- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Alec Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ Involuntary Manslaughter Trial Starts Today
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:31 pm to GEAUXT
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:31 pm to GEAUXT
quote:It really is scary what they did to suppress the evidence. Makes you wonder how many other cases have evidence hidden that way. They need to throw the book at everyone involved in the cover up. It probably wasn't even all that great of evidence, just required more work.
I fricking hate him, but GOOD! The trial and prosecutor were a joke. It's no different than what they did to Trump
1
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:31 pm to mmcgrath
I see that with prejudice now. If what we’re all seeing is correct, of course. That is a bit wild. They must have some different provisions in their law in that state. I suspect that the “penalty” for prosecution in Louisiana is judge declaring mistrial, technically on basis of new evidence having come to the attention of the court and more importantly the defense. Then there would be an array of sanctions available to penalize the prosecutor and that office on more “personal” terms. And of course yes it a very, very serious violation of a litany of “no no’s” by the state attorneys. But in this state (LA) there are quite narrow bases for which to “dismiss” or quash a bill of indictment or information, and believe it or not I don’t believe this is one. And yes, true, we’re not dealing with Louisiana here, I know.
This post was edited on 7/12/24 at 5:33 pm
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:32 pm to mmcgrath
RAN IT UP THAT countSSSASS AND GOOD FOR HIM....
PUT YOUR GLASSES ON YOUR HEAD, BABE.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:38 pm to davyjones
quote:
I see that with prejudice now. If what we’re all seeing is correct, of course. That is a bit wild. They must have some different provisions in their law in that state. I suspect that the “penalty” for prosecution in Louisiana is judge declaring mistrial, technically on basis of new evidence having come to the attention of the court and more importantly the defense. Then there would be an array of sanctions available to penalize the prosecutor and that office on more “personal” terms. And of course yes it a very, very serious violation of a litany of “no no’s” by the state attorneys. But in this state (LA) there are quite narrow bases for which to “dismiss” or quash a bill of indictment or information, and believe it or not I don’t believe this is one. And yes, true, we’re not dealing with Louisiana here, I know.
Withholding potentially exculpatory evidence after the jury has been sworn in, jeopardy has attached, and the trial has started doesn't rise to the level of a mistrial?
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:40 pm to KosmoCramer
Of course, yes that’s pretty much exactly what I said. Definitely grounds for a mistrial, at least. Mistrial and dismissal with prejudice are two vastly different things though.
This post was edited on 7/12/24 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:42 pm to davyjones
Sorry, meant to say dismissal with prejudice.
If withholding exculpatory evidence doesn't warrant that, I'm not sure what more would.
If withholding exculpatory evidence doesn't warrant that, I'm not sure what more would.
This post was edited on 7/12/24 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:44 pm to davyjones
quote:
believe it or not I don’t believe this is one
Purposefully concealing evidence in order to secure a conviction and lying to a judge about it in court isn’t enough to have a case dismissed?
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:44 pm to davyjones
She went through each element of Brady and found all were satisfied, I agree with her.
I also don't think the evidence itself was extremely exculpatory, but certainly the state showed their true colors which the jury would have been instructed about.
I also don't think the evidence itself was extremely exculpatory, but certainly the state showed their true colors which the jury would have been instructed about.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:50 pm to KosmoCramer
It would seem that way, but “withholding evidence” isn’t necessarily an all or nothing, black and white matter. It could be unintentional in another case. Or intentional by a law enforcement officer but not by the prosecution because maybe they didn’t have any idea of its existence. And on and on could be other various possibilities instead of blatant and intentional withholding/concealing evidence by the state. What if the defense simply claims it but there’s also fairly reliable evidence that shows the state did their part in good faith and perhaps it was the defense more so at fault. It just leaves so much subjectivity, particularly for such a momentous and final ruling in the most meaningful part of the entire process.
Tl;dr
Tl;dr
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:51 pm to davyjones
The prosecutor and the lead investigator knew about this evidence. They admitted it on the stand. The prosecutor called herself as a witness (if you didn't watch).
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:56 pm to davyjones
This prosecutor was out of control. It is terrifying that this can happen to anyone, whether they are liberal or conservative.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 5:57 pm to SneezyBeltranIsHere
She's a flaming liberal. She admitted on the stand that she likes Baldwin's movies and loves his politics.
She denied on the stand calling him a cocksucker though.
She denied on the stand calling him a cocksucker though.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 6:04 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:That part was beautiful.
She denied on the stand calling him a cocksucker though
Q: Did you tell one witness the Mr. Baldwin was a cocksucker?
Prosecutor: I don't recall. What witness?
Q: Are you denying, under oath, that you called him a cocksucker?
Prosecutor: (long pause) I would have to know the context. What witness?
Posted on 7/12/24 at 6:19 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
It's a pretty typical condition of release.
I know, but I think it's ridiculous. It's also much more prevalent in backward-arse states like NM.
quote:
He doesn't have to accept those term
Pretty weak argument given the alternative.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 8:16 pm to mmcgrath
We all know that he closed his leads. He drives an $80,000 BMW, THAT’S his name. And your name is YOU’RE WANTING.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 8:46 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
The odd part of all of this is the hatred of Baldwin because of his SNL skits and such. I’ve been watching YouTube videos of SNL when they were roasting Clinton and it was pretty brutal, but funny like the trump skits.
The difference is Clinton laughed it off and trump and his cult wants this dude to hang.
They’ve been roasting presidents since they started beginning with Ford, no one has taken it personally until now. We have a pussy on our hands here.
As far as the trial goes, I don’t believe Baldwin shot this person intentionally.
The difference is Clinton laughed it off and trump and his cult wants this dude to hang.
They’ve been roasting presidents since they started beginning with Ford, no one has taken it personally until now. We have a pussy on our hands here.
As far as the trial goes, I don’t believe Baldwin shot this person intentionally.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 8:50 pm to Clark14
quote:
As far as the trial goes, I don’t believe Baldwin shot this person intentionally.
I don’t believe that either. I’m not sure I believe he didn’t pull the trigger. Still, why would he expect to have a gun with live rounds on the set? He wouldn’t. It was a sad accident due to negligence on the set. I don’t like him, but that’s my take.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 8:54 pm to Rabby
quote:
He was the producer who hired a sadly unqualified weapons handler because she was cheap and would do what she was told
Why can’t this be the first thing yall say when asked what he did wrong?
This is the clear answer. Yet people just want to boil their responses down to the most dumbass shite to feel like they know something when in reality they are just as lopsided as every other person in this state.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 10:08 pm to mmcgrath
I wonder if they’ll review the armorer’s conviction now
Posted on 7/13/24 at 5:05 am to Clark14
quote:
The odd part of all of this is the hatred of Baldwin because of his SNL skits and such. I’ve been watching YouTube videos of SNL when they were roasting Clinton and it was pretty brutal, but funny like the trump skits.
The difference is Clinton laughed it off and trump and his cult wants this dude to hang.
They've made fun of every sitting president through the years from the very beginning of the show. Even the presidential contenders. It's weird such a , perceived, tough bunch of voters were butthurt over Trump jokes. They wanted Baldwin canceled all the while crying foul for "cancel culture". The likes of Rogan going on and on about comedians not being able to make jokes anymore becasue of "wokeism" but gets easily offended over a comedic skit. Quite the hypocrites.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News