State of New Mexico v. Alec Baldwin

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:02 Clip: Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

0:00:18 Clip: What's my crime? I got bold? And a little negligent? Nope!

0:00:26 Clip: Bailiffs are coming to take away my will to live. Well, one count of being a bear, and one count of being an accessory to being a bare. This is a free court!

0:00:45 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1065. I'm your host, Thomas Smith, and doing quite your regularly scheduled OA pod, but I got something that for most folks listening should be two, three times better. Was very busy this weekend, the end of the month. Finally got out the Where There's Woke episode that I already told you about last episode. Uh, lots to listen to there. And I promise you it's very good. So please check out Where There's Woke. If you like a good debunk, you're going to love that show. It's a series on John Ronson's Things Fell Apart, which was, uh, disappointingly anti-woke, anti things like both sides, you know, trans people, both sides right-wing like terror, and it both sides COVID anti-vax nonsense in ways that's disturbing. So anyway, great debunk over on Where There's Woke, many great debunks. I want to find a way to adapt the Law Professor Jason Kilbourne episodes over to here somehow, because not enough people heard them. They're law related and it's unbelievable. It's so, I just re-listened to it. I can't believe it's been about a year since I put those out. So many amazing twists and turns in that one. But anyway, enough about that there. I put out so much new stuff and combined with the holiday weekend, often people aren't able to listen to their podcast as much. They're not commuting. They're not doing the regular thing. So I thought it'd be a good time to put out the Alec Baldwin mistrial on the main OA feed here. I'm going to try to release them here when I can. This was a really good one. Matt just knocked this one out of the park. So, a million apologies to the GavelPod patrons who have already heard this, I just feel like this is a great time to do it because if you're a GavelPod patron, you might be a fan of my other stuff and I just put out like 20 hours of podcasts in like three days. But among other things, Michael Cohen Day 2 is now out on GavelPod on patreon.com/gavelpod. So hopefully any GavelPod fans who have already heard this, at least you have that as well to listen to. So I'm hoping that eases things a little bit because I know so many listeners to this show are going to be happy to be able to hear this particular GavelPod. What in the world happened in the Alec Baldwin mistrial? This was an amazing court thingy. And I mean that like in a moral sense, just like, wow, just a shocking drama unfolded in the courtroom. That's what I love GavelPod for. Often on OA and on a lot of movies, we talk about the things that just are not realistic and how, you know, most of the time there isn't this big drama. There isn't a series of surprise witnesses, one more surprisingly than the last. But sometimes you do get something pretty crazy, and it is really fun to have all the context and the expertise with Matt to be able to break down exactly why this incredibly crazy thing happened. Without further ado, after this break, which you can avoid at patreon.com/law, no fee for patrons. This, of course, was already charged on GavelPod, so this is a free post on Opening Arguments pod, of course. After this break we'll get on over to the over two hours of brilliant analysis from Matt on what happened in this remarkable proceeding. Saving, you enjoy it. We'll be back on the regularly scheduled programming on Wednesday with T3B. All right, here you go.

0:03:57 Thomas: How you doing matt

0:03:58 Matt: Hey, Thomas. I'm happy to be talking about something that isn't Donald Trump and also, I think, perfect gavel gavel content. This is quite a hearing.

0:04:05 Thomas: 100%, this is exactly the kind of thing that GavelPod, after we're done with the Trump trial, you know, whenever that happens, this is the kind of thing that I know both of us wanted to be doing with this, so I'm excited to do it. And here's the thing, Matt, I have to, look, this may sound weird, but I genuinely do this. I try to keep spoiler free on stuff like this. Cause like when I know we're going to cover it, I'm like, someone was talking about it. I was like, I don't want to, I don't want to know. Don't spoil it for me. I'm still on season one. I don't know of the Alec Baldwin thing. I so like, obviously I've seen, you know, a few headlines here and there, and I know ultimately what happened, but I do really try to preserve that. And, uh, I know someday, someday we're going to be able to cover the, what is it? Karen Reed. Is that the trial?

0:04:44 Matt: Well, she's going to be up for a second trial, so we might have some time.

0:04:48 Thomas: Someday we're going to cover that. I, what I gathered, the first one was so insane. We got to definitely just cover that anyway.

0:04:53 Matt: Yeah, get a touch on it.

0:04:54 Thomas: I Like literally the person who does my hair was like asking me about like, have you heard about this thing? I was like, ah, don't tell me. No, no, no. Don't. It was, that was really hard. She, she told me some stuff and I was like, please, actually, I don't, I w I don't want to know this. Like I haven't covered it yet. So anyway, point is, I DON'T know what happened here and I cannot wait to find out. So let's set this up for anyone, I guess, who, you know what the original situation was here.

0:05:20 Matt: We binge it. Yeah, let's do this. So I think we all know who Alec Baldwin is, and that's why this case has gotten all this attention, but he was working on a film called Rust. It was kind of a passion project for him. It was a low-budget film with his friend, Joel Souza, who's a director he'd worked with before. And the story, ironically enough, do you actually, do know what the movie's about?

0:05:38 Thomas: This, I feel like this is something that was covered shortly before the OA thing happened. And But it was I do remember it being pretty crazy that, you story was and also that they ended up still like finishing the movie because I feel think they said that's what she would have wanted. And I.

0:05:55 Matt: Yeah. She was really into the movie. But I just want to mention that because the movie Rust is about a young man, a child basically, who accidentally shoots someone, and then his grandfather takes him on the run, and it becomes a whole violent thing. But the irony, of course, of an American Western about how dangerous guns are and how if you play around with them, they might go off and shoot somebody, and that's what happened on this set, as we all know. Know. Gun in was obviously supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds. That's what you'd expect in any film set. You do not ever expect to walk into a film set with live rounds at all,

0:05:56 Thomas: Yeah, I was like, all right. Oh, wow. Jeez. At all. Yeah. They shouldn't

0:06:28 Matt: All ever.

0:06:29 Thomas: Be anywhere near the goddamn thing.

0:06:30 Matt: It is pretty basic stuff. Of course, the central question, and as we will find as we are going through here, it is not necessarily a central question for Alec Baldwin's defense, but it is very important. The central question that everybody has had all the way through this, is how did those rounds get on the set? Because it wasn't just the one that was on the gun. There were also five other rounds that were on the Set, including one that was on his prop belt, his ammo belt. So that's way too many live rounds on a film set.

0:06:56 Matt: That's more than zero. He setting up a shot, and there's a pretty fundamental rule. Actually, have you ever shot a gun?

0:07:02 Thomas: Not a handgun, I've shot in trap shooting. Uh, there's a lot of rules even, you know, as much as you know this country is gun nuts, there's also a lot of rules around it for safety, uh. Like with trap shooting you always have the the gun broken down like you're never you're ever doing anything like pointing it or anything like that when Except for when you're literally shooting it.

0:07:12 Matt: Yeah, it should And I I went to a firing range, Casey and I did once, and I hated it. I really did not like it. We took a quick gun course. I just wanted to see what it was like, you know. And I played a lot of video games in my life, but I did not enjoy handling that gun. But, you Know, they really drill it into you that do not point a gun at anything or anybody that you don't intend to shoot. And that's a pretty fundamental rule of guns. And so Alec Baldwin, one of the allegations here is that he was being reckless by kind of shutting up this shot, which, again, he had every reason to believe had a dummy round in it, and pointing it at Halyna Hutchins, who was the cinematographer. She was young. I think she was 42. She was on her way up. She's doing very well. Ukrainian born.

0:07:54 Thomas: It's just so tragic. Really tragic.

0:07:56 Matt: Really sad. She had a family. And this was obviously nobody wanted this. And I will say this and I should mention before I go on, Joel Souza was also badly wounded. The bullet went through him as well.

0:08:06 Thomas: That's right. Yeah.

0:08:07 Matt: And somebody that he was personally friends with. And of course, Halyna Hutchins is somebody who's responsible for as a producer of the film. And I just want to say, just as a lawyer, I think that negligent homicide is one of those rare crimes where the punishment is already built in, where it's just there. The fact that it happened is the punishment, if a person of conscience.

0:08:24 Matt: And I think you might have seen the videos of Alec Baldwin throwing up and screaming. And of

0:08:26 Thomas: I I don't know if I'd ever recover from this if it was me. Yeah.

0:08:30 Matt: Course, no, it's so traumatic. It's bad enough if it's sort of an accident, like you hit somebody on the road or something. But when it's somebody that you're responsible for, who you become friends with, and then then your actual friend that you owned. You know, I certainly, you know, Alec Baldwin, I checked, he's been in about 21 movies, I found, with guns, the way he's had to handle guns. He certainly knows his way around guns. Um, claimed that he did not pull the trigger because he knows better and he would never pull the trigger on a gun, no matter what, that he was just setting it up and that the gun Misfired when he was kind of playing with it. That's an open question in the case as well. But he was charged with, uh, this negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, and essentially potentially just because of the circumstances, because he's the producer, because he's the guy at the end of the day whose name is at the top, and because he was the one holding the gun, even if no one is arguing that he loaded the gun, no one is arguing he had anything to do with the rounds coming on to the set.

0:09:15 Matt: The main argument from the state, as far as I can tell, is just that he hired someone, the armorer in this case, named Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was 24 at the time, and she was the daughter of a very famous armorer, and armorer, by the way, new word to me, I thought that was just the guy you went to in Skyrim to get your armor, but it turns out that that's an actual job. Hollywood and you gotta you gotta lift those uh before you start

0:09:31 Thomas: And the gun had a curse on it. Got to check for hexes when you are filming.

0:09:38 Matt: Fel Reed, uh, a very well-known armorer, kind of the top of the game, and he was training his daughter, actually a stepdaughter but apparently thinks of her as a daughter, and there were a couple of armorers who actually had passed on this production already, they thought it had too many guns, it's a very gun-centric movie Yeah, so it's probably a red flag if experienced armors are passing on this. Yeah, right.

0:09:53 Thomas: If I, yeah, shouldn't it be the opposite? Shouldn't they be like, there's not enough guns and you want me to be the armorer for, uh, uh, Sandlot, not enough guns.

0:10:02 Matt: Yeah, yeah, right. And Alec Baldwin, I think we all know maybe something about him as a person if you've heard that recording of him yelling at his daughter. If you've kind of heard about what it's like to be around him on sets. I mean, he's not the hero of the story. I do feel badly for him because he killed someone accidentally. When you see the video of him reacting, you can tell it's real. He is really in shock. He's in trauma, as anybody would be. And as I said, I've always thought it's really cruel to prosecute people for crimes like this, this particular category of offense.

0:10:33 Matt: There's a case around here where an elderly man was driving, and he had taken a little too much of whatever his prescription was. It was a total accident. Got in an accident that killed his wife of something like 65 years. And him for him. It's sick to prosecue somebody for that.

0:10:45 Thomas: I don't really get it. I mean it's so much of our, is kind of the least of it when it comes to how stupid our criminal justice system is, but so many, many things I don't understand, but yeah, like, again, we're not talking about, oh, someone had a secret plan to kill somebody in the way, no, like if it is literally these charges where it's, it's acknowledged that it's an accident, that he really, there's no way he wanted to do it, the, about that old man, that like, yeah, well this will teach you next time to not kill your wife of 65 years, it's like, okay, that's, what's the point of this? Yeah.

0:11:12 Matt: The sentence is that you have to live with having done it. And I think that really in a society where we thought about these things a little bit more, that'd be enough. There was were appropriate here, whether this just should be actually a crime. And the special prosecutor who was ultimately appointed to this said that she made the decision when she saw Alec Baldwin on George Stephanopoulos saying that he had never had any intention to pull the trigger, because she believed that he did. She actually believed based on the evidence that they had that he was being reckless and that he actually did pull the trigger, whether or not he thought it was a live round, that he shouldn't have done that. And she thought that was enough to at least begin initiating the indictment for involuntary manslaughter.

0:11:26 Thomas: What huh it's not like the best reasoning I've ever heard. Yeah.

0:11:55 Matt: And it doesn't really go very well to her defense because the defense's argument for some of this is that you just want to get Alec Baldwin. Like you just don't like him and you think that he's irresponsible. You You think want to give him a celebrity, you know, this is a small town.

0:12:07 Thomas: Well, and is, could there be a political component, you know, outspoken Uh, and, and like I think Alec Baldwin seems to be an asshole with a real anger issue, but, but again, I, I do think it's, it's one of those things where it's like, sure, he might be, an with an anger issue, but did he mean to murder somebody? No, accidents can happen to both really nice people and people who aren't that nice.

0:12:32 Thomas: Now, I, obviously though, if the thought was that there was some, some real negligence here, might be a different story. Like if the part of anybody, I don't know, like I don't want to include your no prosecution rule for this kind of thing, include to like some real negligence, some real like someone should have known better and they endangered people. You know, that might be different story,

0:12:50 Matt: Yeah, if you're drunk driving, you Know, then certainly that's negligent or reckless homicide. You know, you certainly know that the risk is there, But when you're picking up something that someone has handed to you who's the expert in this, and you have every reason to believe it's safe, the real argument against Baldwin was that he was pushing things. It was a very low -budget production. He was actually starting to put some of his own money in, he was cutting his own pay, he just wanted to get this done, and they were driving them very hard on the set, and it sounds like he was pretty hard to work for. So there's this argument that maybe people were cutting corners because they just want to get this done. And there was a walk -off from some of the union guys about the treatment. They were sleeping in their cars because out in the desert and they didn't want to put them up in hotels. There are any number of things going on in this set. A lot of different kind of side issues that are going to come up during this hearing. I'm going to try to keep it focused on the actual hearing of the motion to dismiss. Happened here was that this went forward for trial earlier this month. It only into trial when the crime scene tech was cross -examined, and it started to come out that there was some evidence that had been turned over to the prosecution that the defense did not have. So that night,

0:13:48 Matt: July 11th, I believe, they filed the motion to dismiss that we're going to hear in this audio. We'll listen to the opening so you can hear what this centers around, but there's a lot of really interesting legal questions. There's a lot of factual issues. I think there's a lot of very interesting kind of behind-the-scenes personal stuff going on too here as well, because the special prosecutor named Carrie, she was appointed after the first special prosecutor actually had to leave because it came out that she had texted somebody that this was going to be very good for her election campaign when she ran for whatever she was going to be running for, that she prosecuted like Baldwin, Reeves, so bad move there. This special prosecutor, I really do not like her. After reading her filings and after watching her behavior in court, it is so clearly trying to cover for herself. And I think maybe some of the arguments that she's making might have some merit, but she just, okay, she's a defense attorney. For like 20 years, she was a defense attorney. She was specially appointed to do this case because they didn't have the resources in the DA's office. She teaches law. She taught law. I don't know what she's doing now, but, you know, she's pretty well regarded, when I looked her up, as a civil rights and defense attorney, and she absolutely should have known better than what she did here. I'm not going to get into what she did yet, but I will just say from her filings, I'm going to read you a little excerpt, give you a taste of the way that she thinks about this. I've seen a lot of kind of snippy prosecution and government briefs and filings. I think it's especially inappropriate when government lawyers take this tone. I don't think it is. I think it's really beneath them. Honestly, once in a while, we do as private attorneys, attorneys, and as defense attorneys, we make it a little personal. We get a little petty. It happens. I usually do battle like this in the footnotes, honestly, because nobody reads the footnotes.

0:15:18 Matt: And I've got my footnote fetish, as I've previously disclosed. You can say a lot of really bitchy, snarky things in the footnotes. You get away with a lot. And it's fun. But to put some of this in the main, I think, is a little much.

0:15:28 Thomas: Especially, again, like you're talking as a private attorney when you're prosecuting. Now, I'm confused because I thought special prosecutors were unconstitutional. Is that a different kind of special prosecutor?

