Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Colion Noir" channel.

Nope, not at all. The judge is merely following the law which says that the prosecution cannot hide evidence from the defense. The testimony from a hostile witness (the crime scene technician) during cross examination makes it clear that the concealment wasn’t inadvertent. This revelation also came after the prosecution engaged in a pattern of discovery misconduct, and cast doubt on whether that misconduct was intentional or merely due to incompetence. It’s unfortunate that a jury was unable to decide the case, but the integrity of the process and the basic principle of a fair trial is more important than the possible outcome. The prosecutors’ misconduct was so bad that the Judge really had no choice.
18
The prosecutors aren’t above the law either. Their misconduct was so bad that the judge had no choice but to dismiss. To continue with the trial would have been a miscarriage. The investigators on the case took active measures to hide evidence from the defense, and this wasn’t revealed (by a prosecution witness under cross examination) until the afternoon of the second day, and further revealed the following morning. The very principle you claim is not being followed requires that trials be fair. Hiding evidence from the defense is the polar opposite of being fair. To let it stand would have been a miscarriage of justice.
5
@TheBatPunkRises The husband isn’t the sole member of the family. He’s not a plaintiff in the civil case filed in New Mexico. Other family members are. Cool name, btw. 👍
3
Whether the evidence was critical, relevant, or exculpatory is not the issue. The issue is that, after the prosecution established a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, witness testimony (from a prosecution witness) revealed that investigators actively tried to hide evidence.
2
Nah. This is 100% on the prosecution. The judge really had no choice but to dismiss the case with prejudice. There was active concealment of evidence. There could potentially be obstruction of justice charges brought against those responsible.
2
@ryanlukens9280 It wasn’t an honest mistake. It was an attempt to exclude the evidence from the Rust evidence and then to hide from the defense that it was excluded. There was nothing inadvertent about it. The only thing inadvertent was the prosecution witness letting slip on day 2 that she was ordered to bury it with a different case number. The second prosecutor at the table, who had been brought on about a month ago, was so shocked that she immediately asked to withdraw from the case. The judge granted this request before the hearing continued and consequently dismissed the case.
2
100% with you. This was such a huge breach of ethical conduct that it might even be criminal. The judge had no choice but to dismiss with prejudice. The integrity of the system is more important than determining the criminal guilt or innocence of Alec Baldwin. The malfeasance of actively hiding evidence, on top of the previous pattern of discovery misconduct, made dismissal with prejudice the only remedy. We can still argue over whether Baldwin was guilty of criminal negligence, but the point is legally moot. He’s neither guilty nor exonerated in this matter.
2
⁠ @CD-vb9fi 100%. It was the prosecutor/police malfeasance that got the case dismissed with prejudice. Wrt to the conservatives that gall you, I say they are personality worshipping populists that don’t believe in the rule of law like a true conservative does. This is why actual conservatives have more in common with liberals than they do with magas. The populism (or call it Trumpism or fascism if you like) infecting the GOP uses the language of conservatism, but make no mistake, the movement is not conservative.
1
@jnicholaswildcat What I hear you saying is that you’re motivated to complain, but not motivated to take action. That doesn’t sound like an effective way to live your life. But it does sound like a good strategy if you love being a victim of circumstances. Good luck!
1
@ytmndan you don’t understand how egregious it is to actively conceal evidence from the defense and from the court. It’s completely contrary to the rules of criminal prosecution and to criminal justice. The prosecutorial malfeasance and the pattern of misconduct that preceded it left the judge no choice.
1
Why? Because you’d represent yourself pro se?
1
None of that is relevant to why the case was dismissed. The case was dismissed because of the misconduct and malfeasance of the prosecution and the police investigators.
1
@papimaximus95 It’s worse than prosecutorial misconduct. It’s worse than the pattern of prosecutorial misconduct that was already established. It’s the hiding of evidence by excluding it from the case evidence, and then not telling the defense that it existed, that it was excluded, and why it should be excluded. Basically, it’s obstruction of justice. Those responsible could potentially be prosecuted for obstruction, but I have no idea if they will be. The integrity of the system and the principle of fair and equal treatment under the law is more important than Baldwin’s guilt or innocence.
1