Today’s ~5 hour pre-trial hearing for upcoming Alec Baldwin manslaughter trial was largely a snooze-fest–but the last ~35 minutes was ABSOLUTE FIRE.
So I’ve carved out that last bit so you can enjoy it without first having to slog through 4.5 hours of defense bloviating.
Enjoy!
#AlecBaldwin #HalynaHutchins #Rust
THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE “INSURANCE” PROVIDER I TRUST!
There are lots of self-defense “insurance” companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.
LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:
https://lawofselfdefense.com/trust
Disclaimer – Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Transcript
(PDF Link)
NOTE: All LOSD video/podcast transcripts are prepared in rough form, provided solely for our members’ convenience & documentation, and are not thoroughly reviewed for accuracy. Refer to the original video/podcast for the authoritative form of this content.
Hey folks, Attorney Andrew Bree here from law self defense with a special relatively short show for all of you. It’s actually a segment from my live stream of today. I was covering the Alec Baldwin pretrial hearing.
They were arguing a motion by the defense to dismiss the manslaughter indictment against Alec Baldwin with prejudice. So it could never be brought back again based on the claim by the defense that the state had destroyed exculpatory evidence. I’m not gonna go into all the meat of the day was five hours of hearings today, much of it was a slog fest as the defense has been prone to do waste a lot of time. But the last 35 40 minutes were absolute fire fire from this judge Mary Marlowe Summer who was also the judge for the Hanukkah terrorist trial, also a manslaughter trial over the shooting death of cinematographer Helena Hutchins on the movie set of Rust.
So this is of course about Alec Baldwin’s upcoming trial for the involuntary manslaughter of cinematographer Helena Hutchins on the movie set of R when he was holding what he knew to be a real gun in his hand pointed it directly at Helena Hutchins cocked the hammer pressed the trigger, never checked to make sure there was no live ammo in the gun and discharged the bullet into Helena Hutchins right armpit, it traversed her body broke her spine, exited the left side of her body, penetrated the body of director Joe Souza and finally embedded itself in the shoulder of Joe Souza. He would survive the gunshot wound. Helena Hutchins sadly will not. And the very highly paid legal defense team for Alec Baldwin, uh basically Manhattan lawyers from uh Emmanuel Quinn, a top 50 worldwide law firm, highly paid.
Uh They don’t have the law on their side. They don’t have the facts on their side for their client. So they’re pounding the table a lot, wasting a lot of time with a lot of verbiage in their zealous representation, advocacy for their client, Alec Baldwin. Now, to my mind, this has been a involuntary manslaughter case, easy conviction every day of the week and twice on Sundays, I was saying that from the day after the shooting of Elena Hutchins occurred, she was shot and killed October 21st, 2021. I did my first blog post on this on October 22nd, 2021 and I have been following it continuously ever since all my coverage. By the way of this Baldwin shooting of Elena Hutchins can be found at law of self defense.com/baldwin.
It’s freely available to everybody. Today was a hearing that was supposed to be two hours. It started last Friday at one o’clock in the afternoon, wrapped up for the day at 530 continued today for another five hours. Almost entirely because of the time wasting by the defense. And when the defense finally rested their argument on this particular motion, this judge was on fire, fire. So you can watch the entire five hours plus of today’s live stream coverage or if time is more limited, I do encourage you to watch this last 35 to 40 minutes of today’s proceedings because it was absolute gold.
So with that out of the way, I’ll hand it over to all of you. Enjoy this ride. Talk to you soon is um, going to, um, put this in a written order and it will be uh the court’s decision and it will be uh filed sometime uh Friday. I will tell you this. I will not take any supplemental briefing on this.
It will be discarded. We’re done arguing this case. Do not give me a supplemental briefing whatsoever on this uh motion to dismiss the indictment based on destruction of evidence.
Um I’m going to move on. I am done. Yeah, I am done with you people.
