Alec Baldwin Trial Day 3 RECAP – STUNNING Brady Violations | LAWYER EXPLAINS

39 thoughts on “Alec Baldwin Trial Day 3 RECAP – STUNNING Brady Violations | LAWYER EXPLAINS”

1. What do you think, was this the right call?

2. the miscarriage of justice that prosecutor was content to let happen just to win career points and hide evidence from the court and the defense and the jury…..was it just these 2 cases she did this to or are there others that she's manufactured verdicts by hiding evidence.

3. The judge having to tell Morrisey to stop guiding the witness at 17:00 was really not a good look.

4. 20:30

   And she needs to be brought up on perjury charges

5. That DA needs an bar hearing and a criminal investigation

6. One of the best walkthroughs. I definitely think AB should have been tried fairly, and my expectation is that a fair trial would have convicted him for his continuous completely unsafe behavior. Sad that not more of the crew walked out of this death trap before someone eventually ended up dead. The prosecutors Brady violations was an terrible injustice both to AB, the defense, and the victims. As it seemed to have been intentional rather than accidental I hope there is some sort of sanction for this behavior.

7. LE was a mess – Seth Kenny was on phone moments after Sarah was tossing evidence – how she walked away with immunity deal a mystery – sa for Seth – calls into question the bullets he turned in to exonerate himself – he was on phone with Hancock 40 times – he had time to clean out shop since he had month before search too place – whether it was accident or attempt to get HGRvfired as he stated he wanted to – we will never know but he certainly looks to be source of the rounds

8. You and Nikki Glazier have not been jn the same room together. Until then i am not convinced otherwise

9. If it wasn't relevant to the case before Day 3 it certainly became so when it was used to impeach CST Poppel, since impeachment evidence counts as relevant.

   The fact she made a comment about there being over 1TB of data and not knowing whether or not everything was included…. Ma'am, when your job is to make sure everything gets turned over, it is then quite literally your job to either go through it yourself or have some poor paralegal or intern go through it and triple check everything you have becomes what they have. When discovery can be so vital that a violation necessitates mistrial or dismissal, you should be so on top of it, making sure nothing gets left out. Prosecutors aren't advocates. They are there to present the facts as they are to the fact-finders (the jury) to decide the outcome. You don't get to decide relevance to the defense. That's not your job. As a criminal defense attorney, she should deeply know the importance of discovery and Brady/Giglio. And the fact that Erlinda, her co-counsel, ALSO didn't know about the missing evidence and learned about it on thay Day 2/3 and argued for dismissal during lunch and yet Kari still went through with the hearing… the hubris is astonishing. I knew the vibes I got from her during Hannah's trial were right. Zealous for sure, but overreaching in her duties and too prideful.

10. One TB of documents and evidence?! Damn, I hope the state pays everyone enough to go thru all that

11. So law enforcement cant choose how they wanna categorize things and if they genuinely believe something is not relevant, they have to disclose it anyway?

12. Prosecutor should never have gone onto the stand. She can argue her position without being under oath. It gave the defense a chance to plummet her with all sorts of questions, for every single delay or document missed or timeline extended, for having to remember every detail that could have happened 3 years ago. She shouldn't have allowed herself to be come a punching bag for the defence. As far as i understand it, the defence buried them in paperwork too so its hard to really blame them for every small thing. It's all important apparently.

13. Im a bit confused. So there were some rounds that were not tested that didnt come on set at all that were provided by someone else voluntarily during investigation. So what? It doesn't change the primary question about whether an actor has a duty of care to check for safety. It doesn't change the central fact that Alec pointed the gun at Helena at her direction, most probably pulled the trigger and accidentally shot her. To my mind, it doesn't matter where the bullet came from. Doesn't the main question remain unchanged? The other evidences still stand, right? What they had investigated other than that was good, unbiased and sufficient, right? So why dismiss the case? Why dismiss it with prejudice? I dont really get it

14. Thank you for this great update. It's great to see and hear about the conclusion of a case. Please do more of these at the end of a trial!

