Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #7

[MyBelle]

Of course. Why am I not surprised? I actually expected this sooner, so she would show up in court, 8 months pregnant.

Alec Baldwin Reveals Potential Plans for 8th Baby with Wife Hilaria: 'We're All Older'

Alec Baldwin is revealing if there are any plans for another baby with wife Hilaria Baldwin. The couple shares seven kids and he is also dad to daughter Ireland with ex-wife Kim Basinger.

people.com

The article indicates pregnancy is unlikely. I think her age is moving her into the high-risk pregnancy stage.

JMO

 

[Luna20]

The article indicates pregnancy is unlikely. I think her age is moving her into the high-risk pregnancy stage.

JMO

I think she used a surrogate for the last one.

 

[Cool Cats]

I think she used a surrogate for the last one.

Afirmative (2nd to last)

 

[4Bigskyy]

Afirmative

The talk is all babies were by surrogate(s) after baby #1.

 

[Cool Cats]

The talk is all babies were by surrogate(s) after baby #1.

Just #6

 

[Sor Juana]

Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the legal filings with criminal defense attorney Natalie Whittingham Burrell.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the legal filings with criminal defense attorney Natalie Whittingham Burrell.

Honestly, how can such a complete mess be made out of one very simple prosecution?

On another note, not being from the US I'm still not really understanding how this Grand Jury thing is apparently a safeguard against malicious or improper prosecution. I had no idea that it involved only the prosecution giving evidence to the GJ. How on earth is that a balance against impropriety if the other side can't chime in? I mean, the matters brought up in this video are surely precisely the things which a GJ are supposed to prevent, are they not?

 

[Betty P]

Honestly, how can such a complete mess be made out of one very simple prosecution?

On another note, not being from the US I'm still not really understanding how this Grand Jury thing is apparently a safeguard against malicious or improper prosecution. I had no idea that it involved only the prosecution giving evidence to the GJ. How on earth is that a balance against impropriety if the other side can't chime in? I mean, the matters brought up in this video are surely precisely the things which a GJ are supposed to prevent, are they not?

Prosecution basically lied to the Grand Jury about the facts of the case. They misled them about the facts of the case. AB, or anyone, could discern that from some of the questions asked by grand jurors that went into the record. Basically the prosecutor misled the grand jurors about the facts of the case. They didn’t call witnesses who could explain facts of the case. Jury was also instructed on the wrong standard to apply. Prosecution misstated the law to put the burden of proof on Baldwin. Legally that’s wrong, the burden is on the state.

Judge might have the power to dismiss the charges.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Prosecution basically lied to the Grand Jury about the facts of the case. They misled them about the facts of the case. AB, or anyone, could discern that from some of the questions asked by grand jurors that went into the record. Basically the prosecutor misled the grand jurors about the facts of the case. They didn’t call witnesses who could explain facts of the case. Jury was also instructed on the wrong standard to apply. Prosecution misstated the law to put the burden of proof on Baldwin. Legally that’s wrong, the burden is on the state.

Judge might have the power to dismiss the charges.

I get all that but, as I say, aren't these the precise things that a system like a GJ is designed to prevent? How can it be a safeguard against malicious prosecution when the prosecutor gets to present whatever they want with no counter argument?

 

[Betty P]

I get all that but, as I say, aren't these the precise things that a system like a GJ is designed to prevent? How can it be a safeguard against malicious prosecution when the prosecutor gets to present whatever they want with no counter argument?

There are debates about GJs. The GJ doesn’t have the power to make the prosecution do anything. The process is controlled by the prosecution. In this case, the court went a step further and gave instructions to the prosecution, telling them to present all evidence and witnesses including exculpatory evidence and testimony, among other things.

The prosecution ignored those orders from the court. That means, they will either have to drop charges or any verdict will be overturned on appeal.

JMO, the prosecution knows they don’t have a legit case against AB. They just want to score political points and damage ABs reputation. JMO. They’re willing to ignore the law and the court’s instructions, so what else can you say?

ETA: These are unforced errors on the part of the prosecutor. If the case against AB is thrown out, they will blame AB and his high priced attorneys, but it’s their own fault. They must know it or they’re not very knowledgeable.

 

[Betty P]

I get all that but, as I say, aren't these the precise things that a system like a GJ is designed to prevent? How can it be a safeguard against malicious prosecution when the prosecutor gets to present whatever they want with no counter argument?

Actually, no. The GJ system doesnt prevent those things. IANAL.
Prosecutors often have complete control of what the GJ sees and hears.

 

[MyBelle]

There are debates about GJs. The GJ doesn’t have the power to make the prosecution do anything. The process is controlled by the prosecution. In this case, the court went a step further and gave instructions to the prosecution, telling them to present all evidence and witnesses including exculpatory evidence and testimony, among other things.

The prosecution ignored those orders from the court. That means, they will either have to drop charges or any verdict will be overturned on appeal.

JMO, the prosecution knows they don’t have a legit case against AB. They just want to score political points and damage ABs reputation. JMO. They’re willing to ignore the law and the court’s instructions, so what else can you say?