0:15:39 Matt: Yeah, yeah. I guess if this hadn't been dismissed, you could have picked that up, too. No, this is a state thing, obviously. So yeah, Cannon can't get in the way of this one. But let me just read you from the state's response. So they filed several different motions to dismiss. The one we're considering today is based on this exculpatory evidence that came out, or at least this undisclosed evidence. They filed a number of them. I'm not going to get into them now. It's not worth talking about the legal bases of them because there are quite a few of them, but let me just give you a taste of the way that Kari Morrissey writes. The defendant's motion to dismiss is a predictably false, misleading, and histrionic misrepresentation of the facts and circumstances of the history of the case. The two special prosecutors who have been assigned the prosecution of Mr. Baldwin have experienced near countless lies and manipulation from the defense for more than one year.

0:16:19 Matt: In addition, we have, and certainly will continue to be, the subject of the defendant's contrived and unwarranted personal attacks. The primary goal of Mr. Baldwin and his counsel, which now numbers eight total attorneys, colon. Now, this is the first page of the state's response. This is a 316-page response, a lot of which is attachments.

0:16:38 Thomas: This isn't after you've said everything and you've let you you've lost control a little and you're allowing your kind of anger to get through this is your front loading with it oh that sounds very weak yeah

0:16:44 Matt: This Is Opening. Yeah, this Is Bad. Check out the way she writes this. This. And again, this is really off -limits stuff. You don't go after the guy for having eight attorneys. He can afford eight attorneys, we all understand this. He's an actor, he's a famous guy, he has got a lot of money.

0:16:59 Thomas: How dare you really want to not be found guilty of murder, it's a bit immodest to hire eight attorneys to keep you out of jail for murder. Okay, what what

0:17:02 Matt: How do you retain all of these incredibly competent attorneys? She goes through and lists the attorneys, and then in parentheses puts where they're from. She lists them by name and lists where they are from. And she leads with Heather LeBlanc, and she puts in parentheses, local council who, despite her reputation for hard work and competence, has been relegated to largely menial tasks. What?

0:17:18 Thomas: What are you talking about out here, what in the, what is this high school is this lawyer high school

0:17:29 Matt: You're commenting on how they're participating? Are You not letting my friend Heather do the good stuff? It's weird.

0:17:32 Thomas: Yeah yeah correct me if I'm wrong matt you're the lawyer these don't sound like legal arguments to me like that doesn't really even

0:17:43 Matt: They're not anything. There's nothing you should put in this motion about opposing counsel. If Even if opposing counsel slept with your wife and ran over your dog, You don't put it in the motion. Like, that's just not how it works. She goes on to list Alex Spiro, parentheses, New York. Luke Nikas, parentheses New York, John Bash, parentheses Texas.

0:17:47 Thomas: If true not anything how

0:18:01 Matt: Sarah Clark, Texas. Michael Nesinchuk, Newark. Jennifer Stern, Newyork. And Seth McCollum in New York is to ensure that the case is not heard on its merits. Yes, that is what lawyers do. We don't want it heard on the merits. Thank you. We are trying to get it dismissed. That is the whole point of a motion to dismiss. And if it is heard on merits, to discredit the prosecution, investigation, and witnesses in the media, so a conviction becomes unlikely for reasons that have nothing to do with Mr. Baldwin's criminal culpability. So basically, she's mad that he's rich and famous. Yeah, me too. But

0:18:00 Thomas: Dare you what yeah And that attorneys are trying to do their job in a way that, like, man, okay. I could, I mean, I could see going after some like Trump, you know, ballot BS lawyers like this, even then it wouldn't be good, but like for this trial. Oh

0:18:37 Matt: And these are good lawyers, too. We're going to see Alex Spiro and Luke Nikas, both New York attorneys. And Alex Spiro, I'm going to talk about for just a second here before we move on. I'd love to have him on the show. So, I was very suspicious of Alex Spiro, I will say, when I first started looking into this case, because he's one of those guys that got kind of the Avenatti kind of look to him, right? Because he's everywhere doing everything all the time, but he's not quite as ego-driven as Avenatti, but he has had an unbelievable resume. This guy is 42 years old. He was a Manhattan ADA for a couple of years and then just went on to represent just an absolutely unbelievable roster of people, basketball players, rap stars. I remember actually because he came here to represent Aaron Hernandez in Boston. Are a lot of questions about what this guy was doing when we have lots of perfectly good Boston defense attorneys. He's been Jay -Z's personal guy, helping out Jay -z's friends for years. He was part of Robert Kraft's legal team for the solicitation charge.

0:19:29 Thomas: Okay. I mean don't love all that, but whatever.

0:19:31 Matt: But I'm just saying, he's offended a lot of celebrity people, including Elon Musk in that defamation case about the submarine rescue. He's actually very relevant to the episode that we just recorded on Rap on Trial. He actually in a brief to the Supreme Court for Killer Mike and a number of other rap artists talking about the way that rap is being used in criminal cases.

0:19:51 Thomas: Know, there's that comic that's like the, the killer whale on trial. And then the guy's He's like, will you steal your name? It's Killer Whale. Objection. And then I feel like if your client is Killer Mike, that's like that's a tough, you know, that'S a tough start is all I'm saying. Yeah. Guilty McGee.

0:20:04 Matt: It's true. It's true, So, he was involved in the Tiger King disappearance and trying to investigate that. He was involved in litigation involving Robert Durst, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Mick Jagger.

0:20:17 Thomas: I'm so sorry. Who disappeared in the Tiger King? What

0:20:20 Matt: Remember, it was the husband of the other, sort of, magnate.

0:20:23 Thomas: Oh, yeah. Yeah. The lady. What's? Oh, Yeah. All you cool cats and kittens.

0:20:29 Matt: Yep, yep. Her husband that she may or may not have fed to a tiger. Anyway, so I could go on, but he has had quite a resume, and he's only 42. He claims to have a photographic memory and sleep three hours a night. Maybe.

0:20:39 Thomas: I mean, I don't believe

0:20:41 Matt: Probably.

0:20:41 Thomas: Him if he's doing that much work at that young age. I mean.

0:20:44 Matt: I mean, the alternative is that you're not doing any of the work, and you're just the top of the ladder, and you just have associates doing it. But honestly, watching him in court, I think he's good. I think she's good at it. I think it's actually a good trial attorney. Yeah, come on the show. Just get into the motion a little bit here and talk about how this is going to work. So as I said, they filed the motion the night before. Carrie Morrison doesn't have time to respond in writing and actually says she is not going to respond in writing. And this hearing starts to go off the rails in several different ways that I'll start to flag as we go here.

0:21:11 Thomas: All right. Sorry. Who's not responding in writing? Well, oh, I thought you read from that.

0:21:13 Matt: But Morrissey, the special prosecutor. That was from a different motion to special response. I just wanted to give you a taste of how she writes.

0:21:18 Thomas: I see. OK good clarification. So this one when it comes to this one. OK, well that does adjust my perception slightly, just because, like, I don't know if that one might not have been meritorious, whereas this one clearly may have been.

0:21:32 Matt: Yeah but she wasn't even talking about the merits. She's just complaining about the attorneys, as she continues to do, by the way, in this hearing. And I should also note that Hannah Gutierrez -Reed was convicted, the armorer, and she did 18 months, which is a maximum. Now she and the assistant director, Dave Halls, were both offered a plea agreement. Halls took that plea agreement and cooperated. Honestly, from what I've understood, Halls might have been at least equally culpable in all of this.

0:21:52 Matt: As the assistant director, he's actually in charge of Gutierrez-Reed and watching over things like live ammo. The basic understanding of how this might've happened was that she and her father were working on 1883, the Yellowstone associated prequel thing. And I guess they have a thing where they take actors out and do live fire just so they can see what it's like to shoot off guns.

0:22:11 Matt: And it sounds like some of that might've gotten mixed in. This will come come out in the opening.

0:22:15 Thomas: Thing that is confusing to me, now, I know, I know the system, again, the system sucks in a lot of ways. It sort of strikes me that, let's say, uh, about this case. Let's say there's a murder and then they convict someone and like you did it like they still try someone else for the same murder which the point is like it seems a little weird to be like well the person whose job it was to make sure this gun wasn't a real gun with real bullets they're guilty anyway also the guy who had no idea is guilty it seems like one or the other, like, logically, logically speaking, I literally don't know, when it comes to this actual crime of like pulling the trigger, I don't know how you could say he's responsible and she was responsible.

0:22:57 Matt: Well, the argument is that he wasn't supposed to have pulled the trigger at all. Specious, I think, given that he had no reason to believe it was loaded with live fire. You you could both be responsible for involuntary manslaughter, for different parts of the responsibility in it. And at the end of the day, it's his production. He's at the top of the the production and

0:23:12 Thomas: But that would be a wouldn't that be a different kind of well, maybe I'm wrong when if this were just a case of someone let's say Alec Baldwin weren't the producer and the same all the facts of the same and some producer or whatever has been just running everyone ragged and making it such that there's chaos and blah blah blah that person could totally have I'm sure some sort of liability but would it be the same kind of trial, wouldn't be like a different, you know, the pulling of the trigger wouldn't really factor in, the, just wonder, are you squeezing too many things into this trial, to say, yeah, also the set was kind of messy or whatever, or not? Is that, I don't know how it works

0:23:48 Matt: I think, honestly, reading her filing, once you get past all the petty stuff, I think that it makes some sense to say that, uh, I'll just look at, uh, read very quickly here, I was looking at, further down: Mr. Baldwin's relentless rushing of the crew and the movie set routinely compromised safety because Rust is not a romantic comedy, is an action-filled Western with dangerous stunts and real guns being used as props. In addition to rushing the cast and crew, Mr. Baldwin was frequently screaming and cursing at himself, at crew members, or at no one, or not for any particular reason. Makes me sound a little nuts, but to watch Mr.

0:24:14 Thomas: I think he's a little nuts

0:24:15 Matt: Baldwin's conduct on the set of Rust is to witness a man who has absolutely no control of his own emotions, which again, this is, I don't know why this is in here. There's a lot. Just say he's being irresponsible, but

0:24:24 Thomas: But guess I didn't understand how specifically these charges were were structured so you're saying it could make sense for him to be kind culpable in a broader sense along with like literally the trigger pull okay makes sense then that that

0:24:36 Matt: Between, and then also the decision to hire somebody who's 24 and has virtually no experience and then to push her the way that he did. You can you can see it.

0:24:42 Thomas: Just feel that, all feels civil to me, am I crazy?

0:24:45 Matt: Does.

0:24:45 Thomas: That feels more like all right, it's hard to say criminal, like, like, is a 24-year-old not allowed to do that position? Like, either someone's doing the job or not. Like, how much?

0:24:45 Matt: It is.

0:24:54 Thomas: But, like, if it was a civil case, it's like, yeah, all right. Here's of mistakes that were made that, you doesn't rise to the level of crime, in my opinion. But, yeah.

0:24:54 Matt: Yeah, no, I agree. Yeah.

0:25:02 Thomas: Okay. Point made.

0:25:03 Matt: No, that's what I was saying from the beginning. I really think that he should just have to, I mean, not have to. But at the end of the day, the sentence is that he has to live with the fact that he did this and the rest of it come for his money. That's fair, right?

0:25:12 Thomas: Yeah.

0:25:12 Matt: If he was being negligent on this production, then take him for everything the production's worth, maybe more, I don't know. I mean certainly the family deserves it. But yeah, that was my point from the the beginning, though, is this didn't, like so many things that I see in the criminal justice system, this does not have to be a crime, and it's a complete waste, and really putting people through a lot to do this. Sheriff's department, by the way, spent a year trying to investigate where these live rounds came from, and they came to nothing in like a 500 -page report.

0:25:35 Matt: So this is not at all clear cut about any of this. So with all that said, let's dig into this hearing a little bit. I'm trying to be able to be judicious about how we do this so that we can hear the important parts. Like I said, the day before, we don't really need to play it, but this sort of started to develop on cross that there was another potential source of live rounds that could have come in. And they filed a motion, and I wanted to play the openings. They're both pretty good. We're going to have Luke Nikas, the other major defense attorney on this, is going to give the summary for the defense, and then Carrie Morrissey is going to try to defend herself best she can, and we'll interrupt as we go here. But they're both pretty solid openings that let you know where the parties stand.

0:26:10 Clip: Written briefing I will try to be brief but I think it'd be helpful to build out some of the facts so your honor has the chronology of how this happened and has the factual pieces to understand the severity of what's happened okay so on november 1st 2021 shortly after the rust incident seth kenny's on just one moment I need faith to get me my notebook of course my notebook I I brought it up yesterday might

0:26:38 Matt: I love that she takes written notes.

0:26:38 Clip: Even be in my um computer Peter Bick.

0:26:39 Thomas: Is that the judge wow

0:26:41 Clip: Okay. I'm going to go ahead. I'll take notes on this. All right. Go ahead. May I proceed, Your Honor? Yes, I'm sorry. Thank you. So November 1st, 2021, Seth Kenney is on a phone call with Corporal Hancock. At that point, we've heard about Seth Kenny's involvement in this, his effort to pry into what's going on with the prop card and the bullets. And so on that phone call, he's telling Corporal hancock, then

0:26:40 Matt: Yeah. She graduated law school in 1983. Just for context real quick, Kenney was a prop supplier, and he's probably responsible for these bullets at the end of the day. He started cooperating pretty early with this investigation, and it does seem like he might have had something out for Baldwin as well. You'll hear his name get thrown around a lot here, so we'll keep going.

0:27:20 Thomas: Sorry

0:27:21 Clip: And so on that phone call, he's telling Corporal hancock, then Detective Hancock, he believes he knows where the live bullet came from. He dials in a guy named Teske, who we heard about yesterday in testimony. Teske gets on the line and Seth says, tell Detective Hancock what you know. And he says, well, Fel Reed dropped off a batch of live ammunition at my business because I have a safer place to store it. And after that, Thel shows up, grabs some of the live ammunition, and leaves some behind.

0:27:58 Clip: And that's what I know. And Seth says, well, that could be from the same batch that killed Halyna Hutchins. Could be a match. He says, and it's Thel Reed, and its Hannah Gutierrez Reed. That's the one who's responsible here, pushing it off on Gutierre's Reed as the source of the the live ammunition, just as the state has done in this case. He says, thank you very much. He gets off the phone. Thel says, I am, or excuse me, Teske says, I'll take a picture. I'm not in front of my computer, not in front of the ammunition. I'll send it in an hour. He sends a picture of four bullets. Ms. Morrissey is going to hold that up to you and say, these are the four bullets you knew about this. That was from 2021.

0:28:45 Clip: Detective Hancock does not preserve the other live ammunition that's at Teske's property, even though he told her this could be from the live ammunition batch that matches the bullet that killed Halyna Hutchins. Two years later, November 2nd, 2023, there's a PTI of Teske. Ms. Morrissey's asking questions, and she starts

0:29:10 Thomas: What's a pti ah

0:29:11 Matt: Pre -trial interview, so just a witness interview.

0:29:13 Thomas: Gotcha sure what

0:29:14 Clip: Probing further into the live ammunition that Teske had previously said was given to him by Fel Reed. And she says, do you still have some of that ammunition? He says, well, some of it, but I've been out shooting it over the last two years because Detective Hancock did not preserve it over that time period. Ms. Morrissey probes further. Where'd it come from? Tell me your story. He says well, Fell dropped it off. He then picks some up, and he went with Seth Kenney to the 1883 Yellowstone movie where he was teaching people how to shoot with that live ammunition. He then went to another movie with Seth Kenny teaching people how to shot with that life ammunition. And Seth Kenny then took a green ammo can with that like ammunition in it and brought it home with him.

