Why was Alec Baldwin’s Criminal Case Dismissed?

Baldwin and Brady: How Prosecutors’ Failure to Disclose Evidence Resulted in Dismissal

The justice system in the United States relies on the fundamental principle that the defense must be allowed to see all evidence that could impact the outcome of a trial. This duty of disclosure is crucial to ensuring a fair trial and is rooted in the landmark Supreme Court cases of Brady v. Maryland (1963), United States v. Bagley (1985), and Kyles v. Whitley (1995).

Brady v. Maryland

The Brady decision established that the prosecution must disclose any exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is any information that could potentially exonerate the defendant or reduce their culpability. The failure to disclose such evidence, known as a Brady violation, undermines the fairness of the trial and can result in the reversal of a conviction or the dismissal of charges.

United States v. Bagley

In United States v. Bagley, the Supreme Court refined the Brady standard, holding that undisclosed evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. This case emphasizes the importance of the materiality of the evidence in determining whether its suppression constitutes a violation.

Kyles v. Whitley

Kyles v. Whitley further clarified the Brady doctrine by ruling that prosecutors have a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf, including the police. This case underscores the comprehensive responsibility of prosecutors to ensure all relevant evidence is disclosed.

The Importance of Full Disclosure

For the defense to mount an effective defense, it is imperative that they have access to all relevant evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory. This transparency allows the defense to challenge the prosecution’s case, present alternative theories, and ensure that the defendant’s rights are protected. Without full disclosure, the scales of justice are tipped unfairly in favor of the prosecution, leading to potential miscarriages of justice. The problem with prosecutors trying to filter information to the defense is they cannot predict how the defense will use a piece of evidence or what other evidence the defense may know that the prosecutor does not know, which makes a seemingly insignificant fact one of great importance. The burden of proof in any criminal case rests solely with the prosecution. Good prosecutors know that disclosing everything they have eliminates the risk of a case being overturned or (as in Baldwin’s case) dismissed based on a failure to turn over evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, even this year in State v. Heath, has discussed the need to turn over all the evidence in the State’s possession as soon as it is reasonably possible, irrespective of the prosecutor’s awareness of the evidence.

Alec Baldwin’s Criminal Case Dismissed

Alec Baldwin was facing up to 18 months in prison for involuntary manslaughter charges following the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the movie “Rust.” The case was dismissed mid-trial due to significant issues with evidence disclosure by the prosecution.

Evidence Withheld

Special prosecutor Kari Morrissey insisted the disputed ammunition was not linked to the case or hidden from Baldwin’s lawyers. She agreed, however, that evidence, including ammunition from the scene, was not disclosed to Baldwin’s defense team. This omission was a critical factor in the judge’s decision to dismiss the charges with prejudice. Dismissing a case with prejudice means that the charges cannot be refiled, bringing the legal proceedings to a definitive end. At best, Morrissey fell into the trap of believing she could determine what evidence was material and immaterial to the defense.

Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer stated,

“There is no way for the court to right this wrong. The sanction of dismissal is the only warranted remedy.”

The decision to dismiss the case with prejudice highlights the severity of the prosecution’s failure to disclose crucial evidence. While a common way of dealing with a Brady violation, or a prosecutor’s failure to turn over evidence, is to grant a continuance –  here, a continuance would not have resolved the issue. Jeopardy attaches once a jury is selected. Even before a jury is seated, a defense lawyer’s strategy has affected what questions they ask during jury selection and which jurors they seat. More often than even some judges recognize, the failure to turn over evidence profoundly affects the defense’s decisions, including whether or not to go to trial. It is hard to think of a situation where the prosecution fails to turn over evidence to the defense, and that failure be immaterial or irrelevant.

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Alec Baldwin (@alecbaldwininsta)

The Resignation of Erlinda Johnson

While special prosecutor Kari Morrissey stood by the charges until the court dismissed the case, the actions of another prosecutor on the case were telling.

Erlinda Johnson, one of the prosecutors in Baldwin’s case, resigned on the day of the dismissal. Johnson had been brought onto the case in April. It is clear from the statements Johnson gave afterward that she had been pushing for the District Attorney to dismiss the charges in light of the undisclosed evidence and when that didn’t happen she resigned.

In an interview, Johnson cited her moral obligation to disclose new evidence she uncovered as the reason for her resignation. “Prosecutors have high ethical obligations, and when a prosecutor learns of evidence that could be material to the defense was not disclosed, the right thing to do would be to dismiss a case.”

She stated, “We have an obligation as prosecutors, we have an obligation not only to the people, but to the defendant and our obligation is to make sure that all the evidence is turned over.” Highlighting fellow prosecutor Morrissey’s hubris, she commented, “We don’t get to decide what the defense is going to be. Our job is to ensure transparency, and to ensure that the defendant has everything that the prosecution has gathered. What they do with it, that’s up to them.”

Johnson’s resignation highlights the ethical responsibilities of prosecutors and the impact of failing to meet these obligations on the integrity of the legal process.

Consequences of a Brady Violation

Beyond delaying a trial, the consequences of a Brady violation can be severe, including:

• Reversal of Conviction: If a Brady violation is discovered post-conviction, it can lead to the reversal of the conviction and potentially a new trial.
• Dismissal of Charges: As seen in Baldwin’s case, significant Brady violations can lead to the dismissal of charges altogether.
• Professional Consequences for Prosecutors: Prosecutors found to have committed Brady violations may face disciplinary actions, including suspension or disbarment.

Dismissal with Prejudice: A Legal Finality

Dismissal with prejudice signifies that the case is permanently closed, and the defendant cannot be retried on the same charges. This is typically reserved for cases where the court finds that the prosecution’s actions have irrevocably compromised the defendant’s right to a fair trial. This means the criminal case for Alec Baldwin is finally over. The civil cases against him are still viable. The armorer, who was tried first and found guilty, has already indicated she will ask for her sentence to be vacated in light of the evidence that was not disclosed.