New York Times gift articles

If Baldwin provided all the ammo used, it increases the likelihood he is convicted by a jury. This ammo would've been provided to the Armorer by a third party, without his knowledge. At trial, the defense could have made any number of arguments that Baldwin had no way of knowing live ammunition was on set because an outside individual brought it to the set.

In any case, it's a clear Brady violation. The prosecutor has a constitutional duty to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense. It's not up to them to decide if it will be enough to establish reasonable doubt.

What the prosecution did was place this evidence under a new, case & number for a non-existent crime. They never had any intention of investigating the case that ammo was assigned to. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw was the prosecution deliberately obfuscated the relationship that ammo had to Baldwin's case to avoid providing it.

In an already highly attenuated case, and with overwhelming evidence that Baldwin's rights were violated, there can be no fair trial going forward. From the perspective of the law, once the prosecution has been found to have violated Brady deliberately, there can never be due process for the defendant.