Alec Baldwin 'Rust' prosecutors concede embarrassing early loss

[LetMyPeopleVote]

The idiot DA charged Alec Baldwin under a law that was not in existence at the time of the offense. Alec Baldwin's attorneys called this out and the DA was forced to drop this enhancement

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/alec-baldwin-rust-gun-enhancement-rcna71545

As I explained last week, Baldwin’s attorneys challenged the gun-charge enhancement that New Mexico prosecutors initially tagged on the actor in the 2021 shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. (Baldwin has denied any wrongdoing.) The enhancement carries a five-year mandatory penalty, instead of the 18 months he could otherwise face if convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The problem with that enhancement, however, is that it didn’t become law until after the alleged crime. That’s a big no-no, Constitution-wise, as Baldwin’s attorneys pointed out......

But the DA’s explanation for why the office agreed to downgrade the charge is even more shocking than the legal flop itself. According to spokesperson Heather Brewer:

In order to avoid further litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys, the District Attorney and the special prosecutor have removed the firearm enhancement to the involuntary manslaughter charges in the death of Halyna Hutchins on the “Rust” film set. The prosecution’s priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys.

At least a couple of things are wrong with this statement.

For starters, it’s difficult to believe that the prosecutor is dropping the most serious potential punishment to avoid “litigious distractions,” whatever that even means. It should go without saying, but a prosecutor’s decisions need to be based on the evidence; if a prosecutor is distracted by legal arguments, then they’re in the wrong line of work. And Baldwin’s argument was clearly more than a distraction, because it caused the most significant possible prison time against him to disappear at the outset of the case.....

Instead, it looks like there’s something more straightforward at play: The prosecution was sloppy in charging, Baldwin’s lawyers raised a clear constitutional issue and the prosecution rightly folded. Now, prosecutors are licking their wounds and lashing out about their misstep with a statement that doesn’t reflect well on the DA’s office or the future of a case that looked shaky from the start.

[Effete Snob]

1. What's amazing is that they blame Baldwin's lawyers

As if it was his “litigious” lawyers fault the prosecutor is incompetent.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. I love the new Deadline White House legal blog

I posted an article last week predicting this result.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217644901

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/alec-baldwin-shooting-legal-strategy-rcna70082

On the subject of pretrial litigation, Baldwin’s team has thrown another big argument out there, separate from the special prosecutor issue. It's claiming that prosecutors shouldn’t be able to use the firearm enhancement that carries a five-year penalty upon conviction because the enhancement charge was different when the alleged crime occurred in 2021. According to the defense filing, the version of the law that existed when the shooting occurred required a showing of intent to injure or intimidate someone in brandishing a firearm. However, the newer version, enacted last May, doesn't require that level of intent.

Of course, both the U.S. and the New Mexico constitutions outlaw what are called “ex post facto” punishments, or ones that make conduct illegal after the fact. Simply put, we don’t want people punished for things that weren’t illegal at the time they happened. So while knocking out that gun charge enhancement wouldn’t result in dismissing the case against Baldwin, it could take the most significant potential prison time against him off the table.

I previously noted the uphill battle prosecutors may face in trying to convict Baldwin, and that a trial, if one happens, could come down to a battle of the experts over what's required on film sets. These latest filings from Baldwin suggest prosecutors have some work to do before they get to that point, as both defense arguments risk the government losing what it no doubt sees as important tools at its disposal ahead of a trial.

I am enjoying the DeadlineWhitehouse legal blog

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Ridiculous for him to be charged for anything criminal. I assumed the

prosecution was right wing, but I guess not, which makes it even less understandable.

Sue for wrongful death, absolutely, but there is no crime here committed by an actor.

[NickB79]

7. The producer who hired the cheap non-union labor should be charged

[tinrobot]

9. Alec Baldwin actually was a producer on the film.

[NickB79]

40. And that's why he deserves to be charged

People keep saying "actor", and leaving out the "producer" part.

[W_HAMILTON]

20. What do you mean? The prosecution is right-wing.

The special prosecutor is *literally* a Republican in the state's House of Representatives. Baldwin's lawyers are claiming that this is goes against that state's constitution.