I am done. I am not hearing about this nonsense anymore. Anybody have any doubts about how she’s gonna rule on this motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice because of the state’s purported destruction of evidence. I will hear no supplemental briefing on this argument. It will be discarded, discarded, it will be disintegrated on to the, um, scheduling order because today is the retro conference and docket call.
It was also the deadline for the plea. So the docket call is, uh, is only to determine whether you’re going to trial. And, um, obviously you other, you would have told me you had a plea today and the deadline is today. So, um, we’re going to continue on with our, um, jury selection on Tuesday the ninth and then we’re going to carry on with the trial.
10th, 11th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th of, uh, July. Ok. Yes, your honor. Um, we have a, uh, um, a hearing on the, um, motions in lemon a, um, on the, um, day before jury selection as I understand it. And I, right. And I understand that that will be my understanding is that that will be in person. Um, which of course we would prefer if that’s what the courts understand.
Obviously, it’s the court’s decision, but that’s what we were hoping. That’s fine. I prefer in person, MS Morris. Absolutely. Yeah. And then one other thing that’s in the scheduling order that I think I should bring to the court’s attention, which is, um, yes, that is the schedule. But you, you told us that if there’s anything that causes an issue to bring it immediately to the court’s attention, the state has disclosed 44 witnesses including 13 expert witnesses.
Um And I don’t know um what to say to the court other than, I don’t know how we could get through 1/5 of that. And so I don’t know whether that is just an attempt to um make this process unfair or whether they intend to call 44 witnesses and 13 experts, but they have disclosed that um for an eight day trial and it doesn’t make, this is rich coming from. Uh, so he, he’s complaining about how many witnesses the state has put on their witness list. Anyone not on their list, they’re not going to be allowed to call as a witness, right? But he’s complaining your honor. The state has all these witnesses. This is the same, the defense team that has like 10 or 12 defense lawyers going against two prosecutors.
That’s not a problem, I guess. And it’s not a problem. They’re allowed to do that. But they’re complaining now about how many witnesses the state has put on its list, make any sense to me.
And so I wanted to alert the court to that your honor. I, I have always had some concerns that we did not have enough time to try the case. I will also say that uh the defense has filed extensive witness lists and I think their witness list total 25 or 30 witnesses. Uh So I again, I, I don’t know whether they’re intending to call those witnesses or whether that was just gamesmanship. Uh But, but if at the end of the day, this is a 50 witness trial, we will not have enough time if we have to stop on the 19th.
So I, I would ask the court, um, I, I, if the trial goes beyond, uh the 19th, I mean, that does the court have time to take us all the way to, let’s say the 26th of July, your honor. Would you stop? We’re doing the 19th. You all said the 19th, both sides said the 19th, I can play back the log notes. Both of you said this should be fine. Ok? I, but I will, I will split up that time frame. We can certainly put you on a clock.
But, you know, um, we can talk about how much time you, you’re, you’re gonna craft here, you know, your honor. One of the, one of the reasons that we filed a motion for an exhibit list, uh, is so, so the truth is for folks, it’s important to understand most intentional murder cases are like two days, 1 to 3 days, two days is pretty typical for an intentional murder cases. A lot of murder cases, you have jury selection in the morning. You hear the argument during the day and there’s a verdict by the end of the day, one day for a murder conviction. Here, we have an involuntary manslaughter case and they have eight days schedule for trial eight days. There’s no reason on the facts of this case that this should take eight days.
No reason I have every reason to believe the defense would drag this out to 80 days if they thought they could get away with it. So that we don’t have to spend all of our time in trial, having the jury out of the room while the parties argue the exhibits. And of course, I can’t get the defense to agree to just file an exhibit list because they feel like they’re turning their hand.
And quite frankly, even if you ordered an exhibit list, my guess is they’re gonna have every single he video on it and every single uh rust movie set video on it. And that’s just gonna be AAA Sham. So I’m trying to come up with some kind of a way to try to get the defense attorneys to, to behave in a manner uh that, that would enable us to at least to a minimal degree work together on procedural issues.