0:30:11 Clip: He says, that could be the live ammunition from that green ammo cam that killed Halyna Hutchins. Ms. Morrissey says, I want you to preserve that. And do you think there's any evidence that this was sabotage? And he says, well, actually, Seth Kenney called me while Rust was shooting, telling me he wanted to get Hannah Gutierrez -Reed fired. But he didn't know how to do it because he was concerned about upsetting Fel Reed, significant armor in the business, as Your Honor knows.

0:30:45 Matt: Okay, so real quick. Yeah, this is dramatic. So this is potentially now, again, we're not necessarily saying that Seth Kenney purposely mixed in live fire to kill somebody. The theory here could have been, if they had been aware of this, this information they've just become aware of, that Seth Kenny had this statement that he wanted to get her off the production. And just want to set this up now, because it's going to be a lot of back and forth about this.

0:31:08 Matt: There was a lot of dissatisfaction amongst the crew about Hannah Gautier's read and about the way that safety was being handled on everything else. And the thought is that the defense could have made an argument that this man had a motive to try to get live ammunition on the set to show, well, look how easy it is. Look at that. I got away with it and nobody's watching the barn, basically. Potentially, that's an argument that could have been available to them. And they didn't know about this statement that he was trying to get her off. One of the many things that they didn'T know about as we're going to find out, but let's keep going here the rest.

0:31:07 Thomas: The sure yeah

0:31:36 Clip: Have evidence that there was sabotage, but that's what I know. And I still have this ammunition. As we know, Sarah Zachary, the one who threw the live bullets away or bullets away, we don't know live or not, threw bullets away after the incident on Rust, admitted that, was

0:31:55 Thomas: Hands something to the judge.

0:31:57 Matt: Oh, yeah, let me explain that real quick, too. So just before this, Alex Spiro had told the judge that, and the way he says this, I didn't want to bother playing it, but he says it in kind of a funny way about how, you know, I get a lot of emails, I don't look at everything, but this seems serious. Somebody emailed me a picture, and I think it might have been from the media, of Carrie Morrissey, the special prosecutor, making hand signals to a witness, one of her witnesses, while he was testifying. And yeah, we have pictures. I wanted to show it to you. And the judge basically made it seem like she might have been aware that something like that may have been happening, but wanted to see the pictures. Think that the rest of this hearing, from what I can tell, kind of derailed any more arguments about the hand signals because of all the other stuff that came out. But just an interesting

0:31:57 Clip: On set,

0:32:33 Matt: Side note about what was going on there. Yeah.

0:32:34 Thomas: What the hell? Okay.

0:32:36 Matt: Yeah.

0:32:37 Clip: With Seth Kenney, angry with Hannah, on the license, the ATF report for the Pieta that was involved in this accident. She was on set. They were close. We know that. And so Ms. Morrissey says, you hold onto that evidence and I'll come get it, in essence. She never does. November, 2023. Fast forward to March 6, 2024, the end of Hannah Gutierrez Reed's trial. Teske's in Santa Fe, sees what happens, shows up at the sheriff's office, as we heard from Ms. Popple, and delivers that live ammunition that Hancock had not preserved, that Ms. Morrissey had not collected, that he believed could be from the same batch, from that same green ammo can that we care about, that matched the bullet that killed Halyna Hutchins.

0:33:32 Matt: Okay. So this is a little disingenuous. And I'm going to say that both sides in some places are being a little bit disingenuous. Teske is a good friend of Thel Reed, Hannah Gutierrez -Reed's stepfather, who is the famous armor. And as we'll learn, Teske holds onto a lot of things for him because he doesn't have the most secure living environment. And Teske, he was on the defense's witness list in the Hannah Gutiérrez -Reid trial. Now, Gutiérez - Reid rejected the plea deal, went to trial, and got 18 months. And he was actually called in, and the reason he was in New Mexico was because he was supposed to be a witness at this trial. There's going to be some dispute about why he didn't end up testifying. But the day that she was convicted, he went over and turned this in. And there is some thought that he might have done that at Thelreid's request as kind of a Hail Mary to try to do something to save his daughter. Completely understandable to an open question as to why the defense in her case didn't use it and why Alec Baldwin's defense may have wanted to use it. Very interesting legal legal strategies going on here. We'll talk about as we get more into what the actual stuff is. But I just wanted to say that I think it's a little disingenuous to be like, yeah, he just happened to be in Santa Fe without mentioning that he was supposed to have been called as a witness in the previous case. But that is why he was there. And the being that he turned this ammo in the same day that she was convicted. So there's

0:34:41 Matt: That. Let's keep going.

0:34:41 Clip: We heard, Your Honor, what Ms. Poppy did with it. They buried it. I'd like to say, charitably, that it was under the pile of the 5501 information that they didn't disclose but that's even too charitable because they put it under a different case with a different number

0:34:53 Thomas: What is that? Oh,

0:34:55 Matt: So that's pretty funny, what he just said. That's a great little dig. So the 5501 is the New Mexico Mexico rule of criminal procedure about disclosure. It's just basically the mandatory reciprocal discovery that we have in every criminal proceeding in every state and federal system. The stuff that is, when things have to be turned over, what has to be turned over. And there are some pretty serious allegations about a number of things that weren't turned over potentially. Carrie Marcy is going to say there were 10 terabytes of data and she couldn't possibly keep track of it all, but that's no excuse. You have an absolute requirement. And, of course, it's not just Rule 5501. There is the Supreme Court case of Brady, which is going to come up a lot, and it's pretty straightforward. Yeah, just, well, we're not pumping up footballs or something, but that's the evidence about your Super Bowl cheating. Man, I can't make a sports joke.

0:35:30 Thomas: Heard heard of it tom brady bunch of super bowl rings famous for withholding evidence he was no I'm just kidding yeah yeah wow a sports rep wow

0:35:46 Matt: I can do it. It's a New England sports joke, it's the best I could do.

0:35:46 Thomas: No that was pretty good matt yeah uh yeah not bad absolutely

0:35:51 Matt: Anyway, so we're going to hear that the Brady rule is going to be sort of spelled out here, but a Brady violation does not have to be intentional. It really is just anything that might be material to the defense that the prosecutor doesn't turn over. Obviously, it's extra bad when it is intentional and it may in this case have been intentional. I think it actually might have been. And the reason that the defense has just made that kind of joke about how how it might have been buried, and so there's a pile of other evidence, is that in this case, this is really sketchy, and this really is an immediate red flag. When Tritesky went to turn this ammunition in, it was put into a completely different case file that wasn't associated with the Rust incident, and it was assigned its own what they call dock number. It got lost.

0:36:29 Thomas: Like andrew baldberg or something I was just uh I was right now right right next to it in the file cabinet convenient maybe okay

0:36:37 Matt: And that in itself is pretty telling. Yeah. So there was the the ammunition. And then also they did produce a three-page report about what they found about these rounds. And those things were not turned over. And that's the heart of it here. So let's keep going.

0:36:51 Clip: Asked March 26, we want all of the ammunition from the rust set that you've collected April 16th we show up for that viewing we want the live ammunition from the russet that you collected it's not there after tesky had turned it in after ms. Popple had had created the report, the supplemental report she said she created when she took this in and did not disclose to us, it was not there. Now, Your Honor, we don't know if it's a live ammunition match or not. But what we do know is the state had it. It's disclosable under Giglio. It is disclosable under 5501. And there's a case on point, Your Honour, State v. Allison, where a criminal defendant's

0:37:41 Matt: I'm going to stop you here. This is not on point. The case he's going to talk about, I'd like to just skip this whole part because I think he's a pretty good lawyer, but I do not understand why he's citing this case. I have to be honest. Seem to be relevant. Casey and I listened to this actually together in the car the other day, and we're both just shaking our heads wondering what is going on here. But it's not even worth listening to. But if you could could skip over like a minute, maybe a minute and a half while he talks about this case.

0:38:01 Thomas: Now reminder though like is this the kind of thing where he's uh very good attorney but he's not from the state and he's having to like try yeah okay so I feel like that happened a bit with trump's lawyers didn't it yeah

0:38:13 Matt: Yeah, that I think maybe he just did kind of a quick Google Scholar search or something that morning and pulled up a case that seemed relevant. I don't know. I just don't understand. Just to tell you very quickly, it's a case in which the state was using the defendant's own criminal record against him, and they were saying that it was a Brady violation not determined by the fact that they were going to use his criminal record if he testified, which is completely normal. It's not like he wasn't on record of his own criminal record. So I don't know. But anyway, if we skip ahead like a minute or two, it gets more interesting stuff to come.

0:38:35 Thomas: That doesn't make sense uh

0:38:39 Clip: Is not adequate in those circumstances. They're in the middle of of trial, the defendant would have done things differently. The defendant would have opened differently, would have asked questions differently. Too much about where the source, in this case, of the live bullet came in before this was presented at trial. The court said it doesn't matter if the defendant knew or should have known of it. What we're talking about here is not the defendant's knowledge, not whether it matches, not matches, not whether his criminal arrest record would have hurt him or not. We're talking about the conduct of the prosecution and that's exactly what we're talking about here your honor we're taking about a prosecution that didn't preserve those bullets that didn't collect them at all that didn't turn them over that we already have a 5501 culpability finding with respect to the last set of information and your honor the bottom line is we've got 5501 violation culpabilty we don't need to show bad faith. We've got a Brady violation. We've had a Giglio violation. Now, this is critical evidence in the case that was never disclosed to us. We heard Ms. Morrissey say, I'm gonna have Detective Hancock come in and testify. We could have Ms. Popple testify. They could say it doesn't match, et cetera, et, cetera. It does not matter. It did not matter in Allison. We were entitled to it. The continuance is not a sufficient remedy. This case should be dismissed, Your Honor. This is over and over and over again. And Your Honor, you've given them a fair chance. You said, grand jury, as Mr. Spiro said, you said, I'm going to give you a remedy on Trombetta. I'm gonna, I'll limit it. I'll give you your remedy. You've given him more than enough opportunities, Your Honor. This is not the first time. It's not the second time. Not even the third time. It's time for this case to be dismissed, Your Honor." That's what Brady requires. That's what Giglio requires. As Your Honor knows, we've got remedies and the alternative. But this is the one that's right for this moment. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank You very much.

0:40:40 Matt: Remember, one of the reasons he's being so strident about having it dismissed at this point is that it's now three days into a jury trial. A jury has been seated and sworn, and we've already started evidence. And in the middle of this evidence, we find out in the closest thing I've seen to a movie kind of revelation that there's this whole other thing, this important piece of evidence that never came in. So he's making the point that dismissal is the only thing here because we didn't have the chance to inspect this evidence. We don't know what it is. We couldn't prepare a case involving it. I think that's all pretty fair. This is all the same argument I've been making, certainly. So now we're going to hear Morrissey's response to this. And I don't have everything about the way that she addresses this. I don't find her to be very trustworthy. I think that she's really going out there when I think she could have done a lot better by just saying, it was a big case. There was a lot going on. I think I missed this. Something slipped through here. Don't I know. So anything else besides the way she handles this. Let's see what you think here as she steps up.

0:41:34 Clip: There have been absolutely no violations of our obligations as prosecutors. I want to walk you through everything that has occurred in this regard, everything that these defense attorneys knew well before today, and everything that was also disclosed to Ms. Gutierrez's counsel.

0:41:57 Clip: So what you can see from the transcript of Mr. Teske's interview during the Gutierre's case prior to her trial is that Mr. Teske is Thel Reed's close friend and Mr. Teske stores Mr. Reed's ammunition and the reason that he stores it for Mr. Reed is because Mr. Reid lives in a single wide mobile home that doesn't have a lot of security and because he's a professional armorer he has a bunch of guns and ammunition. Mr. Teske is a retired police officer who has a whole whole bunch of security at his property. So Thel Reid has 300 rounds of live .45 caliber ammunition and he and Seth Kinney are hired by the producers for the show 1883.

0:43:06 Clip: Everything that I'm, I want you to know, Your Honor, everything that I am telling the court, Mr. Bowles has this information and these people have this information. So nothing I'm telling the court is new.

0:43:16 Matt: These people.

0:43:19 Clip: So they get hired to do what's called a cowboy training on the set of 1883. So the cowboy training is where gun experts, that being Thel Reed and Seth Kinney, take the actors to shoot real guns with real ammunition so that they have a better idea of the recoil and how the gun is actually supposed to look and to help them with their acting techniques. In fact, the fact that production companies do this was actually something that Mr. Baldwin pointed out to Detective Hancock during his interview. He himself has done this with a production company. So when they're through with the cowboy training camp in Texas, they've got some rounds left over and Seth Kinney says, I'm gonna take these and they'll read lets him take them so and let me let me back up when they originally went to the cowboy training camp Texas they didn't take all of Thales ammunition they took a certain amount of it and they left some in Troy Teske's garage all of this ammunition came from the same place this was all from basically the same batch of ammunition that they'll read had that he got from a manufacturer from an ammunition manufacturer in Kingman Arizona named Joe Swanson so they take 300 of his rounds they go do the cowboy training camp Seth Kinney then takes the leftover rounds back to PDQ so then what happens happens is Mr. Bowles begins to tell Detective Hancock, hey, you need to go execute a search warrant at PDQ because there's this green ammo can that Seth Kinney took

0:43:16 Thomas: Sorry

0:45:27 Clip: After

0:45:28 Thomas: What's pdq I might have forgotten

0:45:29 Matt: The prop company that Kenny runs.

0:45:32 Thomas: Okay gotcha it's

0:45:35 Clip: The 1883 training camp. Hancock to her credit takes Mr. Bulls at his word.

0:45:44 Clip: She gets a search warrant. It. She goes to PDQ. What Mr. Bowles said would be there was there, and you've seen pictures of it. There's a green ammo can. It says 1883 live ammunition. They take it. They send it to the FBI for testing. Not only does it not look like the live rounds from Rust, but it has a different chemical composition. So at that point in time, Hancock has kind of realized, I think, that she's being led down this path by Mr. Bowles that's coming from Thel Reed. Thel Reed is trying to slough everything off on Seth Kinney.

0:46:11 Thomas: Chemical bullets yeah

0:46:30 Matt: Okay, hold up. So think about what she just said. Now, remember, this is going to be an ongoing theme throughout Carrie Morrissey's participation in this case. I think it's very interesting that she is primarily known as a defense attorney, And that's the way she comes at things, because she's not thinking like a prosecutor, I don't think, for some of this. But she's trying to say that in her judgment, that Bowles, who is Hannah Gutierrez Reid's defense attorney, was trying to redirect things to Seth Kinney, when in fact, Seth Kinny is like a very possible culprit here. Like, he's somebody that is definitely worth investigating, because he's running the prop company that supplied the bullets, and was working with Thelreda and was at that point, that she was being led down this path by the defense attorney. It's like, no, the defense attorneys said, we think there might be relevant evidence in the prop company. And we think we know even what ammo can it's being kept in. He didn't know for sure.

0:47:19 Matt: He just said, go check it out. And it

0:47:21 Thomas: And like after then her saying and attorney should have known that the chemical composition didn't match wow

0:47:28 Matt: I mean, it's pretty standard stuff to say that there's some evidence here that you need to fully understand the case. And there's an ongoing theme here where she, as a prosecutor, is openly telling the judge in open court that she thinks she knows better, that she thinks she understands when all evidence is relevant and when it's not, and when the defense needs to see it and when they don't. It's really cringe. Honestly, it's really embarrassing to hear somebody who's supposed to be a prosecutor say something like that out loud. Casey was shocked by a lot of this just listening to the way she's talking. Keep going. You'll hear some more of this.