[Eliot Rosewater]

33. I thought I read the DA was a Democrat, but this makes more sense.

[W_HAMILTON]

35. I'm not sure how the DA comes into play, but there is a (Republican) special prosecutor in charge.

Here is a recent story (from earlier this month) that explains the situation: https://abcnews.go.com/US/alec-baldwins-attorney-seeks-disqualify-special-prosecutor-investigated/story?id=96957203

[Takket]

4. you would think a prosecutor would be aware of the ex post facto rules

and their reply was incredibly immature.

[Blues Heron]

5. Big city lawyers lol!

Did they think he was bringing matchbook cover lawyers? Which lawyers was he supposed to bring?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. This case was garbage to begin with.

Obviously a politically motivated prosecution (that belongs in civil court).

“Big city attorneys”? Who’s running the show there? Mr. Haney?

[WarGamer]

8. So Goth... since this is your field of "expertise"...

Tell me what YOU think the legal liability should be for Baldwin.

No tweets, no words from other people... no cartoons

Tell me what YOU think. Thanks!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. I am still laughing at all of the threads you deleted when you lose the argument

You really have issues with the concept of non-expert testimony being worthless in a court of law or before a fact finder. As I repeatedly pointed out on other threads, under the law and normal argument/forensic debate principles, the opinion of a non-expert is given no weight by fact finders.

I am a member of the bar but I do not practice criminal law and I do not have access to all of the facts in this case. The call on the ex post facto law was basic constitutional law and was clear from day one. The case against Baldwin appears weak to start with and is weaker now. The current case requires a finding of gross negligence and gross negligence is a jury issue that will be based on the admissible evidence. From the partial facts that are available, I think that it is likely that a jury will not find gross negligence in this case. Lawyers get to opine on legal issues, but we generally do not opine on fact issues or try to predict jury verdicts.

It has been fun watching the supposed Russian offensive flop. No one has seen the 1800 promised Russian tanks.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Please let us know when your promised 1800 tanks show up.

[WarGamer]

11. Twitter sources even for battle estimates...

Can you do ANYTHING without Twitter?

Seriously, Goth... having watched you for YEARS...

I've NEVER seen you present and support a cogent argument about ANYTHING.

ANYONE and I mean ANYONE can write an 8th Grade Report using the Encyclopedia for cites. It's not impressive. YOU learn NOTHING about the intellect of the writer... (or lack thereof)

Use your knowledge, use your logic... let's see what ya got.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. Are you going to delete this post when you lose yet again?

I am amused that you do NOT understand the concept of relevancy and the concept that all arguments must be supported by evidence. A fact or authority is relevant if such fact or authority supports the argument in question or tend to make the argument to be more likely to be true. Opinions without support or expertise are meaningless in the real world. Twitter is more fun that having to read the Congressional Record each day which is what I had to do back in my debate days. I use twitter to pull facts that support my arguments and all you have are your opinions that would NOT be admissible to support a claim or argument.

If you read the material, these battle loss estimates are from the Ukrainian military which makes such sources relevant in the real world.

Again, thank you for the laughs. I am still waiting for the 1800 Russian tanks and 500,000 fresh Russian troops and I love the fact that Special Counsel Jack Smith is doing a great job. I also loved the fact that you deleted these threads when your claims were disproved.

[WarGamer]

14. I delete OP's to stop certain posters from spamming nonsense in my threads.

And my estimates of Russian troop numbers ALSO came from the Ukrainian Gov't...

So you're trusting of battle damage assessments from the Ukraine gov't but not their Russian troop estimates? That sounds soooo silly.

You could take your Ukraine War knowledge up a notch by reading aljazeera.com it's much better and more reliable than Twitter news.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. You deleted the threads because your claims were all disproved and you lost the argument

Again, thank you for the laughs. When you find the 500,000 fresh Russian troops and 1800 tanks, please let me know

[WarGamer]

17. Nope, you're wrong again.

You still haven't answered the question.

Why do you believe Ukrainian battle damage assessment but not their Russian troop estimates?

Confirmation bias?


Since you like blue links... here's one for you.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63580372

The most senior US general estimates that around 100,000 Russian and 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or injured in the war in Ukraine.

Ukraine has largely refrained from giving casualty figures. But in August, the armed forces' commander-in-chief, Valeriy Zaluzhniy, was quoted in Ukrainian media saying 9,000 Ukrainian soldiers had died so far.