I’ve never been able to quite make that happen yet. In this case, if we are objecting to exhibits every time one of the lawyers tries to enter an exhibit into evidence. Uh This case, not only is it not gonna be done on the 19th, it’s not gonna be done on the 26th. And, and, and, and I, I will, I will tell you judge that that while I, I appreciate the court’s position uh with regard to the timing going up to the 19th, um uh ba based on the cross examinations that we have seen, uh in particular from Mr Spiro, uh the there’s no way this case will be done by the 19th and, and then, then we’re going to find ourselves in a situation where if the court tries to, tries to shut Mr Spiro down, who’s, by the way famous for this kind of conduct. Uh The, then I, if you do that, then he’s gonna start complaining that, that, that, that the defendant hasn’t had an opportunity and you’re violating his rights and so on and so forth. So I’m trying to nip this in the bud right now.
I’m not getting very far. We’re not gonna be done on the 19th. I mean, the, the, the state certainly, uh would, would be done on the 19th, but the defense has, they, they’ve got, they’ve got all the top brass from, from the Sheriff’s Department on their witness list.
I don’t know why they’re calling him, but they’re on their witness list. So I’m, I’m not sure what to do about it with the current situation. We will not be done on the 19th. I’m not sure we’d be done on the 26th. May I respond your honor? Yes, we haven’t filed our witness list. They filed their witness list. Their witness list is 44 witnesses.
Their list has 13 experts. Our list in our case will take, I would think approximately a day, maybe two maximum. What did you say your case will take a day? Correct. Our case is not going to be a lengthy case. It’s my prediction. I’m of course a defense lawyer they have to go for first, they have to prove their case. OK.
Second of all, I will tell the court that um what I did in this proceeding with objections and how hard I fought the admission of exhibits is actually a pretty good reflection of my career, which apparently, M Morrissey knows so well. I haven’t had any problems um to date. Um And the reality is I don’t intend to object very much and I have a feeling I’m not gonna have that many objections to that many, that many exhibits as long as they comply with the rules of evidence. I don’t, I don’t really do very much other than ask questions.
And if witnesses tell the truth, the examinations are shorter and when I have something like what happened with Mr Hague, of course, that took longer and as well, it should have in a matter of this importance. So, iii I think you have a good sense for how we’re going to conduct um, our defense. Um But a lot of those statements are just inaccurate. The judge just made a note of that. Did you see that when he said your honor? I think our case will be a day, maybe two. She was like, oh yeah. Oh yeah, that’s the representation you’re making to this court, right? We haven’t even filed a witness list.
It’s her witness list that has been filed. It’s 44 witnesses and 13 experts. And I would urge the court to, to consider that and ask yourself, is that not gamesmanship? It’s not on me to design my case. First. It’s on the prosecution and prosecutors have a duty that has been totally lost in this case and totally lost in this case from the grand jury on through and we keep watching it and we keep seeing it and, and, and at a certain point, you can almost play back in your mind the kinds of things, the game. So, so that’s, that’s the record I want to make.
All right. So I heard you say one or two days for your, for your defense, for the defense’s case. All right. So with eight days of trial, I’m going to give MS Morrissey five and I’m going to give you three, the possibility of you being limited to two and Miss Morrissey being given six just on how things are going with the cross examination and things like that. Ok? I, I don’t know, I don’t know if I totally understand the court but to, to the ultimate outcome of what the court is saying is fine in so far as obviously to the degree I’m, I’m, I’m m Morrissey, whatever she wants to tell me I am going to want to cross examine the witnesses.
I’m sure your honor is gonna want to know the truth, want the truth to come out in that courtroom also. And so as long as I have an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and the court does not allow cumulative witnesses and testimony, then I don’t think that the schedule was a problem and, and just, yeah, and I’m the one alerting the court. I’m not the one who disclosed 44 witnesses and 13 experts. Ok. All right.