0:47:57 Clip: Seth Kinne is with Detective Hancock what Mr. Nickus was referring to he received he reaches out to Teske because he's there with Hancock and he He says, hey, send me a photo of the live rounds that you have left over, because I'm giving her the live rounds from my green can. I think he just gave her some of them. They hadn't executed the search warrant at that point in time. Teske says, okay, and he sends to Seth Kinney, you can see November 1st, he sends him that photograph of the Live Rounds that are in his possession. When you look at that photograph, and I'll blow it up for you, you can tell these are not similar to the live rounds that were found on the set of Rust.

0:48:57 Clip: Detective Hancock gets this information from Mr. Kinney, ultimately though still goes ahead and executes her search warrant as she should.

0:49:10 Clip: I come into this case, I look at the ammunition that was taken from PDQ, I understand from the witnesses that the ammunition was sourced originally from Thel Reed. It was sourced from Hannah's dad.

0:49:27 Clip: It's not a match. Not only is it not a match when you look at it, it's not match when you send it to the FBI and you ask them to conduct chemical testing.

0:49:37 Clip: So this is a wild goose chase. This has no evidentiary value whatsoever. This is simply a man trying to protect his daughter and he's doing it by providing information that doesn't even match. He's trying to provide evidence that doesn't even match the evidence that was found at the scene. So then let's cut to November of 2023.

0:50:04 Clip: We do a pretrial interview of Mr. Teske. Let me back up. Detective Hancock reached out when she got this photograph. She reached out to Mr. Teske, and she'll testify to this, if you want her to testify under oath, I'm happy to have her do it. She reached out to Mr .Teske and she said, hey, you know, because you appear to be cooperative, can you just package that stuff up and mail it to me? Because he's in Arizona, he's not here in New Mexico, and he never does.

0:50:35 Matt: Just mail me some ammo.

0:50:36 Clip: He never sends it to her. She doesn't pursue it because on its face, it's not the same ammunition. Ammunition. Let's

0:50:44 Matt: Okay, stop and note that for just a second. Note what she just said about how, well, the detective asked him to drop it in the mail and and never did. It's a weird thing. It is not something that they would do because it's ammunition. You would send somebody from local law enforcement to come and get it. She is about to completely contradict herself, so just listen to that. Let's keep going.

0:50:50 Clip: Where Let's cut to November 2023. We're doing the pre -trial interview of Troy, where he talks about the ammunition, and he talks about what he knows, what information he has about the relevance of this ammunition. What's also very important, and I can have under oath testimony to this fact also, this pre -trail interview that was done over Zoom was, well, Mr. Bowles was there, so this was this was never kept from Gutierrez's lawyers it was her lawyers that were bringing it to us so there was no issue there the jury was completely misled yesterday so this pre -trial interview that takes place in November of 2023 is uploaded to our discovery server and when it's uploaded to the server Mr. Baldwin hasn't been indicted yet When he is ultimately indicted, everything that is on that server is taken and it's put on a hard drive, and it is sent, I believe, to Ms. Clark, who isn't here right now.

0:52:10 Clip: And certainly Mr. James is happy to testify that it was uploaded to the server, that he downloaded it onto that hard drive and he provided it to Mr. Baldwin's counsel. Counsel. So the jury was misled again yesterday when Mr. Spiro indicated we had no idea about any of this. They've had it the entire time. So when I have the pretrial interview with Troy Teske, if the court wants to know the reason that we didn't actually get the ammunition from him is because I said, since he's out of state and we'd have to get another law enforcement agency basically to go pick it up and take it and send it to us I said, have him send me a picture of it so that I can determine whether it has any evidentiary value and I can speak to my case agent about it the

0:53:06 Matt: So, just to say this clearly, she previously just said that Detective Hancock had asked him, allegedly, to drop the ammunition in the mail, and they just never got it, so he never followed through. It was his fault. And now she is like, well, obviously, I couldn't just have him drop it in the mailbox. We are going to have to have somebody go get it, like no self -consciousness about this at all, just complete contradiction. Right there on the record within two minutes. It's really something.

0:53:26 Thomas: That's a problem with making like two different excuses for something it's like well now that's worse than one like one might have been good two worse than than zero almost that's and you're lying

0:53:36 Matt: You got to pick a lane on these kinds of things. You really do.

0:53:38 Thomas: Also I had a doctor's appointment that day

0:53:43 Matt: Exactly. And the photo thing, I mean, she really is hung up. And even Spiro said, and I'm sorry, Nikas said in his opening, she's going to show you this photo because he knows that she thinks it's important. It's a photo of like four different rounds. We're talking about potentially dozens and dozens of rounds, right? There's a lot of stuff that was mixed in here. Also, she's not an ammunition expert, and she's eyeballing it, you

0:54:04 Thomas: Not as though that there's some ironclad law that says well there will only be one exact type of ammunition per whatever thing we're talking about like for all we know how this stuff is kept who knows we don't know right

0:54:17 Matt: Let's hear her talk about what she thinks the evidentiary value is of this. It's really interesting, her mindset here.

0:54:22 Clip: Photograph that was sent to me is the photograph in the middle that is not the same ammunition you can tell from looking at it it has a different projectile shape that's not the same projectile shape that's not the same casing this isn't a starline brass casing and it also has brass primers and not silver primers so I decided I agreed with detective hancock this has no evidentiary value we're not going to continue to go down this rabbit hole I want the court to know that the photographs that I spoke to detective hancock about yesterday yesterday where it does appear that Ms. Gutierrez has the live ammunition in her own hand that was taken a little more than a month after Ms. Hutchins died. Those are on the right. So you can see the bottom photo. You can see the starline brass casing. You Can see the nickel primer. And then when you look up here, you can see The shape of the projectile. It's a spot on match for the the live rounds. There is absolutely nothing about the ammunition that Troy Teske had that has any evidentiary value in the Gutierrez case. It has no evidentiary value in Baldwin case. This feels like asking us to go to every sporting goods store, collect all of their .45 caliber ammunition and send it off for testing. We're not required to do that. It simply doesn't have any evidentiary value and the defense was aware of it.

0:56:07 Matt: No, absolutely not. I mean, that is such a stupid analogy.

0:56:10 Thomas: I I was gonna ask you okay OK, I wasn't going to say exactly that, but I was going to ask like, OK, you is this like someone just writing and be like, oh, I have bullets, you know, and it's like, okay, there's some there's got to be some limit to like what what the relevance might be. But I really do think you ought to give us I don't know if now is a good time, but I think people ought to know what the standards are for this kind of thing and what makes it what a Brady violation is and what makes it actually, you something that causes a case to be dismissed.

0:56:38 Matt: To rise to the level of a Brady violation, it has to be something that actually could have made a difference to the jury or that has some material.

0:56:44 Thomas: It's when the prosecution doesn't turn over some sort of evidence, right?

0:56:47 Matt: If it's material and potentially exculpatory in any way, and again, this is a very broad thing as it should be. It should be as broad as possible. Anything that might be used at trial in any way, it is not up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not something is material. What you have here is you have a witness coming forward who's a former law enforcement officer saying, I'm aware that there is a potential source here of these live rounds. And that is, of course, the central question in both the Gutierrez read and the Alec Baldwin trials is how did this live stuff get onto the set? And if you're saying that this company and this guy might've been aware of these live rounds and might've mixed them in, just sending a picture of four bullets from Phoenix or wherever he was, that's not enough. You're going to have to go and actually collect the actual evidence. You have to take a look at as much as he has left. And again, he tried to come in years before. He tried

0:56:51 Thomas: Anyway. Yeah. Hmm.

0:57:33 Matt: To bring this in and they turned him away. By the time it was was 2023 when they're doing this pretrial interview. He says, well, you know, I've shot a bunch of it by now, but if you want the rest of it, I can send it to you. And she's like, no, just send me a picture. And he sends a picture of like whatever he's got lying around, but there's plenty more to look at. Again, though, just the fact that somebody came forward and said, I think that I have a source potentially, whereas, you knows, this might've been mixed in, even if it never matched, it doesn't matter. You need to turn that over to the defense so they can investigate it for themselves.

0:58:00 Matt: They can send investigators, they can talk to the guy, they can see what they might be able to bring out. They can develop their defense strategy. Just a lot of different reasons you need to have this.

0:58:07 Thomas: It's like, oh, didn't turn over the OJ glove because it didn't fit. So we didn't really think. Or something like that. Yeah.

0:58:14 Matt: Not relevant. Yeah, sure.

0:58:16 Thomas: But, but you say it's not up to the prosecutor. Well, who has to decide, I mean, cause there is going to be stuff, objects in the universe that, that are not related. Uh, how do you, I means somebody has got to decide that, right?

0:58:27 Matt: But the standard rule, and you know, I talked to Casey about this many years, and she's very, very thoughtful about it, as are the people that I've certainly known who do this. The standard rule is if there's any doubt at all, you just put it in discovery and the defense see it.

0:58:37 Thomas: Just And, I've and said, I can't remember what it was for. Oh, it might've been for when we talked about Adnan, but, um, I've set in, in a hypothetical um just philosophically speaking you might feel like oh but this rule means that when sometime you didn't turn over something that really didn't matter and then a murderer gets away with it and I really think that like for our system to be anything like just you absolutely have to have that be the remedy otherwise this would just incentivize police to do this all the time or prosecutors to do THIS ALL THE TIME you cannot mess with that at all. Otherwise, the minute a prosecutor thought, well, we just don't have to hand that over. And like, what's the worst that could happen? You know, like then probably already does like, honestly. So yeah, might sound like it's an extreme remedy in some cases maybe, but I feel Like it's vital. And for that reason, I would imagine if I were in the prosecution business and we're wanting to, you Know, know, be successful, I would not want to mess with this at all. Like, why, would Would you give the other site any chance at having a meritorious argument?

0:59:33 Matt: Right, and and especially, as they point out more than once in this hearing, if you don't even think it's relevant, then what's the harm? Just throw it in. If you don '—because it kind of suggests maybe you do think it relevant if you're going out of your way to exclude it and put in a different case number.

0:59:45 Thomas: And honestly, knowing how this shit works, the more bullshit you give the other slide, the More time and money it costs them go through it.

0:59:52 Matt: Just bury them. I mean, that is a pretty common tactic in these things. I means, she says 10 terabytes of data, you know, thousands and thousands and thousand pages. What's a three -page report? You know, what's What's more information about some other stuff that's out there? I find this whole line of argument, I mean, it's, yeah. Yeah.

1:00:04 Thomas: So So very suspicious. Yeah?

1:00:06 Matt: And especially, now she is going to take the stand and she's going to say some of these things on her oath. Yeah, it'S going to get interesting. So let's keep going with the rest of her arguments here.

1:00:11 Thomas: Already was interesting. It's gonna get even more interesting.

1:00:14 Matt: Oh, yeah, so

1:00:16 Clip: The court, let me check my notes real quick, and another thing that's really important about the transcript of Mr. Teske's pretrial interview is he does not say this is the same same ammunition that killed Halyna Hutchins he says that's what Seth Kenny told me well we've interviewed Seth Kenny countless times and he's testified before your honor and that is not what he says he does not support that so mr.

1:00:48 Matt: That's not relevant. Okay, again, though, you have a witness saying that somebody else said I supplied it. So like, okay, it doesn't matter that he later testified it wasn't.

1:00:57 Clip: Teske

1:01:05 Thomas: Yeah and I have decided what the actual truth is so it's not relevant to the trial. It's like isn't the jury supposed to decide stuff like that? You know like they make a judgment? Yeah.

1:01:09 Matt: I mean an important statement yeah it's a statement against interest all right let's get let's keep going yeah

1:01:21 Clip: Indicated during his pretrial interview that he had no personal knowledge of whether or not this ammunition had anything to do with what was happening on the set of rust that all came from seth we investigated seth we talked to seth the

1:01:36 Thomas: Your honor he's guilty so like why Why are we even doing a trial? Save you some time. Sorry, just going through my lies here.

1:01:38 Matt: What a waste yeah

1:01:54 Clip: The the only way that this has on the best of days for this to be relevant

1:02:03 Thomas: Look, Your Honor, the only way this could be relevant at all is if there was some kind of rule that says we have to turn over anything that could be like relevant, you know, evidence wise. And there's what? Sorry. Oh, yeah.

1:02:19 Matt: I'll just be sitting down yeah I'm

1:02:20 Clip: Information for even ms gutierrez it's not at all relevant to mr baldwin but even for ms goutierrez it has to actually have some exculpatory value and you can tell from the pictures on the right it doesn't. It doesn't have any exculpatory value and I want the court to keep in mind Hannah Gutierrez when she was working on the set of The Old Way in August before she came to New Mexico to work on the Set of Rust she sent Seth Kinney a text message and in that text message she said is it okay with you if I shoot live rounds out of the set guns and Seth Kinney responded and said

1:02:26 Matt: Glad you think so

1:03:01 Clip: No don't do that in fact what he says is it always ends in tears it did this time Hannah Gutierrez admits

1:03:09 Thomas: Holy shit what does that have to do with this though hey

1:03:14 Clip: To law enforcement that she loaded the gun she points out the box of dummy rounds that she was sourcing ammunition from during her November interview she holds up a picture of the exact same box and says, I got this from my dad. My dad wanted me to show you the boxes of dummy rounds that we use. And it was a spot on match. She actually indicated that she got the box of dummy from her

1:03:39 Thomas: Man I'm not a lawyer you know what that all sounds like is stuff you would do like in the trial thing like the trial part

1:03:45 Matt: Yeah when you have all the evidence in front of you yeah and

1:03:48 Thomas: Like then you know the jury can decide who to believe on something that's

1:03:53 Matt: Potentially competing theories of where the ammo came from Yeah, that would be nice. It's really weird.

1:03:58 Thomas: Weird how

1:03:59 Clip: Own father. None of this is exculpatory at all. This is the exact same batch of ammunition that has already been sent to the FBI and tested because it all came came from the same place. There's no reason for us to do it again. Thank you.

1:04:06 Thomas: Many times is she gonna say that okay but just in the same way again again, not the lawyer, just in the same way that you have that, again, just a hypothetical, you have the guy fingerprint expert and be like, we sent these away. These are a match. And furthermore, we have these other fingerprints that are, you know, like I don't know, from some, something else. Those do not match. You like still have to take the jury through that, right?

1:04:41 Matt: Yep. You don't just get to decide how it's going to be used. And also, as Sparrow is about to point out, there is one incredibly important thing that she has purposely not mentioned. So let's find out what that is.

1:04:50 Thomas: Okay. Here we go. Let's see.

1:04:56 Clip: Honor, I don't know at this moment if the court is intending to take evidence or not, so. She didn't call anybody. I can, I mean, if the Court. It is your presentation, I'm not going to tell you what to do on your presentation. I'll do it then, we'll take evidence. If my offer of proof isn't enough, I'm happy to go when this is up. I just wanted to say one thing to the Court, which is just simply that Miss Morrissey in her presentation didn't say one word not one word. Well he was making a legal argument if we're going to do an evidentiary hearing there won't be multiple lawyers involved but but so I would just simply point out that there wasn't one word about what was actually turned in I don't know if the court realizes that that was all about stuff

1:04:57 Thomas: One more thing.

1:05:49 Clip: Thank you. All right. Go ahead, Mr.

1:05:50 Matt: So that's a really good point right

1:05:51 Clip: Nikas.

1:05:51 Thomas: Oh. I don't, I don' t totally remember enough to know what, what he means there.

1:05:52 Matt: There. So she was talking about when she was going on and on was about the photos that she received. She doesn't talk about when Troy Tuske actually walked into the station and handed in physical ammunition. She hasn't talked about what they did with that ammunition.

1:06:06 Thomas: Yeah. No, I sort of forgot all that based on, based on her presentation and not, you know, being acquainted with this. I was like, oh, so we're just talking about like a photo here. Nope. More to it than that. Okay.