The UN has said it does not consider figures released by those involved in the conflict to be reliable.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

18. Russia's Massive Offensive

The MSNBC military expert who led me to this source was on MSNBC three or four times in the last couple of days. Russia and Putin need a victory in Ukraine and the heralded spring offensive appears to be doomed to failure as noted by the OP.

Link to tweet

https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-15?sd=pf

One story that seemed to take off, was that the Russians had massed a huge force not only of newly trained soldiers, but also tanks and aircraft and that they were poised to mount a hammer blow attack on Russian forces. This article in Foreign Policy, might have been the most extreme example. The Russians had supposedly put together 1800 tanks, 700 aircraft and hundreds of thousands of new troops. Ukraine, on the other hand, didn’t have enough and the Russian assault would start long before new NATO-standard tanks arrived......

All of this sounded extremely alarmist, and much of it seemed to run counter to everything that has been shown for the past year. Russian advances, when they are successful, are incremental, their losses in tanks and aircraft when they engage the Ukrainians are extremely high (especially for tanks) and so far we see no sign of successful combined-arms Russian warfighting which would allow for such an amazing reversal in the course of the war......

All I can say, is that I see no indication whatsoever that the Russians could attempt such a major, air-armor breakout and exploitation. I don’t see how they could supply it, I don’t see any indication that their army knows how to execute it, and I cant see how the Ukrainians could be caught by surprise were the Russians to attempt it.

1) Logistics. The large Russian depots are still located out of Himars range. A reminder of how this has worked from this excellent thread.

Link to tweet

What that means is close to the front the Russians have to rely on small, scattered depots and constant truck supply, shuttling from their larger depots far behind the lines. Supplying a breakthrough under those conditions would test the most efficient army in the world with an large number of up to date trucks, oilers, trailers etc. The Russian army is not this. One of the reasons we have seen no Russian exploitation (and only one Ukrainian exploitation for that matter) is that getting supplies forward in this war is really difficult. Tanks, APCs, etc, gobble up fuel and ammo. If you cant get it in regular supply to advancing forces, they will stop moving and in that case become a burden not a liability. So you would need to have a large store of trucks near the breakout point to head down the road with all those hundreds, even thousands of tanks. Its not happening.......

The US would be able to detect any large build up of this type and get that info to the Ukrainians quickly. There would be no surprises—indeed if the Russians did mass vehicles for a major offensive, the Ukrainians would more than likely inflict more and more Vuhledars.

So the idea of some massive Russian mechanized steamroller, which spread like wild-fire last week has little in reality to recommend it. The Ukrainians, who seemed to feed the story (anonymously) earlier in the week, also seemed to understand that this story was doing them no favors (it really wasn’t). In fact, stories of growing Russian power were exactly the things those wanting Ukraine to be forced into a bad peace deal instantly latched onto to make their point. The New York Times published a number of op/eds saying Russia is now in a better shape to win the war, including this terribly wrong-headed understanding of military power......

As long as Ukraine has enough ammunition (always the key consideration) these massive Russian offensives should be containable. Indeed, assuming Ukraine does have enough ammo, its preferable to see the Russians expending their resources in this wasteful way. It would be worse for the Ukrainians if the Russians were intelligently collecting their resources.

Russia does not have 1800 working tanks or 500,000 troops ready for a spring offensive. The Russian Troops are poorly trained and poorly equipped.

We need to continue supporting Ukraine and the new tanks from NATO will help.

[WarGamer]

19. Yawn... you already posted his substack.

He actually confirms a few of my assertions.

And if he knows more than the NYT writers... he should get a job upgrade from Twitter warrior to NYT writer.

[Emrys]

26. He's a Professor at St Andrews University in Scotland, arguably the most prestigious in the UK.

Phillips Payson O'Brien is an American historian and professor of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews, Scotland. He was formerly at the University of Glasgow where he ran the Scottish Centre for War Studies.
...
O'Brien was a Mellon Research Fellow in American history, and a Drapers Research Fellow at Pembroke College, University of Cambridge, where he completed his PhD in British and American politics and naval policy. He credits fellow American-born British-resident historian Zara Steiner with being a major influence on his work. His dissertation was published by Praeger in 1998 as British and American Naval Power: Politics and Policy, 1900-1936.