In my experience, they don’t use all those witnesses. I’m sure that’s your experience as well too, both of you. Ok.
So what I’m trying to make clear is this is that I’m going to give, I’m really relying on your 1 to 2 days. Ok. So, but I don’t also wanna be in a situation, Mister Spiro where you say, well, we, you know, now we really need, you know, to really go into our witnesses and things like that based upon based on the state’s case.
So at this point, it’s going to be five and three. However, depending on how long these cross examinations are taking and how, how fluid we’re going with the state. This is the price I like this judge, this is the price the defense is paying for what they just did Friday.
And today cross examining Lucian Haig, the judge is now exacting her price. She’s saying All right, you’re telling me you only need one or two days. Tell you what, tell you what, I’ll give you three days. I’ll give you 50% more time than you just told me you needed. But I reserve the right, I’ll give you three days and this and the, that would give the state 55 to 3. But I reserve the right to reduce your days to two and give the state six if I see you wasting the state days on this kind of cross examination. That’s what she’s saying between the lines, this guy just stepped hard on his own D IC K hard and the judge is letting him know bad move Alex Spiro case, then it’s gonna be six and two.
Ok. I’m just, I’m letting you know that they’re going to get, get that many and you’re on notice of that and I’m not going to move this into the 26. You know, I have plenty of other obligations to other defendants and the prosecution. I understand that your honor.
And so just to answer one question, the court rhetorically posed to me is no in, in an eight day trial, I am not other than if a prosecutor is, is playing games and trying to get an improper strategic advantage over a defendant. No, I have not seen 44 witnesses and 13 experts disclosed in an eight day case and it is nothing of than the tax that these prosecutors take and I don’t want issues with other prosecutors like this. And because of my career being somewhat public, you would know and Miss Morsy would know and it’s never happened. It’s only happened in this case. And so this is the same defense that files all these ridiculous motions begging the judge to go over page limits.
The reality is what we’re gonna ask for is the, the court to have Miss Morrissey give in a realistic fair witness list and expert list to the defense so that I can then quickly tell you all what my witnesses are going to be in response to those witnesses and the exhibits. They go first that witnesses anyway, we, we, we do your honor but how, but, but this doesn’t accomplish with the, the, the spirit of the court’s order and the spirit of the way this is supposed to work is the prosecutor tells us what their case is gonna be. That’s why they go first. That’s why they have the burden of proof.
That’s how this works. And then the defense does their case in response. Obviously, I can’t tell until the state rests exactly what we’re going to do. And so it’s unfair to the defense and the court should not have this kind of gamesmanship to allow them to, to disclose 44 witnesses, which is not a realistic assessment of their case.
It’s literally done to high the ball. The court knows that I know that the 13 experts are, are obviously duplicative and absurd. The court knows that I know that.
And so I urge the court to not allow them to do that and to them and then that doesn’t, that’s not the spirit of this order. And, and as I talk to local, OK, MS Mcy, I, I’m not modifying my witness list and this is why, um if during trial I decide I’m not gonna call this person instead, I’m gonna call this person. If I remove one of those people, now these people are gonna go up in arms and say judge, that person wasn’t on her final witness list. It, it leaves me absolutely no flexibility and I can tell you with these lawyers, that’s something that I need. Most Mr Spiro can complain all day. But the truth of the matter is, is that we have in good faith, gone to the defense and said, hey, there’s a terabyte of discovery.
Will you guys agree to, just to, just to uh a deadline to, to file exhibit lists so that we know what you’re gonna be using and you know what we’re gonna be using? No way. Uh That tells you where these people are coming from. They are not going to cooper, they’re not gonna do it today and they’re not gonna do it two weeks from now. Ok? Listen, I don’t know where, you know, you say this is really surprising to you, Mister Spiro this is not surprising in New Mexico.