1:06:09 Matt: So yep nope uh and and that little exchange too is because spiro and nikas have divided up their duties here and she's saying like isn't this a nikas presentation he's like no I just got to get this in because I have to say this and now nikas is really going to bring it home about I think he argues this very well uh

1:06:29 Clip: MR. I'll be very brief, Your Honor. If this evidence wasn't as important as we say it is,

1:06:34 Thomas: Wait, this is Spiro, right?

1:06:35 Matt: Bald guy is nikas oh

1:06:36 Thomas: When you said Avenatti, so you don't mean this guy? Oh,

1:06:40 Matt: I Just meant his personality but yeah no nikas says it's the bald one spiro was a younger guy with hair.

1:06:45 Thomas: I thought you specifically talked about his appearance being Avenatti -like.

1:06:48 Matt: No, no, I just meant his public sort of his profile.

1:06:49 Thomas: That really threw me off this whole time, man. I've been thinking like, this is that guy. All right.

1:06:51 Matt: Sorry. Okay, sorry. Yeah, they're both good.

1:06:55 Clip: If this evidence wasn't as important as we say it is, they would have turned it over. The fact that they concealed it, the fact that put it under a separate document number, didn't disclose the supplemental report, disclosed the bullets, didn't bring them to the April 6th evidentiary viewing, if it was that irrelevant, it had no evidentiary value, it would have been there, Your honor, number one. Number two, Ms. Morrissey does not get to determine what has evidentiary value and what doesn't. 5501 says it's required to be disclosed, period, full stop. And in fact, in the Allison case, it was not exculpatory. It was inculpatory, it's the defendant's own arrest record and his own lies to the state. And yet the fact that it was required to being disclosed under 5501 and the fact it was meant, period full stop, we're not going to have a mini trial about this in the middle of the trial, that's exactly what the Supreme Court reversed the lower court for doing, what Ms. Mori's asking you to do. It didn't matter. It was inculpatory. But the trial would have been conducted differently. And because it would have been conduct differently, and that's exactly the truth here, this goes to credibility. It goes to the government's bias, improper motivation, and incompetence. I'm taking those exact words from the motion in limine ruling that your honor made. That goes into evidence. It's relevant to Popple's credibility, to Hancock's credibility. It relates to every single thing we've planned in this entire case, Your Honor. And right in the middle of it, Ms. Morrissey doesn't tell you what was actually turned in. She shows you a picture from 2021, a subset of the rounds that were turned in by Teske, a subset. He said he shot a bunch of rounds in those two years. The picture was only a four. This is critical evidence, Your Honors. And whether Seth Kenney is right or wrong, or how we debate whether he was involved or not involved that's completely irrelevant because what we know is we don't have those bullets and they were required to be disclosed so we could put on the case that's fair and that's exactly what Brady says your honor Brady says that the administration of justice requires fairness that was the entire premise of the decision fairness and that's all we've wanted from the beginning your honor and you've given them chance after chance after and you there are no more chances your honor brady says it diglio says it 5501 requires it thank you all

1:09:11 Clip: Right thank you before I and

1:09:11 Matt: It's a great argument.

1:09:12 Thomas: Are you going into posse or oh

1:09:13 Matt: No. I just want to compliment him. That was good work.

1:09:16 Clip: We can take testimony later if if you all want but I'm going to um require that the state in fact I'm gonna order that the um by um 11 30 this morning produce the uh supplemental report Court, the file itself and anything in it, and also the rounds. May I respond real quick? I'm not finished. Okay. And the rounds that Ms.

1:09:52 Clip: Popple took from Mr. Teske. I want the court to understand that last night the defense reached out to Ms. Popple and said, we want you to bring the rounds to court tomorrow. And she got their message and then they reached out to her again and said no never mind we don't want you to bring them around thank you miss Morrissey Thank You miss Morris I don't okay where are they all right well

1:09:58 Thomas: Want to do that okay

1:10:12 Matt: I do not care. I did not care, so she has had it the whole time, obviously.

1:10:24 Clip: Actually I want testimony from Miss Popple on how she how she retrieved those

1:10:31 Thomas: Uh catch us up who's who's miss popple what

1:10:34 Matt: Popple is the next witness we are going to hear from, and she is the crime scene technician that met with Tuskegee and collected the evidence. And she is very much a state's witness. She does not want to participate in this, and she testy. But there's got this very dramatic scene. It's not appropriate for podcasting, but I'll just tell you what happens, which is that the judge puts on rubber gloves, everybody gathers around, they cut open the bag, they inspect it, and then she directs the crime scene technician, Marissa Poppel, who's about to testify, to categorize the bullets. And it was revealed at that point that three of the bullets were stamped with starline brass, which was the marker of the deadly bullets. So there is at least this visual connection between the live rounds that were found and what is in this batch. So at that point, this really kicked off. We're going skip ahead here and we're gonna get some of Marissa Poppel's testimonies, you can hear our Spiro cross-examining her. I'm just going to skip straight to her cross. So she's talking about how this ended up being documented under a different case number. And let's start this around 1:15.

1:11:33 Clip: We sent all of the all right let me ask it a different way do you recognize any of these types types of bullets to have been gathered on the Hannah Gutierrez, on the rust set? The starline brass with silver primer are similar to what was collected on set. And everything that was collected onsite went to Ziegler? Yes. All right. Thank you. I don't have any further questions, but I'll certainly allow some discussion. I don't know if you want to be there with her or what? Maybe she can take the witness chair.

1:11:39 Thomas: So the judge has gloves on is she going through it herself wow now this is your boy this is a oh

1:12:15 Matt: Spiro, yes, I'm

1:12:15 Clip: Again. I'm just going to pass the witness up, because we're not fully set up, the copy of the spent shell casing that was recovered on the scene in Ruff.

1:12:29 Clip: And you would agree with me, right, that it's the same as the bottom of the bullets that you just provided to the court? Yes, it's starline brass, .45 Colt with a silver primer. So when I asked you yesterday, didn't he turn in ammunition that matched the ammunition that killed Ms. Hutchins? It's true that he did, correct? And I did not recall at that time. Oh, I understand that that's your position, but that's what in fact happened. Would you agree? I would not use the word match without there being an additional analysis. Well, who got to decide whether there would be additional analysis? That was not myself. It wasn't the defense though, right? We didn't know about it. I don't know what you were aware of. Okay. Well, you know that we came to have an evidence viewing where we asked to see every single round that could be related to the rust set and this was hidden from us. You do know that. This was not hidden. This was under a case number. It was documented. I was instructed to document it under this case number okay so in this case that's under the rust investigation case number you would agree with me there's hundreds of things that you inventoried right yes there are hundreds of police reports that all relate to the same case number right yes the one thing that seems to have been put under a different case number is just this one discovery of the actual ammunition that matches the ammunition from the set of rust this was put under a doc information of someone coming in claiming to have

1:14:20 Clip: Rounds that were not utilized in a case okay let's examine that for a second when Seth Kenny comes into the precinct and he gives you ammunition you voucher it right I was instructed to collect the ammunition from Seth Kenney. Well, let me take a step back for a second just to make something clear. Investigator Popple, you're following orders, right, when you're doing these things, correct? Can you please stop referring to me as an investigator because it's creating a misnomer? Okay, well, how would you, I apologize. I'm a crime scene technician. I am not an investigator. Okay, I'm only doing that because it is shorter than crime scene technicians. CST works. Perfect. Okay. CST Popple.

1:15:00 Clip: When you took the, you're effectively following orders when you're deciding whether to voucher this or voucher the Seth Kenney evidence, right? You keep using the word voucher, and I'm not sure what context you're using it. Yeah, I apologize for that word choice. When your inventory and make a report, I think your testimony is you're doing it at the direction of supervisors. Is that fair? Most of the time, yes. Yes. Okay. So when Seth Kenney walks into the precinct and gives you ammunition and says it's from the rust case, you all that you all inventoried it, right? Yes. You took photos of it, Right? Yes, you put it under the rustcase number, right. Yes. You turned it over to the defense, right, according to my knowledge. Yes, okay. Somebody else comes in to the precint. Okay. A man named Troy Teske, right? Yes. Who was a former police officer, right. I believe he stated that. Yes. Okay. And I assume you all have the diligence to be able to confirm that, right ? I do not know if it was confirmed or not. Okay and he comes in and he also tells you he has evidence, right? He told us three years later after a trial that he had evidence that the defense wanted him to use that he no longer wanted to hold on to okay let's break that down for a second right mr teske isn't involved in your meetings with the prosecutors in corporal hancock's meetings with the prosecutors up until the trial was it not that I know it okay so doesn't it make sense that he would have seen the trial on television been completely outraged at what he was watching not trusted law enforcement and then walked it into the precinct doesn't that make sense I do not know what would make sense to Mr. Teske. Okay, didn't he in fact tell you, I don't trust Ms. Morrissey and the prosecutors? He did not state that to me. He didn't on your oath? You're sure about that? I do Not recall him stating that.

1:16:04 Thomas: Sorry

1:17:02 Clip: So he turns this round in, and you, when he turns it in, obviously recognize it as Starline Brass, Nickel Primer, Colt .45, correct? Yes. Yes. Okay. So it's not as if he came in and just turned in a bunch of shells, right? He did turn in a whole bunch of shells. Okay. But he didn't just turn in shells ,right? He turned in multiple different 45 rounds. I'll ask the question a third time. He didn't JUST turn in shells, did he? He turned multiple 45 rounds, including rounds that matched the round that struck Miss Hutchins, right? Again, I wouldn't use the word match without further analysis. And the reason that we don't have further analysis is you all didn't send this to the FBI for further analysis, did you? We did not. Right, because if you had, it would have potentially proven the fact that all along this ammunition did come from Seth Kenney. Isn't that true? What I was informed of by Mr. Teske was that the ammunition originated from Joe Swanson. And then went in the green ammo can to Seth Kenny. I do not recall him speaking about a green ammo can. Okay. Well, let me ask you this. You know, the other thing that you're saying, I took you at first to be saying, well, it's just a bunch of ammunition, and now we've gotten to the point where it's actually the same type of ammunition. And then you've also stated in your testimony that it's like, well, there's just this guy, Troy Teske, that just walks into the office like it's random, when really Mr. Teske and his involvement in this case was very well known to law enforcement, correct? I had never heard his name before. Okay, but he came in and he said, I'm here to give evidence about the Rust case, right? He stated that he had evidence the defense had wanted and he no longer wanted to hang on to it. And he was the one using the word evidence.

1:19:05 Clip: You said to him when you met him down at the first floor of the precinct, you were called because you were the person in charge of the evidence, the CST, right ? Yes. Yes. Okay. And he said, thank goodness it's you. You're the perfect person to take this because you know all about the Rust case. And you said, I know all About the Rust Case, right? I don't recall that. Do you deny that? No. Okay, and then he said and then, he said to you,

1:19:42 Thomas: Just stupid question what is this based on just him having told the defense this or does this lawyer know what he said, but the person he allegedly said it to doesn't?

1:19:50 Matt: Is a video, there's a long body cam video of Teske's interview and also Teske walking into the station and talking to everybody. And it was played at the trial. I didn't watch all of it. I think that's where maybe some of this is coming from. She wasn't necessarily there for all of the things that he said, but I think that is part of it.

1:20:04 Thomas: Gotcha.

1:20:04 Matt: And there must be some basis for some of this, but yeah.

1:20:07 Thomas: You'd think.

1:20:07 Matt: But it's about to get really interesting because remember, he has just received the report after all this time, the three -page supplemental report that covers this ammo. So he's doing this on the fly, which is pretty cool. He's only just gotten in and he's going to find something that is extremely unusual. And I think the biggest red flag of this whole thing that's about to come out here.

1:20:25 Clip: This ammunition was in Seth Kenney's possession and you said Seth Kenneys law enforcement is well aware of mr kenny right I don't recall that so so you take this ammunition on march 6th right yes the standard operating procedure for the santa fe police department says you're supposed to make your report within 24 hours right correct okay so tell the court did you make your report within twenty four hours I'm fairly certain that our sop is that evidence should be submitted within 24 hours.

1:20:36 Thomas: Weird. The

1:21:08 Clip: I'm not certain on when the reports are supposed to be submitted. So do you want to take your answer back? Yes, I do. I apologize. Yes.

1:21:20 Clip: Well we can enter that SOP at the evidence. In this case, many times there are police reports that are done the same day that the incident occurs. Can you agree with that? Yes. Okay. How much longer after this revelation did you do your report? I I believe it was, oh, I apologize, I can refer to my report, refresh my memory. Oh, I have coffee. I believe that it was the following month that the report was made.

1:21:56 Thomas: Following month. Wow.

1:22:01 Clip: Yeah, it was approximately a month later, right?

1:22:03 Thomas: Jeez.

1:22:04 Clip: Yes. Okay, what happened during that month, CST Popple? To be fairly honest, I went out of town to visit my dying mother. Okay, I'm sorry about that, I am sorry to hear

1:22:14 Thomas: So don't you feel like an asshole for wanting the evidence from us?

1:22:17 Matt: And he does, I like the way he just straight up has a human moment with her.

1:22:22 Clip: I'm sorry about that, I am sorry to hear that. Were you out of town that entire month? I don't believe it was the entire month, no. Okay. Who was involved in the word choice in this report? Myself. You didn't have any input? Because this doesn't look like the same language you use in the other reports. Well, on a normal basis, I don't have conversations with people involved in cases. Uh -huh. But there was also other officers there that were aware of this. Corporal Hancock was aware of his, correct? She was notified about it, yes. Okay, and so was your supervisor who was there with you, correct? Yes. So you're not telling me and this court that you had no input at all in the drafting of this document, are you? It was reviewed by my supervisor. I don't believe any corrections were made to it or requested by him.

1:23:16 Thomas: What?

1:23:17 Clip: You know, it's just there's a funny sentence in it. It says, it says, I've never seen a police report. You tell me if you've ever seen this in a police reporting entire career. It says, it should be noted that this is not actual evidence from the death investigation collected by SFSO detectives. You are not reading my section of the report. You are reading what was written by Lieutenant Brian Brandel. Ah, I was going to say, it doesn't look like you're writing. So the lieutenant writes in, thank you for clarifying that. I just got this report, as you know, right? Right?

1:23:20 Matt: It is.

1:23:31 Thomas: What? That's

1:23:52 Clip: The lieutenant writes in, it should be noted that this is not actual evidence from the death investigation collected by SFSO detectives. Did I read that right? I believe so, yes. Okay. In your career, going back to when you were at CST in Florida, all the way through the present, have you ever seen such a sentence in a police report in your entire career? Not that exact sentence no yeah me neither we're

1:23:52 Thomas: Kind of the point. Oh.

1:24:19 Matt: Really like that. That me neither right there, that was so well delivered. Surreal.

1:24:23 Thomas: Yeah so it's again this is one of those things where like you have some context for this I don't but off the top of my head uh feels like again imagining for a second that someone comes in totally unrelated to anything he comes into owns a gun shop and he's like, hey, I heard you were doing an Alec Baldwin trial. Do you want some bullets?

1:24:47 Thomas: Then they would just not take them, right? I mean, they'd be like, well, this is not, you is that what's weird about this? You wouldn't take them and be like well, okay, so we just processed it and did some reports and all this, whatever. This is not evidence though. Is that what is weird about it?

1:25:03 Matt: What's weird is this is definitely relevant because this is the guy who is obviously holding on to these bullets and knows where they're from and has some sense of the conversations he's had about where their provenance. And this This is definitely related to the Rust incident. Like, you can't say maybe they don't know yet because they haven't tested the bullets. They don't knows what's what and if there's any connection. It's not up to the police to write, this is not actual evidence in the death investigation, when clearly it is directly related to The Rust filming.

1:25:29 Thomas: Think once again, I'm trying to make a point based on the logic of the situation because cause I'm not the lawyer, but I'm told this never is in a report. And is that reason? Because if something wasn't evidence you why would you have it? Like, why Would it be anything? Is that why that phrase would never be in a police report like that?

