had and continues to have the best coverage. I watched the trial live with him and then went back and watched others, so glad I saw Runkle first.
Yes, Ian! I agree with everything you said!
Appreciate your objectivity that dismissal was appropriate in light of your long held view that Baldwin was negligently responsible.
In no way should Baldwin ever have been held negligent in this. That flies in the face of the reality of movie making and makes a nonsense of common sense. In what world should an actor, the last in the chain of custody, expect a live round on a film or theatre set and be criminally responsible for it? What gets me is nobody seems to care who supplied it. Kenny has a lot to answer for, that's fairly obvious.
@@rorykeegan1895he wasnt kist an actor (who still has duty to safett) but a producer who created an unsafe atmosphere along with an inexperienced and underpaid armorer
@@rorykeegan1895 common sens is not to point a gun on a person if you didn't check it. common sense is not to pull a trigger. common sens is not to point a gun when you are not filming any scene. He knew it's a real gun.
@@TheTNavA real loaded gun and a real unloaded gun are two very different things. He was told it was a real unloaded gun.
Common sense says don't shoot for fun. How many Americans ignore common sense and shoot guns for fun?
Prosecutorial misconduct is not a technicality.
The prosecutor does not get to decide on their own what evidence is relevant or not.
If this had been discovered earlier, it could have been a mistrial, but the jury was already sat
Even if all the rules of evidence were followed, I don't see how he could be criminally responsible for anything. Actors on movie sets with guns expect that all the guns are safe, and ARE NOT responsible for gun safety. So, when handed a gun on a movie set, he expected it to be safe, but it wasn't. He is not in any way responsible for that.
I agree with you! I believe his fundamental rights were violated. It doesn’t matter if I think he’s guilty or not guilty. I agree with the Judge’s ruling.
3:12 "William B Stinchcombe v Her Majesty The Queen" is the greatest comedy case citation of all time imo.
He got off because that’s the law! The prosecutions illegal actions caused this.
And this judge followed the law, unlike Auntie Bev & Glanville.
I suspect more the police than Morrissey personally.
@@SydneyCollin Nice to know Glanville was just removed from the case.
@@CorgiDaddy2 Yes, that renews some faith in the system.
The prosecutor was not convicted. If respect of the law is important than we can't say her actions were illegal, merely that they appeared improper, and that she's now open to a civil suit if Baldwin so desires. My money is on him not pressing that suit. I doubt they want any part of this opened back up for discovery. There were "dirty tricks" on both sides.
Just got done watching you break down the last day.. your insight & humor, professional examples make your channel subscription a must! Also TY and keep up the great work!
Great explanation of why it was dismissed. Bravo!
Nailed it as always, Runkle! I needed this as I myself had been referring to it as a procedural issue. Mad respect for you and your ability to have an open mind on all things (required for defense attorneys, I think.). People are trashing Morrisey based on watching this one trial and it’s hard when you’ve watched so much of both trials, police interviews and hearings. It’s been said she only wanted the spotlight, but I didn’t catch that from her courthouse steps interviews (both).
I think his behavior and being the producer is where he was culpable (most never saw that nor the hundreds of calls to the investigating officer or her incompetence)
Also, loved hearing your thoughts on her potential reasonings for all this Friday night.
Thanks again for the great explanation!!!
Well done video. Thanks for educating us.
Mr. Runkle: If prosecutors and other actors of the state are allowed to "get away with prosecutions" on technicalities...it is likely an encouragement to continue to flout the law. After all, a successful prosecution bolsters everyone's egos and careers, and carries much reward.
I agree with your analysis here, although I was hoping you would point out what is likely to happen to jurisprudence if malfeasance is NOT slapped down. I've now followed two cases in a row (this one and Karen Read) and in both cases, the prosecution was slow to turn over evidence...at best.
In Baldwin's case, the judge stepped in and made it exceptionally clear that this activity will not be tolerated. She sends a clear message...at least for prosecutors in her jurisdiction.
The two cases highlight how important judges can be, for maintaining and holding up constitutional rights and legal standards.... and how easily things can be allowed to slide.
This is SO very important, because it is actors of the state (the police, DA's etc.) that are authorized to collect and log evidence, initially interview witnesses and suspects, and investigate criminal cases. The state has access to vast powers... for surveillance, phone/communications records, and more that the average person does not -- making them the gatekeepers to that information.