If you look at the witness list, this is another, this is another swipe by the judge here and Alex Biro and the Baldwin defense because they’re all from Manhattan, New York City. Remember those old, uh, what was it? A salsa or chili something commercial. New York City? She’s saying, listen, Alex Burro Mr, partner Emmanuel Quinn $1000 billable rate. I don’t know how you do things there in that big city, but here in New Mexico, this is fine. Sit down of the prosecution.
This is normal. So I’m not going to make her reduce them. I have seen even in the Hannah Gutierrez trial that they immediately disperse the witnesses say I’m not gonna call these five, et cetera, et cetera. That may not be your best scenario, but that’s how it’s going to go. I’m not going to make them to everybody.
You too. I’m not gonna make them eliminate that your witness list is due. Understood your honor. And I understand the court’s directive.
I would only ask that we be given 48 hours notice on, on witness order. That’s all I’m asking for with that many witnesses in eight days, 24 hours on witness. At the end of the day, we’re going to do what we did before at the end of the day. They’re going to tell you who they expect to call the next day. Yes, and I will do my best. But I cannot guarantee the order of witnesses if I’ve got people flying in and planes get delayed and I, I haven’t, it’ll be reasonable.
So that’s not even 24 hours. The judge is saying at the end of each day, the defense will learn what the witnesses will be the next day. And the state has flexibility if there’s uncontrollable, you know, travel issues. Here, here’s the other issue that could create delay.
I believe the court is intending to have wir last for one day. It is my guess with this group of defense attorneys that’s not gonna happen. So maybe we want to address that because if wir goes into two days, 2.5 days, we got problems, I’ve never not picked a jury in one day.
I can’t imagine that this would be the first time. By the way, I don’t know, we went into, we went into um, private board de I don’t know if, uh uh you know, it’s gonna require both of you to want to do that and the court, it depends on how things are going with the jury and whether anybody’s going to likely take the jury and we need to go private. But the other thing is we’re calling 39 at a time and so there’s not gonna be 79 waiting, there’s gonna be 39 and we’re gonna get the next 39 and that way you are going to be able to formulate on each panel, you know what we need to, the next panel that makes sense and understood your honor. Final issue for me is um, authentication. Um We, we have proposed and this is another thing that I would urge the state and the court to simply agree to the authentication of police records.
Police lapels 911 calls those things that the state produced official police records. State has not agreed to that. Um And if it and the any caveat that I give on how long my case or my crosses take depends upon that I don’t want to be.
And I’ve never, no prosecutor has ever made me require somebody to then sit there and watch it and say yes, this really is. And the jury goes out of the room and this and that all I’m asking for is an authentication ST for police records, police recordings and, and official documents of the state of New Mexico. All they need to do. We would have agreed to this weeks ago.
All they need to do is tell us which exhibits they want us to stipulate to. Instead of doing that, they sent an email that said, will you agree to stipulate to every single lapel video? My response is no. And this is what prompted our motion for an exhibit list because what they wanna do is they wanna say, will you stipulate to the rest videos? Will you stipulate to the lapel videos? I’m happy to engage in stipulation. Tell me what you want me to stipulate to. I will do the same and then things will go smoothly. If these people will not tell me what they want me to stipulate to Carrie, we wanna get this video in and we wanna go from this minute to this minute. Do you have any objection? Should there be any redactions? Let’s do it.
They won’t do it. All right. Listen, I’m ordering you all to go through and see what you can stipulate too. And I want to, I want that stipulation before me on the Motion Limited Day, which is July um A and how many um with respect to exhibits? Let me hear why you would not want to stipulate to exhibits or um or at least have them known ahead of time? Well, I’m perfectly happy. I think the word stipulated in the word authenticator being merged here. What we asked for was an authentication stipulation just as authentication, authentication stipulation. That’s, that’s doing the motion limiting.
