They Laughed When Conservatives Said They’d Come for Your Gas Stove ... San...
Pols of Privilege: Victor Davis Hanson Says Socialists in the Spotlight Owe Everything...
Female Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial Jurors Say Defense Attorney Was Funny and Entertaining...
Ashen Passion: Adam Carolla Shocked to Learn Anti-White Dems of Color Are Hooking...
Video Lets Us Experience Lindsay Clancy Trial Deliberations From Vantage Point of ‘Lone...
Hope Walz Says Republicans' Obsession With Old State Flag Is Like a Racist...
Appeals Court Says Administration's Argument to Allow the IRS to Share Data With...
A Call From the 83rd Floor, a Mother’s Life’s Work, and a...
MS NOW’s New Membership Service Allows Users to Talk to Rachel Maddow, Joe...
The Actual Problem in the Clancy Mistrial Wasn’t the Holdout — It Was...
Joy Reid Couldn’t Wash It Off: Wajahat Ali Goes Shopping for a New...
Arlington County to Pay Families of Wage-Earners Detained by ICE Up to $2,000
Danbury, Connecticut City Council Votes to Allow Noncitizens to Be Hired As Police...
Caught on Tape: Nebraska 'Independent' Admits He Only Backed the Wall to Win...
Site Runs 'Hit Piece' on CA Assemblyman Who Sent $6 Million to His...

BREAKING: Criminal Case Against Alec Baldwin Dismissed! (Can There Be Another Trial?)

AP Photo/Andres Leighton

We knew the criminal case against Alec Baldwin was going on this week and expected it to go into next week but this took us by shock:

Advertisement

The cut off text reads:

The case against Baldwin has been riddled with issues from the start.

The full ruling is provided for in this video as well as more of the reaction:

The short version is that under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the prosecution is required to turn over to the defense any exculpatory evidence. Apparently, the judge believed that this didn’t happen and so this is a sanction on the prosecutors. In a civil suit, you might get a mistrial, with the possibility of a new trial, but under the Double Jeopardy Clause, he can’t be tried again. That’s why the judge said it was dismissed with prejudice. That is legal code for ‘this case is done and it can’t come back.’

Is the judge right in her factual findings? We don’t know, but one thing we want to highlight is that this doesn’t literally have anything to do with guilt or innocence. It’s literally punishing the government for their misbehavior.

Still, at the same time, if the government was withholding evidence that tended to show Baldwin was innocent, then that might suggest that there would be actual, reasonable doubt if Baldwin had a fair trial.

Advertisement

But this author has always had trouble swallowing any notion that Baldwin should be acquitted based on facts that were widely reported to be true. As a starting point, we don’t believe Baldwin intended to hurt anyone. The entire issue here whether he was insufficiently careful in handling that gun.

This author believes there is no serious dispute that 1) Baldwin pointed a gun at two human beings, and 2) that there was a live bullet in the gun. In some contexts, Baldwin reportedly indicated that he didn’t actually pull the trigger, and while we are skeptical, let’s assume he didn’t. Still, ordinarily you never point a gun at another human being, unless you are legally entitled to kill or threaten to kill that person, even if you are 100% certain it is unloaded. But we were willing to accept a First Amendment exception to that rule. After all, if you want to make a movie where a man shoots a gun at a camera, it’s almost impossible to do so without breaking that rule of gun safety that has been drilled into every responsible gun owner. But if he was going to break that rule on gun safety, we think Baldwin had a duty to be very sure that the gun was not loaded with live rounds. His lawyers have argued that it was someone else’s duty to make sure the gun wasn’t loaded and we just don’t agree with that. He should have checked it himself and checked it again, if he allowed the gun out of his possession. Maybe someone else had a duty to make sure the gun wasn’t loaded, too, but that doesn’t relieve Baldwin of that duty, in this author's mind.

Advertisement

It will probably be some cold comfort to the families harmed by this that we think Baldwin will never make that mistake again. Or at least we would hope he wouldn’t.

We don’t remember if any evidence was withheld in Trump’s trial, but, as we noted before, Trump wasn’t fully informed of the nature of the charges against him until the prosecution’s closing statement and that seems to be fundamentally unfair to him.

Except as we said … 

In other words, this ruling wasn't based on Baldwin being innocent, or at least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Advertisement

It is true that even though the criminal case has failed, a civil case might still succeed. But we’re honestly not sure what is going on, on the civil side.

Right?!?

(Merchan is the judge in Trump's Manhattan trial.)

We tend to look askance at ‘hasn’t he suffered enough?’ type arguments, but in this case, we have to hope his own mind will punish him appropriately because the criminal law is done with Mr. Baldwin.

Baldwin is likely to face people calling him a murderer for the rest of his life.

Advertisement

We also saw many people who were very angry about this ruling, most of whom said things we can't print here.

Whatever you think the outcome should have been, yes, we have no doubt Baldwin was very genuinely relieved.

Some believe that if he wasn’t as famous as an actor he would have been charged much sooner.

Whether you agree or disagree with Joshua, you can see he is trying to put his feelings about Baldwin aside, and we hope we have done the same.

Finally, this person offers some perspective:

Advertisement

Well ... that took a turn. Naturally, we can’t weigh in on the truth of ‘Post Punk’s’ story. But it’s worth thinking about. Sometimes when the prosecutor withholds evidence, people go to prison who don't deserve it.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos