Alec Baldwin Could Sue ‘Rust’ Investigators: ‘This Is Open and Shut’

I strongly believe that Alec Baldwin should pursue legal action against the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office for their mishandling of evidence in the “Rust” shooting case. As someone who has followed this case closely and has a background in law, it’s clear to me that the state’s actions constitute a serious violation of Baldwin’s rights under both state and federal laws.

If the judge threw out the manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin in Santa Fe County due to hidden evidence, he might consider filing a civil rights complaint against the Sheriff’s Office instead.

Based on my experience as a legal assistant and having worked on several civil cases, I strongly believe that Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer placed undue blame on the state for their failure to disclose crucial evidence in the form of a batch of bullets to the defense. This oversight could potentially lead to significant consequences for the defendant, Baldwin, who now faces multiple legal avenues for recourse.

“For attorney Taylor Smith of Albuquerque, this case is clear-cut and strongly appeals to him,” or “This case presents no dilemma for Taylor Smith; as an attorney in Albuquerque who has taken on multiple lawsuits against New Mexico police agencies, he is eager to work on it.”

Alex Spiro, representing Baldwin, notified Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza and special prosecutor Kari Morrissey on Monday to keep any related evidence on hand, as there could be legal action initiated in the future pertaining to their roles in Baldwin’s case.

Rolling Stone first reported on the preservation letters on Wednesday.

Baldwin was on trial for shooting “Rust” cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

Last Friday, during an intense courtroom moment, the defense made a shocking revelation. They disclosed that a crime scene investigator from the Sheriff’s department had obtained a set of bullets related to our case back on March 6th. But here’s the catch: this investigator chose to file them under a different case number, effectively keeping these crucial pieces of evidence hidden from us. As a film enthusiast and follower of this captivating trial, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. The twists and turns continued to unfold before my eyes.

Based on witness accounts, two other Sheriff’s office staff members, along with Morrissey, were involved in discussing how to handle the seized evidence. Morrissey herself claimed that she wasn’t aware the evidence wouldn’t be handed over.

In my recent movie review of a legal drama, I was shocked to discover that the film’s portrayal of a criminal trial blatantly disregarded the principles established in Brady v. Maryland. The state, in this fictional account, had withheld crucial evidence favorable to the defense. As a responsible and fair movie reviewer, I couldn’t let this injustice go unnoticed. I felt compelled to bring it up and share my concerns with you, dear reader. Consequently, I found myself unable to sit back and enjoy the rest of the movie. Instead, I had no choice but to raise a red flag and call for a retake. The judge in this scenario, portrayed by the talented Marlow Sommer, rightly dismissed the case, putting an end to this egregious miscarriage of justice—hopefully, for good.

Prosecutors typically have protection from being sued, but they may still encounter disciplinary reprimands. On the other hand, police departments are potentially liable for lawsuits over civil rights infringements and instances of negligence.

As a passionate moviegoer, I can’t help but notice the various paths open to the characters in this intriguing plot. It wouldn’t shock me at all if they chose to explore each and every one of these possibilities.

A judge’s decision could benefit a civil lawsuit, but Baldwin’s legal team would need to demonstrate to a civil jury that the concealed evidence was significant to Baldwin’s defense.

As a passionate moviegoer, I’d put it this way: “When it comes to defending my rights, I need to prove that the infringement truly mattered. It’s up to me to present compelling evidence and meet the burden of proof in court.”

To successfully bring a claim against the investigators, Baldwin must provide evidence showing that their actions were careless or disregardful for the rules, or that they violated his fundamental legal rights. He is also required to demonstrate losses, such as increased legal fees or harm to his professional reputation, resulting from the misconduct. The New Mexico Civil Rights Act sets a limit of $2 million on compensatory damages.

An alternative interpretation is that Baldwin’s case may have encompassed more than just the Brady violation leading to its dismissal. In the timeframe preceding this decision, the defense consistently asserted that Baldwin had been exposed to a great deal of misconduct. They believed he shouldn’t have even been charged since he couldn’t have known his firearm contained a live bullet.

The preservation letters, which have been seen by EbMaster, do not provide grounds for a future legal dispute. Instead, they instruct Morrissey and Mendoza to keep untouched all related data in their possession, custody, or control. This includes items such as devices, hard drives, emails, text messages, and other electronic communications.

The Sheriff’s office confirmed that it had received the notice.

Last fall, Morrissey discovered that Baldwin intended to file a seemingly baseless legal action against New Mexico and previous prosecutors related to the “Rust” case. The aim was apparently to divert media focus from a minor plea arrangement. After finding out about this in October, Morrissey abandoned the offer following allegations that Baldwin was collaborating on a documentary about the case and was reportedly compelling witnesses to take part.

2024-07-19 05:17

Alec Baldwin Could Sue ‘Rust’ Investigators: ‘This Is Open and Shut’

Read More

Minority Mindset