The second thing is what we have their witness list and their exhibit list. I’m happy to, as I do in all of my cases, provide a list back to them. I’m happy to do that. So I’m not, I’m not, I’m not opposing um providing um exhibits prior to the motion limited Day. Not, I’m not objecting to that at all. M Morrissey, they filed a response in opposition to our motion for an exhibit list.
What I got it. I’m relying on Mr Spiro. OK. So when can you get, when can you exchange exhibits? As, as soon as I have the state’s exhibit list, we can respond within 48 hours. Why can’t they be simultaneous? They tell us they exhibit. No, no, no, no, no.
You, you know what, I’m not going to um referee everything. Ok? You all are going to do things professionally and in good faith. So get your, get your exhibit list out, MS Morrissey. And then in 24 hours, he will get his exhibit list out.
Ok. Let me, let me give a deadline then for my exhibit list, I’m not prepared. I’m gonna summarize this. Ok.
So, uh stipulation on authentication of exhibits that the defense wants in. What about? And I don’t think the state needs that. And II, I will agree to those things if they tell me specifically the pieces of evidence that they want me to, to have to MS Morsy because they’re going to have to file it on July eight. No, where, where we need, we need to know their exhibits way before July 8th and, and they need to know ours. Ju Ju July 8th will leave everybody hamstrung. We’ll still be arguing during trial. Well, what I, what I would.
Ok. So let me just divide this into two things that I think perhaps the court will think this is a reasonable um July 8th is the motion of Lemonade Day. Is that ok? So, so the first thing which is completely separate from everything, it’s just authentication. I’m gonna ask for an authentication step.
If, if the prosecution will not authenticate their own police documents, I will email the court and explain that. Ok. And I’ve never seen that before.
Second thing is on the exhibit list if they give us their exhibit list on Friday. Ok, July. Uh I’ve, I’ve messed up my um on June 28th. OK.
We will provide our exhibit list on July 1st. Why don’t Mr Sparrow? Wait here, listen, listen up. The authentication. Stipulation is due Friday.
OK. So that means that means that there’s going to be a stipulated order that I’m going to sign on authentication. So, the uh M Morrissey needs to see that no later than um get that to MS Morrisey on the 26th and then Miss Morrissey. Um I want you to look at it and um uh you know, I, if you can’t stipulate to it, then we’ll have to address it later, but I’m not gonna have a hearing on it. OK. All right.
So that needs to get in. So show it to MS Morrisey on the 26th, the proposed order or the, the uh items you want stipulated, authenticated to then for the exhibits. Why don’t you give them to him, July 1 and you give, you give him your exhibits, Miss Morrisey on July 1 and he will give you his exhibits on July 2nd. Ok. That works. All right.
All right. And then, yeah, I, I’m, I’m not worried about being able to pick a jury in one day. I think we’re gonna pick a jury even before the dick, you know, by the afternoon.
But, ok. Yes. Did I miss anything? I’m aware of these, I’m aware of these motions. Um, oh, I haven’t decided what to do with them yet. So understanding that the court has said exhibit list, deadlines, we withdraw our motion for an exhibit list based upon the court’s ruling today.
Uh, the state will submit an order to the court indicating that the deadlines are the 1st and 2nd. Perfect. Ok. What else? This isn’t gonna get continued and even though I’m, uh, gonna get that order by Friday, do not think that that means stop working for trial.
Hello? You seem frozen. Uh huh. Did you hear that? Did you hear that? So, of course, this whole argument Friday afternoon and today was on this defense motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice because the state destroyed evidence and the judge heard all his argument and she said at the end. All right, I’m gonna give you my opinion, give you my ruling on Friday and now she just says, listen, I’m gonna give it to you by Friday, but I’m telling you right now, don’t stop prepping for trial. Yeah. Oh my gosh. Uh that means she’s going to deny the motion to dismiss the indictment.
