A grand jury will be asked to consider "additional facts" in the on-set shooting, prosecutors say.

New Mexico prosecutors plan to recharge Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter over a fatal on-set shooting in October 2021.

The prosecutors dismissed charges against the Emmy award-winning actor in April, just two weeks before his trial was due to start.

But “additional facts” merit bringing the case again before a grand jury next month, they said.

  • iamericandre@lemmy.world
    252·
    1 year ago

    If the charges were dismissed wouldn’t that be considered double jeopardy charging him again for the same crime?

    • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.chEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      Charges can be dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. If they are dismissed with prejudice, you can’t be charged again. If they are dismissed without, then you can.

      Depends on when, by whom, and why they are dismissed.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        71·
        1 year ago

        I’d say dismissals with or without prejudice goes to law of the case doctrine and issue preclusion. Those doctrines are about whether the prosecution is legally able to relitigate something that was already decided under the law, in the interests of judicial economy and finality of judgments.

        Freedom from double jeopardy on the other hand is a constitutional right and attaches specifically when a jury is empaneled and sworn in. Before that, the defendant is not “in jeopardy.” If a case never made it to a jury, a subsequent prosecution is not double jeopardy.

        If a case is dismissed after a jury is sworn, it is the consequence of jeopardy that makes the dismissal one with prejudice.

    • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      Dismissed charges is not the same as going through trial and being acquitted

      • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
        62·
        1 year ago

        *champing at the bit

        It’s a common phrase that’s often said incorrectly. What’s the difference between “champing at the bit” and “chomping at the bit”? Which one is correct?

        It’s champing at the bit, not chomping at the bit.

        This phrase (or idiom) comes from the sport of kings: horse racing. A bit is part of the apparatus that goes in the horse’s mouth and connects to the bridle and reins so the horse can be controlled and directed by the jockey on its back. The bit fits into a toothless ridge of the horse’s mouth, so the horse never really bites the bit. But it can grind his teeth or jaw against the bit, and if it does, it means that the horse is either nervous, or really excited about racing. That’s how the phrase “champing at the bit” entered everyday communications: to indicate extreme eagerness.

        • McLoud@lemmy.world
          46·
          1 year ago

          You seem certain of this and this quote is apparently copy pasted from a reliable source, however it still makes more sense to me to say chomping at the bit. If you take a bite of a sandwich, do you “chomp” it, or “champ” it?

          • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
            4·
            1 year ago

            I am not a horse. But, if I were to bite into a sandwich, I would chomp it between my teeth. A bit from a horse’s bridle rests behind a horse’s teeth. (Their teeth don’t go as far back as ours do)

            When champion race-horses “champs” get excited and pull on and grind at the bit - “champing at the bit” - they’re not actually biting down on it really. The facts that “champing” and “chomping” both sound similar and have to do with something in the mouth is just a weird coincidence. It’s a play on words.