Have a gander at the movie/production intertextualities to RUST and see if the legal merits of this case become a lot clearer to you: ruclips.net/video/PWo2vZAtfLQ/видео.htmlsi=517yq8fJZVMPCA6v ruclips.net/video/Bs-x2lo0uuM/видео.htmlsi=_9QswLqpMBfg03Uh Also, here's some more information on the legal publication aimed aty legal professionals that has adopted the TCRS-ism of "criminal intertextuality": www.patreon.com/posts/prestigious-for-107931413
I found the Judge’s ruling on the Producer evidence! I included her entire reasoning so hopefully it helps explain how that evidence was left out. “I’m having a real difficulty with the State’s position that they want to show, that as a Producer, he didn’t follow guidelines and therefore, as an Actor, Mr. Baldwin did all these things wrong, resulting in the death of Halyna Hutchins, because as a Producer he allowed all this to happen. I think that when you look at the relevancy, I think one of the reasons I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around it, to be able to say Mr. Baldwin, because it was a Producer and he was the Boss - although there are more than one Producer, and he couldn’t do anything without looking at those contracts, including hiring someone, without running it by whatever entity is in the contracts. I do not believe any tendency to make it more probable than it would be without the fact that Mr. Baldwin the individual, as an Actor, committed involuntary manslaughter and negligence use of a deadly firearm.” It’s a bit hard to quote because she’s sort of explaining off the cuff, but it sounds like she’s not buying the “Mr. Baldwin had control as a producer therefore more culpability as an actor” because of, for one, contractual obligations. She goes on to say it wouldn’t be more prejudicial than probative (I think she is talking about the State’s right to non-prejudice here) and that it risks confusing the jury. It’s also tough to grab a time stamp but it’s the Defense’s first Motion in Limine, although she also rules on an expert first before giving her ruling on this issue.
Afternoon session, judge rules in favor of the state introducing comments made by AB regarding his attitude and behavior following the shooting, stating that the defense had made that same was highly relevant. (👍 To the quality and content of comments made during TCRS live streams. Find it annoying when comments are about the weather, what someone had for lunch, where they went for vacation while court is in session that takes place on other channels.)
The prosecutor is purposely trying to disrupt the flow of the defence by being annoying. I don’t understand the judge allowing it. Must be very frustrating.
![Nicolae Miu sentenced in Apple River stabbing [RAW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/11-gNB4hRgk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Nicolae Miu sentenced in Apple River stabbing [RAW]](/img/tr.png)
Have a gander at the movie/production intertextualities to RUST and see if the legal merits of this case become a lot clearer to you:
ruclips.net/video/PWo2vZAtfLQ/видео.htmlsi=517yq8fJZVMPCA6v
ruclips.net/video/Bs-x2lo0uuM/видео.htmlsi=_9QswLqpMBfg03Uh
Also, here's some more information on the legal publication aimed aty legal professionals that has adopted the TCRS-ism of "criminal intertextuality":
www.patreon.com/posts/prestigious-for-107931413
Wow! The defense attorney is running the court, the judge is weak and asleep.
I found the Judge’s ruling on the Producer evidence! I included her entire reasoning so hopefully it helps explain how that evidence was left out.
“I’m having a real difficulty with the State’s position that they want to show, that as a Producer, he didn’t follow guidelines and therefore, as an Actor, Mr. Baldwin did all these things wrong, resulting in the death of Halyna Hutchins, because as a Producer he allowed all this to happen. I think that when you look at the relevancy, I think one of the reasons I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around it, to be able to say Mr. Baldwin, because it was a Producer and he was the Boss - although there are more than one Producer, and he couldn’t do anything without looking at those contracts, including hiring someone, without running it by whatever entity is in the contracts. I do not believe any tendency to make it more probable than it would be without the fact that Mr. Baldwin the individual, as an Actor, committed involuntary manslaughter and negligence use of a deadly firearm.”
It’s a bit hard to quote because she’s sort of explaining off the cuff, but it sounds like she’s not buying the “Mr. Baldwin had control as a producer therefore more culpability as an actor” because of, for one, contractual obligations. She goes on to say it wouldn’t be more prejudicial than probative (I think she is talking about the State’s right to non-prejudice here) and that it risks confusing the jury.
It’s also tough to grab a time stamp but it’s the Defense’s first Motion in Limine, although she also rules on an expert first before giving her ruling on this issue.
I hope Alec had to pay millions for his tigger happy finger defense team.
I remember when you covered the watts case and you didn’t want to do YT. Now at 166K! Wow. I used to go on your website. Somehow this popped up.
Afternoon session, judge rules in favor of the state introducing comments made by AB regarding his attitude and behavior following the shooting, stating that the defense had made that same was highly relevant. (👍 To the quality and content of comments made during TCRS live streams. Find it annoying when comments are about the weather, what someone had for lunch, where they went for vacation while court is in session that takes place on other channels.)
I can't believe this bull crap.
The prosecutor is purposely trying to disrupt the flow of the defence by being annoying. I don’t understand the judge allowing it. Must be very frustrating.