He was subsequently lecturer in modern history at the University of Glasgow where he also ran the Scottish Centre for War Studies. There, he edited and contributed to Technology and Naval Combat in the Twentieth Century and Beyond (2001), which focussed on technical changes in making naval policy, and The Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1902-1922 (2004) which was based on papers given at the Anglo-Japanese Alliance 1902 Centenary Conference in 2002. In 2012, he gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee of the British House of Commons on the future siting of British nuclear weapons in the event of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom.

In 2016, O'Brien moved to the University of St Andrews where he is professor of strategic studies.

I'll provide no link for the source of that information since you seem allergic to cited sources, unless they're MSM apparently.

Based on his academic qualifications, experience and track record, it's a fair bet he knows more about this field than any NYT writer, or you, for that matter.

[WarGamer]

28. I don't question his qualifications...

But he still cites Ukrainian Gov't estimates and like I posted earlier, the UN has advised that neither the Ukrainian side or Russian side can be trusted to give accurate data.

On Twitter he basically says it's all his opinion and only time will tell if he's right.

He believes there will be no large offensive while other major news sources claim there will be.

I'm sitting back watching, too.

[Emrys]

31. Then maybe refrain from dismissing him as a "Twitter warrior".

His humility befits a scholarly researcher. His hasn't been the only reputable voice that contested the analysis under discussion.

[Celerity]

29. Just a small aside. St Andrews is the 2nd best uni in Scotland, after U. of Edinburgh, and it also

is, whilst a superb school, nowhere near the best in the UK. (Oxford and Cambridge are first and 3rd in the world in the 2023 Times (London, not NY) Higher Education rankings (the definitive rankings globally) and Imperial College (London, right near where I grew up in South Kensington) is in the top 10 globally as well. Multiple other UK universities are more prestigious as well (UCL, LSE, etc etc).

[Emrys]

30. Without wishing to get sidetracked from the main point of this discussion, I did say "arguably".

Different rankings at different times have given it different placings. In 2021, it ranked first in The Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide. Then:

University of St Andrews ranks 1st in 2023 Guardian University Guide league table

The University of St Andrews has beaten both the University of Oxford and University of Cambridge to first place in the Guardian University Guide 2023.

It is the first time that the leading Scottish university has finished top of the Guardian Guide. It had previously finished 1st in the Times Good University Guide 2022 and marks the second time in two years that St Andrews has finished ahead of their Oxbridge rivals.

https://www.studyin-uk.com/news/university-st-andrews-ranks-1st-2023-guardian-university-guide-league-table/

A summary:

It has been twice named "University of the Year" by The Times and Sunday Times' Good University Guide, one of only two UK universities to achieve this. In the 2022 Good University Guide, St Andrews was ranked as the best university in the UK, the first university to ever top Oxford and Cambridge in British rankings. In the 2023 Guardian University guide, St Andrews achieved the same feat and ranked first for the first time in the guide's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_St_Andrews

[Celerity]

36. I disagree to a point, having either graduated from myself or having had close family

members (plus my wife) attend many of the schools I listed above. My father, for instance, read at, amongst several schools, both Trinity College at Cambridge and also United College at St Andrews. He doesn't place St Andrews above Cambridge. Hell, he and my mum, who read, amongst several schools as well, at Christ Church College, Oxford, forever spar (in a friendly fashion and manner, of course ) about which university is the overall superior one, and thus by default, the best on the planet (the 'best on the planet being one or the other' positing is entirely more open for debate than either one will concede to, lolol).

I can deffinitely see St Andrews topping the University of Edinburgh on a multi year-over-year comprehensive basis, but certainly not the Oxbridge universities, nor Imperial College. Specific departments, perhaps, but not overall. Their overall body of work, research, staff, history (especially versus the Oxbridge institutions, Imperial College is far newer but also is one of the most driven of the top 20 universities on the planet, certainly up there with others in the US and schools like the superb science and tech-centred ETH Zurich, etc), and global overall academic influence simply cannot compare to those three, IMHO.

I want to close by stating that I personally believe St Andrews to be an absolutely fabulous institution of higher learning. I do not want to come across as though I am slating it in the least on an overall basis. It is an extraordinary and quite unique place, as is much of Scotland. If I had to live in a non London (and non greater London area as well) UK city, I would likely choose Glasgow or Edinburgh over most other options. Bristol would be up there as well, as would (only if I became part of their respective university faculties or some other uni-affiliated placement), either Oxford or Cambridge.