ETA: These are unforced errors on the part of the prosecutor. If the case against AB is thrown out, they will blame AB and his high priced attorneys, but it’s their own fault. They must know it or they’re not very knowledgeable.

BBM. I agree. I think that is why special prosecutor Lewis bailed. The GJ indictment and the upcoming trial is an incredible waste of taxpayer $$$$$.

JMO

 

[Betty P]

BBM. I agree. I think that is why special prosecutor Lewis bailed. The GJ indictment and the upcoming trial is an incredible waste of taxpayer $$$$$.

JMO

Remember when Chevy Chase used to do imitations of Pres. Gerald Ford on SNL? Didn’t Dan Ayckroyd do an invitation of Richard Nixon? It’s ridiculous that this prosecutor is wasting so much time and money to get revenge against another SNL comic just because he impersonated another POTUS?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Actually, no. The GJ system doesnt prevent those things. IANAL.
Prosecutors often have complete control of what the GJ sees and hears.

So what is the point of them?

Another poster, PrairieWind I think, gave an explanation that they exist so as to prevent - as much as is possible - prosecutorial mis-deeds, faults or outright malicious prosecution.

If AB's side is to be believed they clearly do nothing of the sort.

 

[al66pine]

Political Prosecution?

Remember when Chevy Chase used to do imitations of Pres. Gerald Ford on SNL? Didn’t Dan Ayckroyd do an invitation of Richard Nixon? It’s ridiculous that this prosecutor is wasting so much time and money to get revenge against another SNL comic just because he impersonated another POTUS?

@Betty P
Respectfully, if ^ post is saying prosecutor's actions in this case are fueled by her politics or has a political motive, I'm not following.
ETA: I'm not commenting on the merits of the crim case.

 

[MyBelle]

Political Prosecution?

@Betty P
Respectfully, if ^ post is saying prosecutor's actions in this case are fueled by her politics or has a political motive, I'm not following.
ETA: I'm not commenting on the merits of the crim case.

The Prosecutor appointed Special Prosecutors in this case and I believe it is their politics that fueled the AB indictment. The first Special Prosecutor stepped down because she was an elected politician. Now, one of the other Special Prosecutors, Jason Lewis, has stepped down.

JMO

2 special prosecutors appointed in Alec Baldwin 'Rust' case after previous prosecutor steps down

Attorneys Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis will oversee Baldwin's involuntary manslaughter case after special prosecutor Andrea Reeb resigned, prosecutors in New Mexico said.

www.nbcnews.com

Andrea Reeb said this month she was resigning as the special prosecutor only weeks after Baldwin’s legal team said her participation was unconstitutional, citing New Mexico’s separation-of-powers statute.

Baldwin's team also said a politician could be susceptible to undue public pressure, and it filed a motion last month arguing Reeb should be prohibited from prosecuting the case.

In a statement, Reeb, who is also a state representative, said the decision to step down was difficult.

 

[Betty P]

So what is the point of them?

Another poster, PrairieWind I think, gave an explanation that they exist so as to prevent - as much as is possible - prosecutorial mis-deeds, faults or outright malicious prosecution.

If AB's side is to be believed they clearly do nothing of the sort.

Yes, PW needs to take a look when it’s convenient.

 

[Weki]

I watched Emily D Baker’s review of the GJ issues raised by defense and she said the only thing that may be cause for concern is the instructions given to the jury (I can’t recall exactly what the issue was right now). She was dismissive of all these other allegations about how the state didn’t let the grand jury know that they could ask for defense witnesses etc. After watching her video and reading the motion with her, I think this whole GJ kerfuffle is a nothingburger. As usual defense is grasping. They are using word play to make it seem like there’s something that the state was supposed to do and failed to do. Their brief was embarrassing to read. So unprofessional! I was really shocked with how informal and unprofessional it sounded

AB will face a jury in July! Defense has done a fantastic job of aggravating the prosecutor to ensure there will be no plea deal. He can make his political persecution case to New Mexico jurors and see how far that gets him.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I watched Emily D Baker’s review of the GJ issues raised by defense and she said the only thing that may be cause for concern is the instructions given to the jury (I can’t recall exactly what the issue was right now). She was dismissive of all these other allegations about how the state didn’t let the grand jury know that they could ask for defense witnesses etc. After watching her video and reading the motion with her, I think this whole GJ kerfuffle is a nothingburger. As usual defense is grasping. They are using word play to make it seem like there’s something that the state was supposed to do and failed to do. Their brief was embarrassing to read. So unprofessional! I was really shocked with how informal and unprofessional it sounded

AB will face a jury in July! Defense has done a fantastic job of aggravating the prosecutor to ensure there will be no plea deal. He can make his political persecution case to New Mexico jurors and see how far that gets him.

JMO

BBM. It will be up to the Judge to decide if it is a "nothingburger." I'm not an attorney but I think ignoring a Judge's order is a serious violation.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

BBM. It will be up to the Judge to decide if it is a "nothingburger." I'm not an attorney but I think ignoring a Judge's order is a serious violation.

JMO

The question is, though, did they? We only have one side of the story here, let's not forget.