Man, if anyone says this was a "technicality" they must be unfamiliar with even the basics of criminal proceedings. This was a big deal, and Judge Marlowe deciding on "with prejudice" is a rare call for any judge to make. I dislike Baldwin's personality but this outcome was entirely down to prosecutorial misconduct. His mistrial had nothing to do with Baldwin being Alec Baldwin except if we're talking about the prosecutor's possible motives for not disclosing evidence. It wasn't her place legally to decide the bullets brought in after the Gutierrez Reed trial weren't relevant to the trial.
This specific trial was the antithesis of the Karen Read trial when it comes to corruption being clearly seen in court & how the judge subsequently handled it. The outcome was honestly refreshing after the Read trial, and again.. I dislike Baldwin. I dislike prosecutorial misconduct a lot more, however.
The word "technicality" gets a bad rap. Calling it a technicality does not mean it was unimportant or insignificant, it means it was something technical, i.e., procedural. Maybe the bullets would not have led to anything significant or relevant in terms of defence, but it still needs to be investigated fully, duly and properly. I don't know who's call it should have been to determine if these bullets were relevant or not, and maybe that needs to be clarified for the rest of us lay people.
The prosecutor is on record as saying she intensively disliked the politics of Alec Baldwin.
Coming into this trial right after those eight horrific weeks of the Karen Reed trial was certainly some kind of learning experience, indeed! I’m still decompressing and mystified. I like Kari Morrissey. I’ve seen her at her best as a Criminal Defense Attorney several times. And she KNOWS this stuff!! She had a rock solid case against Baldwin. It survived multiple Motions to Dismiss. I have no idea what got into her head to do this. Mind-boggling. 🤷♀️
From Albuquerque.
🌶🐈🌶
Ian, This is exactly how I feel. I am angry that the cops and prosecutors in this case violated Baldwin's rights because IMO he needed to be held criminally responsible for pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. However, if we trample on the rights of people we don't like, then we are essentially allowing the rights of people we do like to be trampled on. Great video. 💕💕
Agree. I absolutely believe he should have been held accountable because of the way he handled the gun & ignored safety training. He was off script as an actor. Also thought his role of producer was important, especially when he set the budget. I was anxious for the trial to see if his actions rose to criminal, but the judge did the right thing. My kid knew gun safety & handling at 5 yrs old.
Precisely. The root of the injustice here was not the dismissal - it was the withholding of the evidence in the first place.
Agreed.
Hey Runkle...
...I understand that this particular Brady violation won't really effect Ms Gutierrez-Reed however, the Hague report was never given to Hannah and her legal team as it was "taken off the server" by a paralegal who is no longer on the prosecution team...Kari Morrisay said on the stand to Spyro that it didn't matter to the Gutierrez-Reed team...but is this not Kari assuming evidence isn't applicable to the defense???? Shouldn't Ms Gutierrez-Reed have had the report??
Runkle. I always agree with you.
I LOVED your explaination I was really wondering. Ty
Hey Runkle! We have very different political views, but I just wanted to say how much I respect your viewpoint here. I think it's a real show of strength and character when you can stand by your beliefs and uphold them for others, even when their outcome is not what you would want. Huge respect to you for this video!
someone caught the prosecutor flipping Alec the bird during trial. It was not an accidental birdy. It was definitely a middle finger at Baldwin after a sidebar meeting, shortly after Morrisey's case began to unravel.
Good food for thought. Appreciated.
He should never have been charged given the fact pattern.
The funny thing is that the evidence she didn't turn over probably wouldn't have helped him, but her hiding it sure did! However, i think most people wouldn't have had their charges dismissed if the prosecutor in their trial had done the same thing.
I appreciate your commentary and calling attention to our biases.
I always tell people that technicality is the United States Constitution.
I was waiting to see what you had to say about this. I think he does bear some responsibility for this incident and it’s a shame that a jury didn’t get to decide the case. I don’t always love defense attorneys that is true but I like you. Thanks for your insight on this.
Thanks for being such an entertaining and informative host during that short Rust run, @RunkleOfTheBailey !!! After your coverage of the Depp hearings, THIS was the only place to be throughout the Rusty Baldwin drama. #PoofBang! 👩⚖👨🦳
focus is on ENTERTAINMENT.
unfortunately, it's not ON THE LAW.
