The defense cannot say the prosecution 'concealed evidence' when the material in question never was evidence of anything in the first place. It was not on the evidence list because it was not evidence of anything. The ammo dropped off at a police station was not connected to or related to the crime. The random collection of ammo was introduced, for what purpose, by a third party? How did the defense know it was there if it was not introduced as evidence?
Did the defense attempt to orchestrate a stunt to make it appear that they had an argument for defense?
The special prosecutor may have resigned, but this was not a prosecutorial error. The defense threw a hail mary and tried to make it look like evidence was being concealed when the material in question was not ever connected to the case or evidence of anything in the first place.
There was no protocol followed with regard to chain of evidence. The material (ammo) dropped off after the was never evidence of anything.
SCENARIO - Suspect 'A' sticks a gun in someone's face and blows their head off. Suspect 'A' is now Defendant 'A'. Some random person shows up at a police station with a box of .9mm ammo and attempts to do what with it? Introduce it into 'evidence' as evidence of what? The ammo 'matches' the same ammo that the shooter used (brand and caliber), but is not relevant to anything and can be purchased by anyone who is legally allowed to do so. The case is dismissed when this random box of (sealed) ammo is not revealed to the defense? I don't think so.
'Concealed evidence' is not a valid defense if the evidence in question never was evidence of anything to begin with - which is why it was never inventoried as evidence.
__________
The 'ammo' in question that led to the dismissal of the Alec Baldwin case NEVER left the state of Arizona. Rust was filmed in New Mexico. ???
__________
It is no longer evidence when it is not handled properly. But it never was evidence.
There is nothing potentially exculpatory or inculpatory about a 'collection' of ammo introduced by a 3rd party that 'matched' ammo that was later allegedly 'linked' to the set - completely independent of the investigation this guy just shows up and says this is from a crime scene and drops off a collection of ammo.
How does this make any sense? Read the article.
'The filing says that on March 6, retired Arizona police officer Troy Teske turned over a collection of live ammunition to the Santa Fe sheriff’s office, where the bullets were accepted by crime scene technician Marissa Poppell, but not inventoried with the Rust case.'
This does not say they are from the crime scene, the set.
'concealed evidence' is not possible if you want to argue that what the retired officer turned over never was evidence from the crime scene to begin with. If it wasn't introduced as evidence, how did the defense know it was there to begin with?
How can the prosecution 'conceal evidence' that is not logged as evidence? Material that has not been deemed to be evidence of anything?
__________
Special prosecutor Kari Morrissey reacts to judge dismissing Alec Baldwin's case
ALEC BALDWIN - Special prosecutor in the Alec Baldwin case said 📌 - there was no 'evidence' that random ammo dropped off at police station was relevant to the crime.
HOW DID THE DEFENSE KNOW IT WAS THERE IF IT WAS NEVER LOGGED?
IT WAS NOT EVIDENCE. IT WAS RANDOM AMMO DROPPED OFF BY A 3rd party. Wouldn't it have been against properly handling of evidence protocol to introduce this material as evidence?
__________
The JUDGE EXAMINES THE AMMO?
Alec Baldwin Trial: Judge and defense lawyers examine evidence that was obtained after the Hannah...
______________________
Comments