Judge Dismisses Involuntary Manslaughter Case Against Alec Baldwin
“The extraordinary decision came after a day-long hearing without the jury present over bullets that should have been in evidence.”
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed the involuntary manslaughter case due to errors caused by the prosecution’s handling of evidence.
Baldwin faced accusations “negligence for accidentally firing a live round into the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, on the set of the movie Rust in October 2021 and killing her.”
Sommer said the mistakes “impacted the fundamental fairness of the case.”
From The Daily Mail:
The extraordinary decision came after a day-long hearing without the jury present over bullets that should have been in evidence.
Baldwin’s lawyers claimed they were ‘concealed’ from them and ‘buried’ in another case file.
The issue had upended the trial for Baldwin, 66, who pleaded not guilty to two counts of involuntary manslaughter.
Sommer demanded the bullets in court. She then put on gloves and inspected them.
Baldwin’s lawyer Luke Nikas claimed former police officer Troy Teske handed over the bullets to the Santa Fe police:
Teske claimed they were the same kind that were used to shoot Hutchins.
Nikas claimed that prosecutors ‘buried’ this evidence by giving it a different case number to the main Rust investigation.
As a result, when Baldwin’s lawyers went to the police to view all the Rust ammunition in April, they were not shown it, a breach of evidentiary rules.
Prosecutor Kari Morrissey said that they had interviewed Teske last year and were skeptical of him because he is close friends with Thell Reed, the father of Gutierrez-Reed.
Morrissey said they concluded Teskey was sending them on a ‘wild goose chase’ to point the blame at somebody other than Gutierrez-Reed.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
What, you didn’t ACTUALLY think that he was going to face consequences, did you?
Pretty amazing that this ONLY clears Baldwin, not the armorer, isn’t it?
Others are reporting it may clear the Armorer too….
“As well, the decision by Judge Sommer on Friday at the end of an evidentiary hearing over a defense motion to dismiss because of the bullets dropped off to Santa Fe police in recent weeks by ex-Arizona cop Troy Teske could see incarcerated Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed released from state prison in the Land of Enchantment.”
https://deadline.com/2024/07/alec-baldwin-trial-dismissed-rust-1236008918/
I doubt this could clear the Armorer. The Armorer’s responsibility is to see that there are no live rounds on set, and the Armorer is charged with loading all guns being used in the film and checking that they are being loaded with blanks. So I don’t think it matters where the ammo came from. She was expected to be able to identify live rounds. She is the one who loaded the revolver handed to Baldwin.
So why does it matter for him?
The armorer was found guilty (correctly in my opinion) for a different charge. Also, if the Armors Counsel didn’t ask for this evidence then it will have no bearing on her conviction.
Now I fully expect her to try using this as an excuse and it would seem it has a good chance of working given today’s decision.
Prosecution is required to give the defense all evidence which might exonerate the defendant, whether or not the defense knows said evidence exists to ask for it.
@ecreegan So far there is no one saying that the evidence was asked for in the Armor case. Also, this “evidence” wouldn’t count since it was never a part of the scene nore even in the state at the time o of the incident.
We are all allowed a fair trial except Trump of course. If the prosecutor withheld evidence Baldwin, guilty or not, got what he should have. Charges dropped. That prosecutor should be disbarred for this
Communist privilege.
I’m no fan of Baldwin’s political BS but no law against being a communist or a jackass, but I repeat myself. .
Reluctant prosecution team finds a way to botch the case with the most basic issues. I am not surprised by this.
Just like OJ. Made up problems with evidence.
Now Baldwin is the NEW OJ.
Guilty as sin and deserving of punishment he’ll probably never get.
Not guilty. Movie rules are different from firing range rules.
If I handed you a pistol, movie set or not would you point it at somebody and pull the trigger without personally clearing it?
Baldwin didn’t follow the movie set rules, either. Minimum movie set rules require everyone who touches a gun to check for live ammunition and he didn’t do so. Minimum movie set rules require a trained armament person to check the gun every time it leaves the cart and there was no trained person present.
Full movie set rules call for bulletproof glass between the gun and the cameraman and/ or a remote controlled camera every time a live gun is pointed at the camera. Full movie set rules call for protective gear for the backstage people when guns are loaded. Full movie set rules call for a dedicated armorer doing nothing but babysitting the guns, but they had an armorer with other props duties and filmed with the guns on days she wasn’t allowed on the set (including the day in question.)
Movie set rules have elaborate redundancies to compensate for the fact that sometimes the script does call for the actor to point the gun at someone and pull the trigger. Baldwin the producer stripped out many of those redundancies. Baldwin the actor then didn’t do the minimum and THEN clowned around with the gun (camera wasn’t filming so the gun shouldn’t have been pointed at it certainly not without giving the camera woman a chance to clear out.)
The rules of firearms apply. ALWAYS. For the moment a scene is in motion those rules are still in effect- the gun is KNOWN to be inert or firing non live ammo. It is live until you know it is not.