@@geebee3100It seems pretty focused on the law to me...
Definitely interesting Ian- thanks for that perspective
Really good take on the whole situation. Thanks for standing up for this even if a lot of us feel he got of easier than he deserved. A robust and fair system of laws is more important than this one case.
It was interesting to watch the youtube chats turn from one side to the other over the course of Friday.
It's only a technicality in the sense that his case was dismissed for a technical (procedural) reason. As you said, technicality doesn't mean insignificant. The rules are technicalities - specific details or terms belonging to a particular field - albeit distinctly important ones.
I'm not from an English-speaking country and I wasn't interested in trials until recently, so I never really paid attention to the phrase 'got off on a technicality' in this context, even though I was familiar with it. After watching your video, I totally agree that these aren't insignificant things. Thinking back, I feel I did assume guilt when I saw/heard that phrase. Goes to show how sneaky and powerful language can be
Greetings from Michigan, USA! Always LOVE & RESPECT your opinion, Ian ! 😍
You're not losing my subscription! Keep up the good work!
Thanks Runkle, glad you explained this so ppl understand, the guy got a miracle because prosecutors intentionally kept out information- whether it’s relevant or not to the case.
No unsubscribe from me. You rock Runkle!
12:19 excellent point Runkle. As a forensic psychologist, I stand corrected.
The point is that we'll never know what the defense would have turned up had they been given the evidence.
The protection of rights is most important for us all ❤
Haven't been watching your podcasts Runkle because you've strayed away from Canadian law and firearms matters but I peeked in on this one. I appreciate your commentary. Please get back to Canadian firearms law and cases. Thanks.
Thanks so much for this wonderful breakdown.
Ian, thanks for explaining this issue.
Thanks for making this, I've been meaning to watch the last day of trial but I've been so busy lately I've not had time ❤
It was so weird to me that the defense buried the lead that morning behind that emailed picture nonsense. Though considering her actual conduct, I now understand why they were more likely to be suspicious of that being true. It just had way less facts behind it.
Yes, you submarined me at the end as my rant was going to be that these "technicalities" seem to always appear when the wealthy are involved.
Nobody was happier about the shootings in Pennsylvania, than the Special Prosecutor in the Baldwin Case. #newscycle
I appreciate your description. "Got off on a technicality" [that we don't quite understand the full details of, so it sounds like a triviality].
Now, it could probably be argued that "convicted on a technicality" would be similar to being arrested for something seemingly silly that was only noticed after a traffic stop for something you weren't actually doing, or maybe speeding the same as everyone else. So laypeople saying "convicted on a technicality" could be similar to "nickel-and-diming" or "being a jerk"
Thanks for clarification. I appreciate learning that the prosecution erred, and "earned" the dismissal. Your dislike of "technicality" makes sense. I learn more about constitutional law from you defense lawyers. Thanks again.
"got off on a technicality" is just a way of saying they weren't found not guilty. it implies that the speaker thinks justice has been denied. nothing trivial about it.
When people say technicality what they mean is that it circumvented the truth in favor of the rules.
I think it is telling when someone is angry about "technicalities" to see who they are angry at. Sometimes their anger is at the defendant, sometimes it is at the prosecution.
Will the police officers involved be sacked,investigated, or will they just get away with it
A shining example of irresponsible prosecution.
a shining example of BS lawtubing.
Thanks Runkle I felt like I was back in law school :)
Been waiting for this, so I can share it. Thanks
Because police played hide the (evidence) bean-coin under the 3 cups game with the defense who repeatedly asked for the evidence and could not get the evidence. The defense had the right to that evidence which was stored under a different file number and never shown to defense. Whether it was intentionally done or not, the effective result was hidden evidence.
I loved the judge deciding to touch the evidence herself. " Let's get some gloves for every one, " says Judge Sommers.
I am guessing Morisey was surprised by the lead investigator's actions.
The constitution is a bunch of technicalities. Every one is entitled to a fair trial. Police can not hide evidence from the defense team.
I kind of think we have seen the end of the carrier of Alec Baldwin. At least when it comes to any movie where their is firearms. With that altitude to firearms safety. I wounder how many other dangerous things. he wounder what his altitude to safety on the set is.