If she was prepared to dismiss the indictment, we wouldn’t, she wouldn’t need to caution them to continue preparing for trial. I’m, I’m not, II, I, I’m not, I’m not frozen your honor. Um You know, the only thing else that I would say and II, I once asked to approach your honor, um, um, in this forum and your honor said, I don’t know that that’s possible. But any guidance, I mean, one thing that can reduce the court’s time and maybe simplify this, if any guidance that the court were to have on any of these issues, um you were able to on a teleconference or otherwise give us all a heads up. So for example, and I don’t want to pick on the state, but if you were to say there aren’t gonna be 13 experts, OK? Or you were gonna tell me that certain parts of this case, we’re not gonna have a civil negligence case about uh how, how, how movies worked in on westerns in the 19 fifties. I mean, that would help and you would have less os and lemonades and it would force the parties to.
So, and that would be an ask from the defense and I think it would end up being a blessing for the entire um proceeding and for the court’s time. Well, what I’m hearing is you want her to uh uh you want, want the court to tell her her to liberate her witness list. No, no, no, I don’t mean that one. I, I just mean on any issue frankly, it’s not that, I mean, we talked about that issue. I just mean if the court had guidance, say at some point in a 10 minute teleconference saying, listen, I’ve looked at this, I’m not deciding the motions eliminate, I’m not deciding things, but this is how I see this going. I think it would do a world of good and pushing the parties to simplifying this matter so that we can have a fair trial in front of a jury. Ok.
So, so what I hear you say is can we can we without this public forum? Uh you go first, you go, second, you go 345. But if, if the court’s inclined to do this is uh it’s by email. Well, the court can do it however, yeah, or teleconference or, or, or whenever the court wants, the court can give guidance right now in front of whoever.
I don’t know if anybody’s listening, but if anybody’s listening, I feel sorry for them that they’re missing dinner. Yeah. Um So you can do it now, I’ll take guidance. I always take guidance from the court. But if the court would want to have a more informal proceeding, I think I, I do not want to have that because I do not want um because everything is appealable and it’s got to be on the record and it’s got to be, uh, iii I just want to put this on the record.
The state has the burden. So I’m gonna need to call as many witnesses as, as I need to call in order to try to meet that burden. I can’t just cut my witness list in half. Nobody’s asking you, nobody’s asking you to, I’m giving you 5 to 6 days and that’s 20. Ok. All right. Thank you.
Not anybody’s first rodeo. Ok. All right. Um, have a good evening and, um, please, you know, the press is gonna hound. Where’s, where’s this order? Where’s this order? Please don’t participate in that.
Every order will be at least by Friday on these um, pretrial motions. Ok. Thank you. All right. Thank you for your presentations. We’re in recess.
Thank you, honor. Thank you. Honor. All right. I don’t know who that is before I dive into questions and comments. Just remind everybody almost 1400 people watching.
Thank you so much. Thank you so much for joining me here in the law of self-defense Show. I am, of course, Attorney Andrew Brinker for the law of self defense. Um, our sponsor of today’s content makes this all possible is CCW safe or provider of legal service memberships.
Well, many people mistakenly call self-defense insurance in effect CCW safe promises to pay their members legal expenses if the members involved in the use of force event and they do much more. They fly in a team of experienced homicide investigators to be your detectives on the scene. Otherwise, the only detectives are working for the prosecution folks. Uh, Attorney Don West is their national trial counsel. One of George Zimmerman’s defense attorneys, world-class, criminal defense attorney. He will be effectively consulting in your case.
I think the world of CCW Safe. I’m personally a member. My wife Emily is personally a member of CCW safe.
They’re the best fit for me out of everybody who’s out there. And I trust them if you’d like to learn why I trust them. I have a little video at law of self-defense.com/trust explains exactly why I chose CCW Safe at that same URL. You get a 10% discount code for your own membership at CCW safe. All that at law of self-defense.com/trust.
All right. So let’s take a look at the law of self-defense member chat. By the way, we only really take questions and comments from the law of self defense membership.
