Alec Baldwin’s tossed trial is a wake-up call 

Many were shocked last Friday when Alec Baldwin’s case was suddenly dismissed. Just as the trial began, a previously undisclosed box of ammunition surfaced. The case revolved around how a lethal round had made its way into the gun Baldwin used on the set of the movie Rust, leading to the death of a cinematographer. This new box might have shed light on that question. 

But we shouldn’t be so surprised at this sloppiness — if not outright misconduct — by the prosecution. Such violations are more common than people might think.

In building a database of five years’ worth of discovery claims, we found these kinds of violations in 10 percent of cases where such a claim was raised. In fact, what may be more surprising is that the violation in the Baldwin case came to light before, and not after, a grave injustice occurred.

A bedrock principle of our criminal legal system is the right to a fair trial. But how can a trial be fair if the defense does not have access to all the evidence? As the judge in the Baldwin trial indicated when dismissing the case “with prejudice” (meaning prosecutors cannot attempt to try Baldwin again), it cannot.  

The prosecutors violated what is known as the Brady rule. That rule goes back to a 1963 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called Brady v. Maryland, which has been reaffirmed in the decades since. Prosecutors cannot hide important exculpatory evidence from the defense, because that violates the fundamental protection of a fair trial.  

The prosecutor in the Baldwin case argued that no misconduct was intended by the omission of the ammo box. Yet she is still responsible, whether it was intentional or not. The Constitution still protects a defendant — not only if a prosecutor deliberately buries the hidden evidence, but even if he has innocuous reasons for not turning evidence over.  

In building our database, we found many cases involving prosecutorial misconduct and also many instances where police negligently or accidentally suppressed evidence. Those are all Brady violations.

Baldwin’s case is unique in some ways. We found that Brady violations are rarely exposed during trial, but instead typically come to light years later. That’s because it often takes new lawyers digging through files or new witnesses stepping forward to identify violations. Defendants have to have competent counsel, and those lawyers sometimes just have to get lucky. But many violations are never found.

In another case, this evidence may never have seen the light of day. Most of the cases where we found Brady violations were homicide cases, many of them death penalty cases. The reason things turn up later is that those cases tend to be litigated fiercely and long after trial. Baldwin faced a shorter sentence. However, unlike Baldwin, most people plead guilty, since they don’t have the resources to resist and continuously challenge the government to search for evidence.  

Will the prosecutors in the Baldwin case face any consequences? Will they change their policies?

It should not be a judgment call whether to turn over crucial evidence before trial, or before a person pleads guilty. After Michael Morton’s wrongful conviction due to serious Brady violations, Texas enacted major discovery reform and required prosecutors to put their discovery on the record before trial. Other states should follow suit. And we need better training for police and prosecutors to make sure that these violations stop.  

Most people are not Alec Baldwin. They don’t have a team of well-paid lawyers. They don’t even know it when evidence is concealed from them. And while we found Brady violations in 10 percent of cases where such a claim was raised, the reality is that there are many more violations that remain completely unknown. 

It should not just be law professors tracking these violations. Prosecutors and police should be proactively preventing violations of our Constitution. We hope that the Baldwin case provides a wake-up call. 

Brandon Garrett is the L. Neil Williams Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and the director of the Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law. Adam Gershowitz is the James D. and Pamela J. Penny Research Professor and Hugh & Nolie Haynes Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School. 

Jennifer Teitcher, Ph.D., recently completed a post-doctoral fellowship at the Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law.