Hard pass on Wales, Nothern Ireland (never ever) and most of the rest of England, especially places like Merseyside, greater Manchester, the Midlands, Tyneside, Yorkshire, etc etc.

[Emrys]

37. I've no idea why you're so invested in this minor point.

I described it as "arguably the most prestigious in the UK". I did that because an American readership might never have heard of St Andrews, and the next thing you know, I'd have had to correct the idea that it was some parochial, remote seat of dubious learning with straw in its ears. I see no reason to revise my statement.

I've given you the up-to-date and historical rankings, which you originally relied upon, but now want to substitute with your own opinion. It's topped Oxbridge twice in recent years on those measures, whatever your own judgement. It was also prestigious enough for the current second in line to the UK throne and his wife to be attracted to it.

"Prestigious" is in any case a subjective term (I also rebel at the idea of applying the "league table" approach to education, but it's the name of the game nowadays, so whatever). A degree from St Andrews certainly impresses prospective employers.

Try a Google search if you want to pursue this, and go argue the toss with any of the sources in the results! - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22st+andrews%22+prestigious&ei=Y4P2Y8r5HNiV8gKwyoVA&ved=0ahUKEwiKt9Lyg6r9AhXYilwKHTBlAQgQ4dUDCA4&oq=%22st+andrews%22+prestigious&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQDDIJCAAQBxAeEPEEMgkIABAHEB4Q8QQyCQgAEAgQHhDxBDIFCAAQhgMyBQgAEIYDMgUIABCGAzoKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzoJCAAQBRAeEPEEOggIABAFEAcQHjoLCAAQBRAHEB4Q8QRKBAhBGABQoghY0w1gziNoAXABeACAAcYCiAG9A5IBBzAuMS4wLjGYAQCgAQHIAQjAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

[Celerity]

39. I'm not invested to a preternatural degree, merely stating my opinion & adding in some explanatory

background from a personal perspective.

cheers

[ShazzieB]

12. Jeez, I almost asked who the heck is Goth. 🤦⁶

Glad I thought of looking at the o.p.'s profile before I made a complete fool of myself.

It really would be nice if people could address each other by the handle they're currently posting under. Not all of us here are old timers who know the names people went by in the past. Just sayin'!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. The DA should have admitted to this mistake

Link to tweet

[Ford_Prefect]

21. The DA has no case to actually try. This is throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks.

The "evidence" is shaky at best. Someone seems determined to try a case to affix blame. I don't see how it can be Baldwin as such. According to what's been said it was a sketchy set with slack organizational control and a particularly lax handling of the firearms.

IMO blame for a hot weapon has to fall on the person responsible for loading and handling them prior to a scene. That would appear to be the armorer. Actors cannot be in control of that aspect. I don't know what happened on the day that led to that tragic death. I know that ONE person had responsibility for the weapons and how they were handled, loaded, and delivered to the actors for each scene.

[KS Toronado]

25. I'm with you 100%

Why did the armorer even allow live rounds on the set? Let alone mistake them for blanks?

[SunSeeker]

22. Ridiculous overcharging. Baldwin did not commit a crime.

Hopefully the jury has better sense than the D.A.

[stopdiggin]

23. This write up has it pretty much nailed

Prosecution fumbled (embarrassing). Then added to their embarrassment by shoveling out some (ridiculous, almost childish) manure about 'billable hours', and 'big city attorneys.'

Could you possibly sound any more 'Hicksville' - and poorly qualified?

[AZLD4Candidate]

24. The prosecution's priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys

This is nonsense. They are looking to advance their Republican political careers with a high profile case against a high profile liberal to "own the libs."

Justice means nothing to prosecutors.

[usonian]

27. The leads are weak.

Prosecutor's going to come in second.

Maybe third.

[Kingofalldems]

32. Kick this one.

The same people who declared Rittenhouse not guilty are convicting Alec Baldwin before trial.

[Eliot Rosewater]

34. I guess the prosecution is hoping for an all MAGA jury.

[Elessar Zappa]

38. Good luck with that. Northern New Mexico

is overwhelmingly democratic in voting patterns.