You can become a member of law of self defense, put your comments and questions into the member chat for just 99 cents to be a law self defense member, a law of self defense dot com slash trial for a two week trial membership. And oh, there is a Super Chat or you can do a youtube Super chat $10 minimum and we do have a uh euro €20. Thank you very much. That’s, that’s well over $10. I used to get paid in Euros when I lived in the Netherlands.
Worked there for two years. Uh, I’ll, I’ll address that. That’s from Hilt Fred Hildred. I’ll, I’ll address your Super Chat in just a moment for those who’d like to get your questions answered without having to pay $10 a question. You can become a loyal self-defense member for 99 cents at law self defense.com/trial for two week trial membership.
After the two weeks. It’s still dirt cheap. It’s only about 30 cents a day, less than $10 a month to be a law of self defense member. But try it out at least for 99 cents. Come on for two weeks. Two weeks will uh Yeah, I mean come on for two weeks and one month’s actual membership you get all the way through this trial.
That’ll be great and you can cancel anytime you want. But we very rarely have members cancel. We have a very sticky and loyal membership and I think you’ll see why if you only try it out. All right, let me go to the member chat. Let’s see what we have here by the pop, pop, pop.
Let’s see. Uh I’m, I’m just gonna address the cause there’s a lot of them, the questions and comments. There’s a lot of chatter among the members. They, they, they talk to each other. We’re a community.
Um So that’s all fine. I encourage that, but I’ll try to focus my attention here because of, we’re, we’re over five hours in this live stream folks on just the, uh, questions and comments that are directly related to the substance of what we heard today and the trial. Uh, let’s see.
Oh, my God. When he said 1 to 2 days. That was amazing. Mhm. And that’s exactly. Yeah, the judge is, the judge is holding them accountable to their own thing. Oh, my God, I can’t believe you said that.
All right. Well, oh, here Paul thinks, what do you think of Wilson combat pistols? Well, I own a Wilson combat pistol. I bought it a long time ago, 1996. So, 28 years ago I bought my Wilson Combat 1911 45 caliber.
Um, and, uh, I put maybe 100,000 rounds to that gun. It was my competition gun. I carried it my daily carry for 25 years. Um, and, uh, and I ran great that whole time. I just actually got it back from Wilson. I finally sent it in after 100,000 rounds. Uh, I sent it in to be completely refurbished.
It was the fourth time it’s been refinished. Uh, but I had him do basically a rebuild on it. And, uh, it’s like brand new now. It’s, I, I think it’s amazing. No gun has ever shot as well for me in my hand as a 1911 pistol. That particular 1911 pistol.
There’s a lot of crappy 19 elevens out there. So you do need to be careful. But Wilson Combat, based on that experience, that’s the only one of their guns I own. Uh, it’s a great product. Uh, all right. Well, I think, I think we got through that pretty quickly actually. Um, ok.
Well, I like this judge. I still like this judge. Um, I think she’s been great. This ending was, was fire. Oh, you say 1 to 2 days? All right, you get two days, tell you what, I’ll give you three days of the eight, the state gets five, but I, I may increase the state to six and limit you to two.
Be careful. That was awesome. All right folks. Uh I’m gonna go ahead and wrap up, get home to dinner myself. 7:10 p.m.
here. Mountain time. Thank you all for joining me, staying with me so long.
I really appreciate it. I’ll just remind all of you that if you carry a gun, so you’re hard to kill. That’s why I carry again.
That’s why I carry pepper spray. That’s why I carry a knife. That’s why several times a week I roll on the mat doing jiu jitsu.
So I’m hard to kill. So my family is hard to kill if you do any or all of that. So you’re hard to kill. So your family is hard to kill, then you also owe it to yourself.
And your family to make sure you know the law. So you’re hard to convict as well. Until next time I remain Attorney Andrew Branca for the law of self defense.
Stay safe.