1:25:44 Matt: But also that, and it's just not, no, I guess that's probably the best way to put it. I was going to say it's really up to police to decide, but it is. But you're right. If it's just somebody saying, here's something I found on the ground, you know, 60 away, right?

1:25:53 Thomas: Here's a stick of gum. Yeah, okay. That's not part of the case. You wouldn't have a thing saying, Hey, everyone.

1:25:59 Matt: But Right. And what it's worth, it's a former cop. It's like somebody they're supposed to listen to, right, when he comes in and they should take him seriously when he's saying, like, you know, I know this case and I know what ammo looks like. Yeah, no, I just think that is really damning. And it's really a huge red flag that somebody told them to put that note in there and then to stick it away into a different case file so that everybody's saying, I mean, that's really bad.

1:26:08 Thomas: Very interesting wow

1:26:23 Matt: It's It's not evidence, but we'll just go ahead and put it in this file.

1:26:22 Thomas: What a coincidence huh it that's a spit well okay I I uh want to hear way more but it feels like if if not complete malice it feels like a really trying to cover for a fuck up like oh shit we had uh it's a month later how do do we explain this let's do so it sounds like I yeah you provisional opinion of mine I guess

1:26:41 Matt: Pretty much. Yeah, no. That's a pretty fair opinion. And I don't know to what degree this was a cover up, but it's certainly a fuck up. So you're right on that. So no,

1:26:51 Thomas: Keep going on this or I stopped it so oh

1:26:52 Matt: No, I think that's about good for her, but there's a lot more to get through. I just wanted to get a taste there.

1:26:56 Thomas: She's not very uh to be a right now I

1:26:59 Matt: And it's not really her fault. Like you said, she's following orders. She's just doing what she can to just analyze what's in front of her.

1:27:04 Thomas: Guess I don't know I I demeanor strikes me as like she's like if this was a genuine screw -up and it wasn't her fault I mean she's being kind of a jerk about you know

1:27:13 Matt: I Think so too. Let's skip ahead. There's some other testimony. We do not have time to go through everything else that happens in this hearing. A lot of it is not necessarily relevant to the points we want to make here, but it's just foundational stuff. But Seth Kenney does testify. We're not going to hear from him. It's not necessarily even relevant for what we're getting to. And then Hancock testifies about her findings and about how this happened. If we're going to do like a 10 -part series on this, we could go through their testimony as well.

1:27:39 Matt: Brandel, the one who made the note about it not being relevant, testifies. But what I want to play is Prosecutor Carrie Morris's testimony because this is very unusual to pretty much.

1:27:46 Thomas: I yeah, this is not since the Scopes monkey trial do William Jang's Brian is going to go take the stand here, I guess.

1:27:54 Matt: And of course, because I should mention, there is another kind of thing I forgot to mention here. Other special counsel, the other appointed prosecutor in this, dropped out that morning after learning about this evidence. Yes. Somebody with a conscience, somebody who understands ethics, somebody had been a prosecutor for 10 years and

1:28:08 Thomas: Dropped out. Not like called in sick for the day. Like, oh, wow.

1:28:13 Matt: Noisy withdrawal. She told the court, I'm no longer going to be able to participate in this case. She had an interview that night in which she was interviewed on TV and said, I did not feel comfortable. Once I found out like a Brady violation is a Brady evaluation, I am not going to defend it. I told her that we should have dropped the case as soon as we found this out.

1:28:28 Thomas: My God. Okay.

1:28:29 Matt: Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, it's Erlinda Ocampo Johnson, really a woman of conscience and a much better prosecutor from what I can tell. So at this point, Carrie Morrissey is on her own. She is out on a limb, and she has no one to direct examine her. So she's just going to testify. She doesn't have anybody to ask her questions. So she is going to ramble for a little while, and we are going to listen to some of that.

1:28:49 Matt: And it is just interesting to hear all of the different excuses.

1:28:49 Thomas: My God, so the reason is that's the reason. Oh it's not that like she needs to be put under oath for the sake of you know, oh, okay.

1:28:58 Matt: She needs to testify. But I'm just saying that it would be under the normal course of business. The direct examination could be conducted by her co -counsel, but she doesn't have any. So she just has to testify like pro se defendant. It's a very strange scene. We're it is always

1:29:09 Thomas: She had to do a different voice and so how long have you known this? Well, I think objection you're you're leading the witness.

1:29:19 Matt: Strange when someone freestyles on Testimony Without Questions but if we go to 708 let's hear that yeah

1:29:24 Thomas: Oh, so we're way down the line. Okay. So this is, yeah.

1:29:27 Matt: They took lunch, there was a long break

1:29:29 Thomas: Fair.

1:29:29 Clip: Back on the record okay so just clear you're a witness okay so you can say oath or whatever but are you calling yourself as a witness or do you want mr. Spyro to call you as a witness I don't think it's necessary frankly for this evidentiary record for me to call this more. See, I know what happened and the court knows what happened. I don't think we need anything further. Okay, do you want to call yourself as a witness? Sure. No, just a minute. So he's willing, as I understand it, to rest now. Okay? Now, you don't have to say anything under oath if you don't want to. No. I'm happy to. Okay, so not only happy to, you know, I don't, it doesn't matter to me whether you call yourself a witness. It doesn't matter in the defense whether you call yourselves a witness so if you're calling yourself as a witness there's no one here that's requiring you to be called as always the information everything that happened in this regard especially as it pertains to me needs to come out in the public all right so you're calming yourself as I am it was my understanding that the court indicated to me previously that you wanted me to testify I understand you've now changed your mind I think it's a good idea if I do it where would you like me?

1:30:52 Clip: Do you want me here at the podium? No, on the witness. Okay, sure.

1:30:52 Matt: The arrogance

1:31:04 Clip: Alright, Ms. Morrissey voluntarily calling herself as a witness without any requirement by the court to do so, before Mr. Spiro asking her to, please raise your right hand. Do you swear firm under penalty of law that the testimony you've given this case will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Alright. Go ahead.

1:31:10 Matt: One asked her okay

1:31:25 Thomas: So there I was. What?

1:31:26 Clip: During my investigation of this case and my review of the evidence in this case, I came to understand that there was a large batch of live ammunition that was in the possession of Thel Reed, Hannah Gutierrez's father. I also understood from all of the evidence and testimony that a portion of that batch of ammunition that belonged to Thel Reed was taken by Thel Reed and Seth Kinney to the 1883 Cowboy Training Camp. When that was over, leftover ammunition was taken back to PDQ props.

1:31:28 Thomas: That is weird.

1:32:22 Clip: Seth Kenney took some of the ammunition from that container that he had brought back from Texas and turned it in to the Sheriff's Department and it appeared to me that he did it to try to exonerate himself. They took it from Mr. Kenney and they tagged it into evidence under the rust case.

1:32:50 Clip: Law enforcement then executed a search warrant at PDQ props and they took the entire container and I will say that I do agree as I I recall, although I don't have it in front of me, I do agree that the search warrant didn't really require law enforcement to take everything, but it was my understanding that Mr. Kenny gave them everything so that they would have it and could tag it into evidence.

1:33:23 Clip: Portions of that ammunition were then sent to the FBI for testing so that They could be compared to the live rounds that were found on the set of Rust.

1:33:36 Clip: The FBI testing demonstrated that the live rounds that were taken from PDQ props that were originally in Texas did not match the live rounds on the Set of Rust and that's testimony that we heard during the Gutierrez trial.

1:34:02 Clip: So what ended up happening was Mr. Bowles, Ms. Gutierre's lawyer, put Mr. Teske on a witness list and was intending to call him as a witness to the Gutiérrez trial I conducted a pre -trial interview of Mr. Tesla and I want to back up I did at this point have some understanding that Mr. Teske had had contact with law enforcement regarding these rounds that he still had in Arizona. So these are rounds that never left Arizona. They were always in the possession of Thel Reed and Troy Teske.

1:34:56 Clip: They never went to Texas, they never came to New Mexico. That's what all all of the evidence indicated.

1:35:05 Clip: So I understood that Detective Hancock had communication with Mr. Teske about trying to get those rounds and Detective Hancock was unable to get those rounds from Mr. Teske. I did not find that particularly concerning because those rounds had never left Arizona. The filming of Rust was in the state of New Mexico.

1:35:38 Clip: And the rounds that were taken from PDQ went from Arizona to Texas to Albuquerque. So ammunition that is in the State of Arizona that has never left Arizona did not strike me that it had significant evidentiary value.

1:35:53 Matt: So just remember she's talking about Detective Hancock becoming aware of this ammunition two years before and had provided this excuse about how well he never mailed it to us at the time and then later of course followed up within a couple of minutes to admit that that's not how it works and it does require law enforcement to maintain a chain of custody to actually go and get it to you know if you want to inspect it as evidence so she's kind of covering for the fact that they didn't do their job back then back when they became aware of this evidence and whole thing about how it in was in arizona the whole time is obviously not true because we've just got on the table in front of us, the ammunition, where three bullets match what was found on the set of rest. Why all of this matters so much. And all these, I mean, it's really, honestly, listening to this again after having listened to so much more of the hearing, because one of the first things I listened to, obviously, was Kari Morrissey's testimony just to see what she had to say for herself. And hearing it again now after hearing all this evidence, I don't even understand why she bothered. I don't even understand why she bothered to even... I mean, I guess maybe she just wanted to have the last

1:36:47 Matt: Word.

1:36:47 Thomas: Take the L.

1:36:48 Matt: Yeah, she should have.

1:36:49 Thomas: People always think they're right or something. It's weird.

1:36:51 Matt: And she's also risking perjuring herself, frankly, I think, because she's really kind of scrambling to backfill this story.

1:36:56 Thomas: Oh don't worry, Matt. There's never consequences for police or prosecutors doing really really corrupt stuff

1:36:59 Matt: That's very true. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, what am I worried about? Yeah. Anyway, so... going to make a point again and again about how these bullets the whole time. We're in another state. I never worried about it. I didn't think this batch was relevant," even though she knows what Tusky had to say and knows that he brought these things in later. So she's going to try to explain why this wasn't the largest evidence and why she never gave a care.

1:37:03 Thomas: Why

1:37:18 Clip: Will say I believe I actually saw a photo of it at that point in time. I was able to look at the ammunition myself and it was visibly dissimilar than the rounds from the set of rust.

1:37:33 Clip: We then cut to November of 2023. Mr. Bowles has put Mr. Teske on a witness list for the Hannah Gutierrez case. We conducted a pre -trial interview with Mr. teske on November November 2nd of 2023.

1:37:53 Clip: At that point in time, he brought up that he was still in possession of these live rounds that were Thel Reed's live rounds, that had never left the state of Arizona.

1:38:04 Thomas: Did I did I just go back accidentally oh no I didn't okay

1:38:07 Matt: She's repeating herself based

1:38:07 Clip: I then, when he started, I think he indicated during the pre -trial interview that they were from the same batch that was sourced from Joe Swanson, and I then said, we should get those from you.

1:38:23 Clip: I had a conversation with Detective Hancock after that pretrial interview about how we could get the rounds from Mr. Teske and we were trying to figure out if we could send a local law enforcement agency to pick them up. I was then decided that I needed to figure out if that was necessary since they had never left Arizona and up to that point it was my impression that they did not match the live rounds from the set of rust.

1:38:40 Thomas: Huh up

1:38:58 Matt: A photo of four bullets.

1:39:00 Thomas: Four bullets

1:39:01 Clip: I then, as I recall, reached

1:39:04 Thomas: How does she know they never left arizona well

1:39:06 Matt: I don't know why she keeps repeating that because clearly they did.

1:39:09 Thomas: Wait clearly they did how do we know clearly they didn't oh

1:39:12 Matt: Batch was among the bullets that he was taking for the 1883 thing. I

1:39:16 Thomas: Yeah he's saying that oh okay yeah yeah, how is she even claiming this? So if, so if he's saying, well, again, it's the, it sounds like the kind of thing where it's like, you don't understand your honor, but this witness is lying.

1:39:21 Matt: Don't understand that. Yeah, yeah,

1:39:27 Thomas: So therefore I didn't have to turn any of this over. It's like well, if that's true, then how about the jury determine that, right? So according to this guy, he's like yeah, this is part part of that. And And, that 1883, whatever we presumably was not in in arizona right or do we know well I guess it doesn't even matter like if it was part of that that ammo could have somehow like changed hands or been part of right it's not as though anyone's saying these are the bullets that killed the person it's like the could Have been part Of the story of how live ammo got there right

1:39:33 Matt: Yeah, yep. I don't think so. I That's right. And because it's Thel Reed, her father, who works with her closely and supplies her with things, and it's Seth Kenny who's supplying it, and there's all of open questions about what's going on with all of this, it's all pretty tied up. And as the defense said in their statement, we had asked to see every piece of ammunition that might ever be relevant, that might've been anywhere near this set, that might have been supplied by the same people at the same time. And we thought that we had had seen it and we haven't. So it is important.

1:40:23 Thomas: And she said it one but I know he was just trying to exonerate himself or something to it's like yeah well okay you get to try to exonera yourself I know it's not alec baldwin but like that's part of could be part of a trial like I don't understand why you think you have the power to just be like nah they don't get any of this because I think that That they're trying to just get, like, a not guilty verdict?

1:40:51 Matt: That's the ongoing theme here for sure. Yeah, let's hear some more.

1:40:55 Clip: Out to Mr. Bowles. He and I had a conversation about whether or not the rounds should be tested by the FBI, and I was still trying to figure out if I could get the rounds from Arizona to New Mexico. So I asked Mr. Bowles to please send me a photograph of the rounds from Troy Teske so that I could see with my eyes whether they were even remotely similar. If they were similar, I could go through the steps of obtaining the ammunition, connecting probably with local law enforcement, having a local law enforcement agency go to Mr. Teske's residence and collect them. I didn't want to do that if they didn't look anything like the rounds from the set of rust because all five, all six rounds from set of Rust are identical to each other. So, when I had this conversation with Mr. Bowles, he provided me the photograph that I showed this morning, and it was my understanding that this was a photograph from Troy Teske. So Troy and I don't communicate. He's a defense witness. I can't communicate with a defense witnesses. This.

1:41:45 Thomas: Because that's effort.

1:42:18 Clip: So Mr. Bowles, as

1:42:20 Matt: Not true. I mean you can still call up a defense witness and if they want to talk to you they can talk to. I mean that's pretty universal but let's keep going.

1:42:26 Thomas: How

1:42:27 Clip: I recall, texted me this photo, and this is a photo that Mr. Teske took at my request so that I could determine whether this ammunition was related in any way to the set of rust because it never left the state of Arizona. So if it never Left the state of arizona the only way that it is relevant to the rust investigation is if it has any similarity to the live rounds that were found on the set of rust because we were at that point trying to figure out the source of the live round when

1:42:57 Thomas: Do you know it? I'm sorry. If it never left Arizona, why would it even matter if it was the same thing? Like, surely there are similar rounds to not like the ones that were on the set of Rust were the only of their kind in the world. It's really that it never left arizona and I think that's her trying to make the case that like ah this is just random you know it's not even connected to anything why would it matter what they looked like or what they were it's just bullshit

1:43:37 Matt: She's just trying to to explain why she didn't do her job or why she didn't turn it over. And it's just strained.

1:43:42 Thomas: And my point is it just sounds like bullshit because I because it's it's yeah Either it's evidence. It's And the she way, she said a minute ago, she used phrase the like significant or something significant evidence, I think. And it's like, that's not the standard, right?

1:43:45 Matt: That's what I'm saying. Yeah, no, it's backfill. That's not your call. It's just like, what do you care?

1:43:57 Thomas: Standard is like just like anything, like any any evidence.