15. Alec’s lawyers are all so attractive 😅

16. The one thing nobody has answered is, how did the defence find out about the handed in bullets, especially as it was filed under a different case number

17. I am a retired cop and a retired attorney. I have never worked as a criminal defense attorney and I don’t think I am soft on crime. Based upon both Brady v. Maryland and my understanding of professional ethics, I have a hard time thinking of any legitimate reason why a member of the prosecution team would fail to disclose this info to the defense team. Prosecutors should err on the side of caution and disclose potential evidence to avoid exactly this kind of outcome. A judge can always look at the issue and decide whether it constitutes admissible evidence that can be considered by a jury. A simple disclosure would have avoided this case being dismissed at this stage of the proceedings.

18. When your lawyer hasn’t even watched My Cousin Vinny

19. Wow! Makes me think of 'In The Name Of The Father'!
    (Brilliant film with Emma Thompson as lawyer representing accused Irish men who the prosecution knew to be innocent)
    I do think Alec Baldwin was guilty here, but I agree with the way it went that this was the right decision from the judge.

20. wouldn't this be grounds for appeal for the armorer, since there is now doubt about the prop-master may have brought the rounds on set?

21. The rights protected on day three are the same rights all Americans have?
    Or the rights that Americans with $$$ for teams of Lawyers have?
    This is why we are blessed to have the judicial system we have.
    This analysis was clean, interesting and informative. A like has been deserved.
    The conclusion reflects an all too familiar lack of back-bone and reflection. Sadge.

22. I'm still trying to figure out why a federal jurisdiction had the right to destroy something labelled as evidence. Doesn't that still belong to someone like the production company?

23. You're the best @legalbytes

24. we saw the 2 photos of movie script. The scene was asking for Baldwin to cock the hammer. The film crew was told the firearm was safe to use. It had gone through 2 safety checks. Since the gun safety individuals had already been charged with negligence… why was Baldwin even in court?

25. Thank you for the recap, well worth the wait! (although, after hearing what had happened I had to go back and watch the whole stream of day 3 )

26. on day 2, the Crime Scene Tech looked really nervous on the stand. Why was she covering up for Seth Kenny ?? During her testimony, the non-disclosed bullet evidence was brought to light. It was a shocking moment.

27. I looked up the SAG policy regarding firearms, and they seem to say that you can point a gun at someone (or the camera) if the scene calls for it. Regarding checking the gun, they basically say that's the armorer's job, though the actor should watch them load the gun (though I think that's just a recommendation). They also say that the actor shouldn't load/unload the gun or mess around with it in any way, besides whatever is required for the scene. SAG released a statement where they straight-up said "it is not the actor's job to check the gun – that is only to be done by the experts."

    I get that there are basic gun safety "rules" about not pointing it at anyone, but if the above are the specific SAG guidelines, I don't think it should be held against Baldwin when he's technically just following the guidelines (especially since the common-sense gun safety "rules" aren't actually regulations/laws, and because this was a movie set – this isn't some random person on the street handling a random gun, this is an actor who has every reason to believe the gun is perfectly safe).

    Though granted, Baldwin was supposedly playing around with some of these guns at various points, which he shouldn't have been doing, and I think he's still largely culpable as one of the head producers on the movie. After the first misfire of a gun, they should've really cracked down and should've been super careful with every other gun afterward. That's the main way in which I think he could/should be held liable – though it seemed like the judge disagreed with that notion: I think she believed that Baldwin's role as producer was too far removed from the actual shooting, so she didn't seem to allow much testimony about that. I think the idea was that if you're gonna charge Baldwin in the context of being a producer, why not also charge the like 5 other producers, and the director, and basically everyone who has some influence on the set?

    I think that's why a bunch of legal experts were saying this case shouldn't have been brought in the first place – if you can only charge Baldwin on the basis of him being the actor who pulled the trigger (pulled the trigger according to the prosecution, at least), you would really need to hope the jurors decide that the unofficial gun safety "rules" are more important than the actual SAG guidelines for actors, and I think that would be a coin flip – especially if you can't even prove that Baldwin actually pulled the trigger in the first place. Should he have personally checked the gun? Maybe… maybe not. Not according to the SAG guidelines, and there's no actual law regarding that.

28. Why is Baldwin the only producer (he is one of many!) being put on trial and not the others?

29. I don't think we have any reason to trust anything that Morrissey said on the stand. We know for a fact that she told at least like 3-4 lies regarding this evidence, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few more lies in her story. The fact that she took the stand in the first place only to explain why she didn't think the evidence was important, was really stupid. The issue was that she withheld evidence, regardless of her supposed reasoning.

