ST Alpha - "Looks like it didnt even get that far. Prosecution withheld, toast. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 152

In response to "Why is there no mention of maybe grilling the guy who had possession of bullets that weren't supposed to be on set or in the gun that killed someone? -- nm" by Max

Looks like it didnt even get that far. Prosecution withheld, toast. -- nm

Posted by budice Jul 12 '24, 16:21

(No message)

Responses:

But I mean apparently the judge - a bullet expert? - thinks they look like they could be the same, so maybe he could order something? -- nm - Max Jul 12, 16:28 15
- Not his responsibility to do the prosecution's job for them. -- nm - znufrii Jul 12, 16:33 14
  - this is such an embarrassing loophole in the justice system. -- nm - Max Jul 12, 16:45 13
    - I mean not really? It’s how the system should work. Prosecution deliberately misfiled evidence so the defence couldn’t access it. - mafic Jul 12, 17:08 12
      - Shouldn't the system work in a way that any officer of the court - especially a *judge* - can see that you have evidence someone was possibly responsible -- (edited) - Max Jul 12, 17:17 11
        
        he's not saying "not my job" he's saying "the prosecution screwed up so badly I can't salvage anything." -- nm - mafic Jul 12, 17:32 2
        
        I'm not saying salvage anything related to Baldwin, I'm saying what the article lays out makes it sound like Teske should be potentially charged. -- nm - Max Jul 12, 17:37 1
        
        Because nobody has heard of him. How are you going to advance your career prosecuting people nobody knows? - the wrong element Jul 12, 20:35
        
        the problem with Brady material (usually) is it only encompasses evidence that is exculpatory to the defendant. so then prosecutors have to decide - hollywood big shot Jul 12, 17:25 6
        
        To reframe what I'm saying above, if it's not the judge's job, why is he suddenly responsible for determining that the bullets are exculpatory -- (edited) - Max Jul 12, 17:49 3
        
        Because the judge's job is to rule on questions of law, not prosecute crimes. -- nm* - znufrii Jul 12, 18:19
        
        I guess on the procedural question because it’s not the judge’s job to make the decision, but it is the judge’s job to review any decision they make. -- nm - mafic Jul 12, 18:10
        
        Best guess is it directly contradicts the prosecution’s story about where they came from, which is part of how they’re framing responsibility. -- nm - mafic Jul 12, 18:07
        
        prosecution decided to file the evidence under a different case so the defence would never find it. - mafic Jul 12, 17:36 1
        
        By filing it under a different case they didn't have to turn it over to the defense or let them know it even existed. -- nm - . Jul 12, 22:26
        
        The onus is on the prosecution to play by the rules, which state the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. By playing fast and loose - Will Hunting Jul 12, 17:23

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.