1:44:01 Matt: Any potential explanation for one of the most important questions in both of these trials to the source?

1:44:06 Thomas: And by the weight, one of the explanations be correct me if I'm wrong, please. I don't want to ever mislead anybody by me saying incorrect things. So please always correct me. But one of the explanations to your point could be, well, this guy lied about what the bullets came from or this guy like that's part of a trial is like, OK, here's the story of what this person says about this ammunition. But we think he's lying for the following reason or, you know, or not or whatever. And that's, again, part of the trial.

1:44:33 Matt: Got motive. Because Kenny testified under oath in the the Gutierrez trial that he did not ever supply anything but dummy rounds. And so you've got evidence that maybe that might not be true. And that's incredibly helpful. You got to get that in there.

1:44:46 Thomas: Sorry, I'm weak with the name. So how this evidence that he might I thought the different guy turned this in. Who okay but how does it lead back to okay

1:44:51 Matt: Teske turned it in. With Reed and Reed is supplied by Kinney. They're all in PDQ. They're all kind of connected here. Yeah.

1:45:00 Thomas: Gotcha boy

1:45:01 Clip: From mr bowles I could immediately tell that these are very dissimilar from the live rounds that were found on the set of rust.

1:45:17 Clip: They have brass primers. So this is what was presented to the prosecution as the rounds that were in Mr. Teske's possession.

1:45:31 Clip: They have brass primers and not silver primers.

1:45:40 Clip: One of them, the one on the left, appears to be a starline brass casing, but they have truncated cone projectiles.

1:45:51 Thomas: Sounds like an expert witness who we would tell this

1:45:53 Clip: We had seen ammunition that looked exactly like this, not exactly, but very very similar, and that ammunition was the ammunition that was collected from the Sheriff's Department and went to the FBI for testing and was determined not to be similar in any way to the live rounds on the set of rust.

1:46:23 Clip: So when I saw this photograph I could see that it was not at all similar to the the live rounds on the set of Rust, and I decided not to take any steps to collect this ammunition because it was in Arizona, had never come to New Mexico, and didn't match the live rounds on The Set of Rust.

1:46:29 Thomas: Is probably not important but they but they ended up having it though oops

1:46:51 Clip: So what ends up happening is Mr. Teske is called to New Mexico by Mr. Bowles to testify at the Gutierrez trial.

1:47:05 Clip: And you can hear on the video that the court heard Mr. Teske say the defense attorney, that's not me, asked him to bring samples of that ammunition.

1:47:21 Clip: According to Mr. teske, he brought the samples of the ammunition, showed them to the defense attorney and the defense attorney said I don't want those I'm not going to use those and by the way I'm going to call you as a witness so mr teske sat in court during the trial and then at some point contacted the deputies downstairs and said I have this ammunition so he tried to give it to the defense attorney who's the person who asked him to bring it the defense attorneys said no and he then tried to get a hold of Detective Hancock, who was not available because she was with me.

1:48:10 Clip: So then he ends up going to the Sheriff's Department, and he leaves the ammunition at the Sheriff'S Department. I was contacted, I don't think it was the same day, but I'm not 100 % sure it's possible that it was by Detective Hancock and she indicated that Troy Teske had dropped off ammunition at the Sheriff's Department. Because I had already asked for a photograph of it, I believed that that ammunition was going to look like the photograph that Mr. Bowles had sent me.

1:48:53 Clip: Corporal Hancock indicated that she was going to tag them into evidence and she was was going to create what she called a doc report. And I said, great, do that.

1:49:10 Clip: I was not aware at that point in time that a doc would not have the same case number as Rust. I was now aware at the point in time that it would not be linked to the Rust case number. I understood that he had dropped off ammunition that I believed to not look similar to the ammunition from the set of rust and I had no idea that it wasn't going to have the same case number I want to show the court though when mr. Teske showed up to testify with the live with the ammunition that mr. Bowles told him to bring to the state of New Mexico he was was not called as a witness and Mr. Bowles said I'm not taking that ammunition from you.

1:50:06 Clip: That's why because these are photographs from Hannah Gutierrez's cell phone extraction and they show spot -on match for the live rounds found on the set of Rust. This is clearly the reason that Mr. Bowles said, you and your ammunition better get out of here because it would not have hurt the case, the state's case against Hannah Gutierrez. It would have been the best evidence I could have hoped for.

1:50:42 Clip: These look exactly like the ammunition, the actual ammunition that we we have in evidence, and they do look like the three rounds that are in that envelope.

1:51:01 Clip: So when Mr. Teske couldn't get Mr. Bowles to take them because they were the best evidence against his client, he took them over to the Sheriff's Department. And when he dropped them at the Sheriff Department, I was told that there was going to be a report. There was a report, I assumed they looked like these. And Detective Hancock indicated to me that because he dropped them off and he didn't wait for her, she was then going to try to follow up with him, take a statement from him so that we could get some idea where they came from, what the relevance was, if there was any relevance at all. And he never returned her phone calls.

1:51:43 Clip: And that's all of the information that I can give the court, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

1:51:48 Matt: Okay real quick before we get to the cross. Cross so I want to address a couple of things she's saying here, because it is a little confusing. She is spinning so hard, like she is really trying to work with what she's got. Jason Bowles is Hannah Gutierrez Reid's attorney. And now the part of the issue I have with the way she's doing all of this is she's conflating the Gutierraz Reid case and the Baldwin case. They're very different cases. They potentially have different defenses. They have, you know, different facts. There's completely different levels of culpability. And she's making it seem as if this is one combined defense and as if the two defense teams, first of all, would have been in touch and sharing everything. Also she's making it sound like, and this might be true, I honestly don't know. I mean, there's some of the stuff we may never know. She's making it sound like Jason Bowles told Teske, actually, it turns out this evidence matches, so I don't want it coming in. I don'T want you to testify. I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED OR NOT, BECAUSE JASON BOWLES HAS TOLD THE MEDIA SINCE THAT HE WAS SCREAMING, He's used that word for the state to test this evidence that he thought was very important, that he wanted to be able to show that there were multiple ways that this could have gotten on the set. They have actually, Hannah Gutierrez -Reed has filed a motion for new trial in the last couple of days after what happened with Alec Baldwin. And she's trying to argue now, I think fairly, that there is evidence that should have been presented to the jury that was withheld that could have been useful for her as well. And Bowles has accused them of hiding the ball. I'm not really sure where the truth is on this one, and I'm not sure, maybe I'm missing something as to what this is, but I'm just going to say it is very possible that this evidence may not have been good for her, but it could have been good für Baldwin. And it is, again, not to carry Morrissey to decide that. It is up to, once again, put it into discovery and let everybody else decide it.

1:53:20 Thomas: And well and I mean I don't know if this was from the case that you said wasn't relevant but it also sounded like he was saying it doesn't even matter if the evidence was good or bad for the person you still have to turn it over because it affects like story oh

1:53:30 Matt: Still evidence. Yeah. But, of course, Brady to be exculpatory. That it actually would have helped you. But yeah, but he's just saying based on Arizona law that maybe even if it's inculpatory, he's still going to turn it in, that you can't strategically withhold inculpatory evidence, as strange as that sounds. So now we're going to get Spiro cross -examining Morrissey, and it is a mercifully short cross - examination. It's very to the point, and I think he does a good job.

1:53:36 Thomas: Gotcha it

1:53:52 Clip: Can I ask a few questions, Ronna? When you took over this case, the investigator handling the case, Mr. Schilling, left the case correct? At my request, yes. The paralegal that was handling this case with you left the case, Ms. Tatt? At My request, Yes.

1:54:11 Clip: Well, the first prosecutor that was working with you on this case you selected, correct? I did. And he resigned too? I wouldn't say that he resigned, no.

1:54:21 Matt: He quit.

1:54:22 Clip: He didn't stay on the case for the Alec Baldwin trial, correct? No, and he indicated that that was because he represented a labor union that's a national labor union, and he was not expecting the trial to be set so quickly. He wasn't expecting it to be sent in July.

1:54:28 Thomas: Was too good of a case you'd

1:54:42 Clip: So when he realized that the trial was going to be set in July, he was going to be in collective bargaining agreements for his national labor Union, and he wasn't going to be able to have enough time.

1:54:56 Clip: Or Linda Johnson, the next prosecutor selected, resigned from the case today? She did. Based in part on the conduct we're here discussing, correct? I believe that Ms.

1:55:03 Matt: That happened.

1:55:03 Thomas: Have to ask her public

1:55:08 Clip: Johnson has, Ms. Johnson didn't want their, my understanding is, is that she didn't agree with the decision to have a public hearing. On July 1st, in this matter, you served a

1:55:20 Matt: No, you can actually watch the interview, but like Ocampo-Johnson says specifically that it was because it was Brady violation, and she didn't want to have any part of it.

1:55:29 Clip: Certificate of compliance with 5501, correct? I did. And you've never turned over the report or any of the evidence that we're talking about here at this hearing, correct. Let's take it one at a time.

1:55:44 Clip: I did not turn over the reports. I didn't have a copy of the report. The rounds that were left at the Sheriff's Department by Troy Teske, I have absolutely no reason to believe that they are relevant to the incident that took place on the set of Rust. These are rounds that we're in the possession of Bell Reed and never left the state of Arizona.

1:56:12 Clip: You also did not allow the defense to view that evidence at any point during our request to review evidence in this case? I had never seen it, and I didn't realize that it wasn't under the same case number because I'm not a law enforcement officer and I don't work at the Sheriff's Department. But you are right. And you concede that they are Starline Brass Silver 45, right? I can. And this is the best evidence against Hannah Gutierrez. Yeah, you've said that a couple of times. Any favorable evidence you understand as a prosecutor has to be turned over to the defense, correct? I do. Any evidence that could be used as a defense to potentially be favorable has to be turned over to the defense? Absolutely. So the third Hague report that never got turned over to defense, you understand that that's Brady evidence? I did, yes. Okay. And you also failed to turn that over in this case as well, correct? And let me give you a full answer to your question.

1:57:08 Clip: When the second Hague Report came in and I provided all of this to the Defense, I sent it to the person who is managing the discovery server and asked them to upload it. It wasn't until I realized during pre -trial interviews that it wasn't there, that there was a problem with it. So I then attempted to figure out what the problem was, and it was indicated to me that it appeared appeared that the former paralegal who was working for the special prosecutor had removed it. So we then immediately provided it. Then during the pretrial interview of Mr. Haig, it was brought to my attention that the defense did not have the August 31st report that indicated that the gun functioned fine, perfectly fine, and that was provided immediately. I went back. I checked my email. I could see that I received it from Mr. Haig and failed to forward it on to be uploaded, and I provided it as soon as I was aware that you did not have it.

1:58:26 Clip: The fact that nobody at the Hannah Gutierrez retrial cross-examined Mr. Haig, about the report didn't clue you into the fact that nobody had the report? Actually, it didn't, and I'd like to address that. The reason that it didn'T clue me in is because Hannah Gutierrez's defense was that the gun worked perfectly. The defense in Hannah Gutiererez was never interested in any evidence that there was an issue with the gun, because if if there was an issue with the gun, it damaged her case. So what you could see, if you watched the trial or saw any of the transcripts, the defense actually brought in their own expert to say that the gun worked perfectly. So they had no interest in that information.

1:59:15 Clip: And actually, you elicited testimony from Mr. Haig at that trial that was inconsistent, at least partially inconsistent, as the court's aware, with his third report, correct? Correct? Tell me what you're referring to and I'll answer your question. Well, there was a whole hearing about this where you saw this and you saw me go back and forth with Mr. Haig for 25 minutes, so I don't... I agree, but I need to know what you are talking about for me to answer your question. Okay. If you can't answer the question, you can answer the question. I'll move on. I'm

1:59:37 Matt: And just to explain this real quick, Hague report here they're talking about is the testing of the actual gun. There's a lot of back and forth about whether it misfired, as Baldwin is saying, or whether Baldwin actually pulled the trigger. They're talking about, there's these two reports, and this is actually one of the things that Ocampo Johnson, the other special counsel who resigned that morning, was concerned about. And Gutierrez post-conviction motion gets into this as well. That there were 900 pages of communications turned over after the Couture's read trial that could have been helpful, and that included a third report from this guy who tested it and said that there, there were unexpected, unexplained pull marks. I'm not really sure what this means, but something on the trigger that might support Baldwin's statement that it was a misfire and that he did not actually pull the trigger himself. I, there, there is something, at least some question about this. It's, it's incidental to the ammo issue, but it just continues to show kind of her relationship with evidence and how she's thinking about what's relevant and what's not.

2:00:33 Matt: We'll get back to the relevant stuff in a second here.

2:00:33 Thomas: What

2:00:35 Clip: That the extent of the communications you have about the doc report as you relay it to the court is that all you said in response was great do that? That's your testimony?

2:00:50 Clip: Yeah, I assumed that it was going to be tied to the same case number. So I said, great, do it, file a report. No follow -up questions?

2:01:00 Clip: No, because I had a picture of the ammunition that didn't match the ammunition from the set of rust. No concerns in your mind when you got the case file and you turned it over to us that it wasn't included?

2:01:12 Clip: Absolutely not. There's a terabyte of discovery. I didn't know whether this two -page police report had been provided. And in addition to that, I had no reason to believe and still have no reason to believe that those rounds have anything to do with these cases. As I asked you about Mr. Haig yesterday when Ms. Poppel testified, you would agree with me that her testimony under oath was false. What part of her testimony was false? And I'll answer. That she said that these rounds don't look anything like the rounds on the set when you elicited that testimony. I agree with you and I didn't realize that there were rounds that looked like that it's okay in any event um when the court um and you never tested those rounds either correct any of the rounds that came from mr teske no because they came in just a few months ago and the court asked you actually one question that I want to address which is the court said to you well what's interesting to me to be quite honest is that yesterday you didn't even want to do a written reply you wanted to just give an oral response. And what you said to the court was, I never saw these. I've never seen these. And I never saw the report. I have absolutely never seen this until this morning. Do you remember saying that to the Court? With regard to the three Starline brass, with regard to the three cartridges that appeared to be similar to rust, yes.

2:02:38 Clip: I never, I'd never saw them until today well but you said also I never saw the report right I never did right but don't you think given your duty of candor to this court that that's awfully misleading to not tell the court at that point that you knew about this when it occurred long ago that I knew about what you knew that mr teske had turned in this evidence that you know that the report would have existed because you just told this court the doc report was okayed by you sure don't think it was misleading to this court to not just say at that point you know just so you know I know about this I knew about this then I was involved I did not intend to mislead the court my understanding of what was dropped off at the sheriff's department is on this computer screen and it looks absolutely nothing like the live rounds from the set of rust um the truth of this matter is um you don't like Mr. Baldwin very much, do you? You know that is absolutely untrue. I actually really appreciate Mr. baldwin's movies. I really appreciated the acting that he did on Saturday Night Live and I really appreciate his politics. You told one of the witnesses who disagreed with you during an interview that you thought Mr. Baldwin was a cocksucker. I do not recall saying that. I know that that was something that

2:04:02 Clip: Mr. Baldwin would say on the set of Rust. I don't recall saying that. Do you deny that under oath?

2:04:02 Matt: I

2:04:12 Clip: Without having more information, I can tell you that I do not recall ever saying that and if I did say it, I invite you to point it out to me. You called him an arrogant prick to another witness. To who? To what witness? I'm asking you, did you call him an arrogant prick during a witness interview? I don't believe I did.

2:04:33 Matt: Don't believe I did.

2:04:35 Clip: I Without knowing what you're talking about, all I can tell you is that I can't respond if I don't know what you are talking about. And you said also to witnesses that you would teach him a lesson? I never said to witnesses I would teach them a lesson. Absolutely not. In fact, Mr. Spiro, I want to give a full response to your question.