    I think Morrissey did see the bullets, saw that they matched, and she decided to file them in a different file. As Hancock said, they had multiple conversations about this evidence, and it was supposedly Morrissey who told them to file it in a different file. I think they purposely wanted to steer things away from Kenney, for whatever reason – maybe just because they were so hellbent on convicting Baldwin (and Kenney had kinda helped them with the investigation – either that, or maybe Kenney has some connections with certain powerful people)? Supposedly the governor of NM is really big on strengthening its gun laws (and it sounds like some other politicians involved were also hoping for a conviction so it would help them get reelected), and wanted to make an example out of Baldwin.

    I think Poppel was so nervous on the stand because she knew all this and was really hoping it wouldn't be found out. Though I wouldn't be too surprised if perhaps the investigator and Poppel really didn't want to be a part of this at first, but Morrissey just kinda forced them to go along with it. Though Poppel was super bitchy and talking back to Spiro the whole time – kinda reminded me of Morrissey herself; Morrissey and Poppel both seemed to think they're the smartest person in the room, and yet both were involved in hiding this evidence and then had to try to explain it away… which didn't work very well. The lead investigator also honestly doesn't seem intelligent enough for that job. I wonder if there will be any Internal Affairs investigations into one or both of them – we don't know if this investigation was the first time they ever did something like this, or if they've pulled this kinda shit numerous times before. I would bet it's the latter.

    From what I've heard – maybe this was mentioned in Gutierrez-Reed's trial, not sure – Reed had supposedly just gotten into some big argument with Sarah Zachary (who was supposedly in a relationship with Kenney) the day before, or maybe a few days before, so Zachary and Kenney wanted to get Reed fired from the set – so Kenney decided to put live rounds in some of the guns to try to get Reed in trouble. He didn't know that the scene they were going to shoot was going to involve Baldwin actually pointing the gun at someone – supposedly, there was supposed to be a different scene shot that day, but then the plans changed for some reason. Kenney had previously stated that he had that green box of ammo, but he had "misplaced" all of the ammo that was in the box (and we already know that Zachary got rid of some of the evidence) – so he knew that the bullets in that box matched the bullets on set, because he's the one who brought the bullets to the set. Thell Reed and Teske both claimed that Teske and Kenney were the only ones who possessed that type of bullet, and I don't think we have much reason to distrust them.

30. Keep picturing that meme where three Spidermen are all pointing at each-other.

31. Someone who is materially close to both defendants who suddenly appears with ammunition between two cases conveniently before Baldwins is suspect. The rounds never left Arizona, so for all anyone knows they’re a different batch of rounds that are similar to the ammunition used. What was on trial wasn’t who brought the rounds on set. It was Alec Baldwins negligence that caused her death.

32. Did Hancock get bad Botox injections before testifying??

33. All I know is the LAW since Brady vs. Maryland says that the prosecutor MUST TURN IN ALL THE EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE PERIOD. I mean "my cousin vinny" thought me that. It is really frustrating the case got dismissed with prejudice all because Morrissey thought the new evidence didn't matter, like what kind lawyer would gamble their case like that.

34. I mean, it didn't matter that he didn't show the picture, because when the judge and the cst where examined the new bullets, she caught Morrissey trying to guide the cst on how to answer the judge about the new evidence. Also, when Hancock was answering the judge's questions about the new evidence, the judge caught Morrissey again trying to guide how to answer the question. The judge was all, "This is a witness testifying, Mrs. Morrissey, stop it."

35. I think the defense knew about the bullets delivered by Tesky (Spiro asked about him offering to write a statement, etc) but they didn’t know what happened to them. They could have thought they had been tossed out or lost at that point.

    Then on cross examination Poppel mentioned the “doc situation” which led Spiro to elicit the whole separate case number. His face had that shocked “aha” look at that moment…then he asked “So you buried it?” And the motion to dismiss started writing itself in his head.

36. I enjoy your recaps and commentary. However, when you delay posting them more than a week after the fact, your relevance comes into question.

37. TLDW

38. By far the best legal channel on YouTube. I love this channel. Alyta's analyses are always perfect; she's so good and smart.

39. This is the best recap I’ve seen, Alyte! Judge made the just call.

Comments are closed.