2:04:35 Thomas: Wouldn't you know well wouldn't wouldn't you know

2:04:56 Clip: I made every effort in this case to resolve this case with your client in a very favorable way for him. All right, I'm going to move to strike this. It's not responsive. It is responsive. I don't want to talk about plea negotiations. Yeah, and it's not, and it's not responsive. So I have no further questions. All right. Do you have any follow -up testimony?

2:05:14 Matt: Good stuff.

2:05:15 Clip: I want to say I have no recollection of calling him any of those names. I have invited the defendant to tell me what he's talking about and he has declined. I want the court to take notice of that. Thank you. You may step down.

2:05:30 Matt: I love it. It's not on video.

2:05:30 Thomas: Does that have anything to do with this exactly though sure

2:05:38 Matt: To motive and why she's so intent on getting this thing prosecuted.

2:05:42 Thomas: But I guess I guess my point is there wasn't also some like evidence revealed of her having said this was there was

2:05:48 Matt: They had a witness later that they were prepared to testify about this. I was a good way to close it out and remind the court that she She has, and again, all you have to do without knowing anything else about the case is read some of these filings, and you can just see that it's just a little too personal for her. Something is just not right about the way she's been doing this. So that was a disaster, and judge is not happy, as you'll see, but Spiro and Anikas are about to do a real boss move. Hear that.

2:06:15 Clip: All right? Any other witnesses? No, Your Honor. All right, argument, let's not, 15 minutes aside sufficient? I don't even think that that is necessary, frankly. Do you want to make an argument?

2:06:28 Matt: Bam.

2:06:29 Clip: I don' t think he decides he needs further argument on this one.

2:06:30 Matt: Love it. It's so good. I mean, imagine, he's like, I don't need to argue this. You've just heard everything like you've just heard all the evidence because there was a you know a bunch of other stuff that came out and cross whatever you know otherwise and I think that he could tell from her demeanor and the way that she's been talking to Morrissey that the judge is not happy and there's no point in making a closing argument like this is gonna be fine but that's still a pretty big deal to just be like no I'm not even gonna do a closing I'm not even going to explain why this matters you already got it I love it yeah good stuff and he has good reason to be confident as you'll hear so let's hear what the judge has to say now just

2:06:57 Thomas: Confidence for sure yeah

2:07:07 Clip: So dismissal with prejudice is a very extreme sanction, and case law is very clear that because it's very extreme, I have to go through every single element, and I have to make a very good record as to why I'm seeing what I'm seeing. So in order to establish a Brady violation, the defendant must show that the prosecution suppressed evidence, the evidence was favorable to the accused, and the evidence material to the defense. So let's go through the elements, suppression of evidence. The definition of suppression of elements, this is case versus hatch is while the first element requires proof that the prosecution suppressed or withheld the evidence in question it does not require a finding of bad faith or any other culpable state of mind on the part of the prosecutor this prong is satisfied the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office and the prosecution failed to disclose the supplemental report to defense and provide defense an opportunity to inspect the rounds collected into evidence that mr. Teske gave is the evidence favorable to the accused the second Brady element is whether the suppressed evidence was favorable to the accused either as impeachment or exculpatory evidence this prong is satisfied the suppressed evidences favorable to the accused it is impeachment evidence has even been offered in this trial as impeachment evidence and is potentially exculpator to the defense critically the exculpatory value cannot be analyzed at such a late juncture because of the non -disclosure is the evidence material while

2:07:59 Thomas: And that makes sense wait what exactly did that mean I'm just curious oh

2:08:53 Matt: Because like literally they can't go through and they can't interview witnesses. And the to cross -examine some of the witnesses on this because they don't have it, right?

2:08:58 Thomas: So you can't like all right so so it's sort of a who knows what they would have found thing I mean it still does seem like it requires it to be favorable and exculpatory but I would hope there's some room to be like yeah okay we didn't get to pursue sue this angle so is it like there has to be a good like hypothetical involved or

2:09:20 Matt: Well, there's also the fact that Kinney was testifying and they could have impeached him. As she said, it could have been good evidence because he was adamant that there was no way that Leigh Browns ever could have left his shop and there's no way it ever would have been mixed in. It And seems like there's some ground to argue that maybe Maybe that did happen and that there was some negligence here on his part that, there's all kinds of different ways this could have come in. It is not a literal smoking gun. It is not DNA that, you know, should have been turned over. It is just fairly incidental and part of a bigger thing for going toward reasonable doubt and establishing that there is some reasonable doubt here that Alec Baldwin is terrible producer because that's what they're trying to argue, right? Or that, know even Gutierrez Reid herself made a mistake. Take. So it's It's not core, but it's important. And it's important enough that it could have been impeachment. It could have been a sculptor. And I think she's absolutely right to find it this way. I

2:09:32 Thomas: Gotcha sure gotcha scorching

2:10:06 Clip: Post -trial discovery of evidence under Brady requires a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different discovery of evidence during trial requires an evaluation of whether the late tender has impeded the effective use of evidence in such a way that it impacts the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, and that is State v. Huerta-Castro.

2:10:31 Clip: This evidence is material. The late discovery of this evidence during trial has impeded the effective use of evidence in such a way that it has impacted the fundamental fairness of the proceedings. The defense is not in a position to test the state's theory as to the source of the live rounds that killed Ms. Hutchins. I'm also going to take a look at Harper, State vs. Harper. The assessment of sanctions depends upon the extent of the government's culpability weighed against the amount of prejudice to the state. Quoting Chouinard. Let's go through culpabilty. Our case law generally provides that the refusal to comply with a district court's discovery order only rises to the level of exclusion or dismissal where the state's conduct is especially culpable, such as where evidence is unilaterally withheld by the state in bad faith or all access to the evidence is precluded by state intransigence. The state is highly culpable for its failure to provide this discovery to the defendant. The state unilaturally withheld a supplemental report. Santa Fe County Sheriff's Officer made the decision and apparently also with the prosecutor, pursuant to Hancock's testimony, that the evidence was of no evidentiary value and failed to connect the evidence to the instant case. The case agent, as well as pursuant to Hancock's testimony, Ms. Morrissey, was aware of the new evidence and yet did not make an effort to disclose it to defense. The state's willful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate. If this conduct does not rise to the level of bad faith that certainly comes so near to bad faith as to show signs of scorching.

2:12:17 Clip: Prejudice When discovery has

2:12:19 Matt: Just want note to note for just a second, this is going to go into the of OA, I think, because scorching prejudice sounds so much to me like the odor of mendacity. It reminded me of that. But scorching yeah yeah that's what I'm looking for yeah I

2:12:28 Thomas: I love how she just stopped scorching uh prejudice I was really trying to figure out what she meant by context I was like this this is scorching is scorching like a different level of thing yeah

2:12:42 Matt: A flamethrower to the evidence yeah uh I never heard that phrase I was just googling it actually and I it appears that this is only something that this judge has used it's not any kind of legal thing so I just want to make sure it wasn't like a well -known new mexico legal thing yeah scorching prejudice that's a pretty good movie name probably

2:12:52 Thomas: It's her patented like ruling it's like let's get ready to rumble like each judge has their own like catchphrase and scorching

2:13:03 Matt: That certainly catchphrase yeah let's keep going Yeah.

2:13:06 Clip: When discovery has been produced late, prejudice does not occur unless the evidence is material and the disclosure is so late that it undermines the defendant's preparation for trial. The court concludes that this conduct is highly prejudicial to the defendant. The jury has been sworn, jeopardy has attached, and this disclosure during the course of trial is so late that it undermines the defendant's preparation for trial. There is no way for the court to right this wrong.

2:13:37 Clip: Lesser sanctions under Harper. Trial courts possess broad discretionary authority to decide what sanction to impose when a discovery order is violated, State v. Lemire. The sanction of dismissal is the only warranted remedy. The jury has been sworn, jeopardy has attached, and a mistrial would not be based upon manifest necessity further the sanction of dismissal is warranted in this case the state has repeatedly made representations to defense and to the court that they were compliant with all their discovery obligations despite their repeated representations they have continued to fail to disclose critical evidence to the defendant Brady and Harper satisfied dismissal with prejudice is warrant the court also has inherent power per State v. Lamere where discovery violations inject needless delay into the proceedings courts may impose meaningful sanctions to effectuate their inherent power and promote efficient judicial administration. The state's discovery violation has injected a needless incurable delay into the instant jury trial. Dismissal with prejudice is warranted to ensure the integrity of the judicial system and the efficient administration of justice. Your Your motion to dismiss with prejudice is granted.

2:15:01 Matt: There you go.

2:15:02 Clip: Now, with respect to the jury, I don't imagine you all want to return on Monday. I will take care of the jury. Thank you. We are in recess. I

2:15:10 Thomas: She's gonna kill him or no witnesses yeah

2:15:11 Matt: Yeah. Just to the chair. This is a Friday afternoon. So she's very kindly offering to bring it back and dismiss them and you can go home. Very emotional.

2:15:23 Thomas: Obviously baldwin very emotional about

2:15:25 Matt: Yeah. No, this doesn't happen. None of this happens. This is incredibly unusual in so many different ways.

2:15:26 Thomas: That wow wow yeah I mean we've covered enough things to where often you've got the lawyers like and furthermore this ought to be dismissed the whole juror everybody's uh contempt I hold the world and then it's like like all right sit down anyway I can continue on and it is so interesting to see an instance where it's like this freaking thing this this all that's what is you're out of order this whole trial is out of water it's a good thing to do and I think it's like yep now you're right in this in this case yeah

2:16:01 Matt: It really was. And again, Again, I really feel like she could have played this so many different ways. I think it still would have come out the same way, but I just feel like she did not have to do it this way. And the arrogance, the ego, I mean, for somebody especially who was a career defense attorney, and not that career defense attorneys can't have ego, but it just seems like you know what bad prosecutors look like. Why do you want to be one?

2:16:22 Matt: Like, what is that about? Could play very quickly. She gave a statement to the media right after this, and I think it's kind of funny. So let me just pull that up, and

2:16:22 Thomas: Very weird oh yeah yeah

2:16:30 Clip: Understand that the court disagrees with me, and I respect the court's decision. There is absolutely no evidence that any of that ammunition is related to the incident involving Ms. Hutchins. So the judge is wrong? No. I said that I respect the court's decision. I think that people can disagree. I'm disappointed because I believe that the importance of the evidence was misconstrued by the defense attorneys, but I have to respect the courts decision. Do you feel you let the Hutchins family down? Do you regret not turning over the ammunition? Well, I didn't know that the ammunition that became the subject of today's hearing existed. You still believe Mr. Baldwin was guilty?

2:17:22 Clip: That has never been a decision for me. That has always been a decision for the jury. Did you let the Hutchins family down? No, we didn't. We did everything humanly possible to bring justice to

2:17:33 Thomas: Except for turnover the evidence that we should have

2:17:34 Clip: Halyna and to her family, and we're proud of the work that we did. Again, we disagree with the court's decision, but we have to respect it. So where do you go from here? Sierra, do you have any?

2:17:44 Matt: Pretty much it. But again, she's holding to this line of like, well, I just had no way to know. And there's another way they could have raised this, by the way. There's another sort of legal theory they could have used about inadequate investigation. There are a number of different federal cases about that. It's pretty obvious that they just did not investigate something that they should have, even if it's not even a Brady violation. But this is just so obviously a Brady violation. She's basically saying out loud that she didn't adequately investigate this, that she was aware there was a potential other source of live rounds. She is really sticking to her story about why she thinks it's irrelevant, but it doesn't matter. Of course, it's important. It's something, as we've been talking about. So I think she gets it. I think she knows, but she's just dug in. If she doesn't get it, then she shouldn't be teaching law. I'm sorry. Not sorry. This is where she stands. The elected DA has come out in her defense and said that she's going to continue to work on the Gutierrez -Reed appeal, that she'll be, she's still on the payroll. So apparently they think she's good enough to keep on. But that is where things stand. And so, as I said, Hannah Gutiererez -Read has filed her motion motion just a few days ago. I'll probably be following that to see how that goes. Alec Baldwin, of course, cannot be retried. That was the only charge that really would have been applicable to this case. And it was

2:18:51 Matt: Dismissed with prejudice after the jury had been seated, and that's it. That's the end for him. So he's off the hook and he's back to SNL or whatever else he wants to do. He still has to live with the fact that he was a part of this. And as I said, I think that is more than punishment enough in these cases.

2:19:06 Thomas: Oh boy yeah it's so hard to even think about what that must be like I mean I I still just think fundamentally I I mean unless there was some real uh to like the way he he was running the set that connected to the, to the live ammunition. I just don't know. Know, they often say you had one job, like, I mean, chaotic as, as a set might be, you're still the armor and live ammunition cannot be on a set. Like it just, it just can't be anywhere near that. And, and if that's the case, it's just, just to me I've always felt like I I don't know how you could hold alec baldwin responsible it just it just has always felt like you I if I hold a banana at someone and go pew pew and then it's like it actually shoots them I'm like what the fuck I it doesn't really matter you I did I don there's no reason to expect that that would happen I

2:19:55 Matt: Well, it's like holding the CEO of a company. And again, I have no problem holding CEOs accountable, obviously.

2:20:00 Thomas: Was gonna say I already hate where

2:20:01 Matt: But something like the Boeing thing, right? If you're holding the SEO personally accountable when you know that there's three people that were personally involved in this decision and made it themselves, and the CEO never knew about it, right. Right. And the other point I wanted to make is that Dave Halls, the assistant director, as I understand it, I don't know that much about film production, but the assistant director at the end of the day is responsible for safety on the set and would be overseeing the armor and would have been one of the last people potentially. And I think the testimony is a little unclear about this might have been with the last person to handle the gun. He got a six month plea deal with probation, a diversionary agreement with guaranteed no jail time because he cooperated immediately. And I Think that he probably should have been looked into a little bit more. And if Alec Baldwin hadn't chosen to go to trial, he probably could have gotten a deal like that, too, but he wanted to make sure that he could be fully exonerated. Dave Halls, I think, maybe got off the hook pretty easy as well when he

2:20:01 Thomas: You're going with this. Interesting.

2:20:49 Matt: Probably had more culpability. Baldy.

2:20:49 Thomas: It's interesting sometimes the people who they give a deal to versus who they go after. And sometimes it, sometimes it feels like that almost is kind of arbitrary in a way. And it's like, well, you could have just as easily done a deal with Baldwin to go after that guy maybe in a different world. I don't know.

2:21:05 Matt: It makes you wonder if the producer was just John Doe, would that be different? Would you have gone after the AD instead? Because it is really hard to remove the fact that Alec Baldwin is Alec Baldwin from this equation. I keep coming back to that. I think there's a good reason the defense was harping on, what do you think about this guy? And the way it comes through in her motions about... She stapled to that response I was reading to you from earlier, She stapled his entire transcript of the interview that he did immediately after the incident. And, you know, there's parts of it that read kind of cold. You never know how people are going to react when they're in those moments when, you know, something horrific has just happened and they're still processing it. Know, and at one point he calls his wife and he's like, yeah, just come out. We can make the best of the weekend or whatever. But he doesn't actually know at that point that Halyna Hutchins is dead. You know, he just, I mean, he's still worried about everything, he but finds out during this interview that she didn't and you the prosecution's trying to say that he's not like credibly upset enough or whatever which is just really cruel also to judge how somebody responds in these moments but anyway um you go got

2:22:06 Thomas: What a thing. Excellent. The thing we want to cover on Gavel Gavel. And I, wow. Blown away by that. What, a thing? Okay. Well thanks so much, Matt, for doing that. And thanks so many listeners for making the show happen. Glad I know how that went. Now I avoided spoilers and now I know know how the season ended. So there you go.

2:22:24 Matt: The whole thing yeah very good yeah

2:22:26 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.