I have never let my kid play with toy guns for the simple reason that I wanted her to respect the universal rules from day 1. While some think that is too overboard- this is a kid I’m now taking to IDPA matches.
The state fucked this up and they paid the price.
Alternatively, they fucked this up and got exactly what they wanted. Trusting the motives and intentions of those involved in applying the law to media Leftists or the politically powerful is folly. Spoken as someone who retired after 28 years as a Commissioned Peace Officer.
Subotai Bahadur
No, they didn’t pay the price. They robbed the people of their justice and protection.
Look, Baldwin should be behind bars. He’s an arrogant murdering a-hole. But this was the correct decision because what the state did was legit wrong. The prosecutor and police together knowingly sat on evidence that wasn’t turned over to the defense. It was so bad that the other prosecutor (the one who gave the opening statement) quit the case in the middle of the hearing today. She did not want her name associated with this BS, and I do not blame her.
I’ll accept it wasn’t intentional when people are fired/jailed for the mistake.
Whether you accept it doesn’t matter. Baldwin will never be properly punished for this in his life. Watch the trial, it was 100% intentional. One of the police witnesses sent this case into a death spiral this morning by saying something that was verifiably false. The entire case unraveled after that.
I couldn’t wait for this Baldwin prick to go to prison. I am convinced he broke NM law. But I’m telling you – the prosecutor and the cops were completely at fault and they trashed their own case. I don’t know what will happen to them. My instinct tells me that what should happen (fired/jailed, even disbarred) will never happen.
This country has gone so far off the rails it makes me sick.
And yet, not a single J6 defendant had his case booted due to police incompetence.
What are the chances.
Yes, it’s a F-ing joke. I rarely read the news any more because all of it makes me angry.
I know people are upset about this Baldwin case. I’m upset. But I’m most upset that the state behaved how they did. People need to watch what happened today and direct their anger where it belongs – it was a corrupt government that let Baldwin go free.
My impression is that every defense lawyer in DC started their defense by admitting to basic facts that guaranteed conviction. I think this happened because the lawyers wanted to keep their law licenses in DC, and thought they would be disbarred if they didn’t go along with DC politics. Consequently, no J6 defendant got a real defense. I am not an attorney, but my boss was. He took a very aggressive attitude and hired very aggressive attorneys to represent his company, It is beyond belief that any attorney we hired would not challenge each and every point, including just where the sun had risen that morning! They did not give an inch. And they won consistently.
What I am eager to learn is whether he will be able to return to his life and his work as if nothing happened, and also if the “Rust” movie will be successful.
If the answer is “yes” to both questions, then the country may be even more sick than you already believe.
I don’t think where the bullets came from or that there were extra bullets dropped off at the station has anything to do with Baldwin’s charges. How exactly would they have used them in his defence. The judge said they were material but didn’t explain how.
Yes
It’s bollywood
I hope Rust is finished and is successful. Halyna’s husband was given a stake in the movie, and the more successful it is, the more money he and his kids will get. So I will go see it.
He’s saying that the people in the police office should be held accountable and if they aren’t it smells like intentional sabotage to let the aristocrat off the hook.
My mistake, thank you. I doubt that, because Baldwin was offered a plea deal by this prosecutor last year. She even extended the deadline when Baldwin missed it. She took that plea deal off the table after Baldwin’s lawyers started blabbing to the media how innocent he was, and that he was planning to sue the state of NM. Baldwin was ignoring her and spouting off to everyone else and she said – FU, see you in court.
Johnny, like you I watched the three days of trial plus much of the preliminary hearings courtesy of LI’s friend Andrew Branca. The way Spiro’s questions began from the start with emphasis on the source of ammunition that found its way into the guy, I have to believe that defense knew in advance of Tesky giving these rounds to the Santa Fe Sheriff’s office, and that they were nowhere to be found in the discovery file. All they had to do was lay foundation for their absence and catch the Sherrif’s office hiding them. I believe it was a surprise to them that Kari Morrissey was involved in that decision as well. It was surprise to Judge Sommers, too, and she was none too happy about it. Rightly so, as if they act like this in the biggest NM criminal case since Billy the Kid, what are doing to the average defendant that comes to her court every other day. Judge Sommers was right in anger, but wrong on her finding that withholding this evidence was material to the case as how the ammunition got into the gun was not material to the charge of involuntary manslaughter, as attorney Branca pointed out many times.
Huh??? “same kind”? So they were just examples of rounds and not actual evidence, anyway?? Or were they live rounds that were being kept with the dummies, one of which was the sort of round Baldwin used to kill Hutchins?
I don’t understand what the reasoning is, here. It sounds like complete BS.
I remember that way back when this first happened there were reports of people complaining about how dangerous the set was and there were accounts that the armorer and friends were out using the prop guns to shoot targets in the desert after filming and that everyone knew about it.
What did it hurt Baldwin’s defense if they claim that these rounds were hidden from them (were they, even?)? He was well aware of what was going on on the set – particularly because some people had just walked off of it complaining about the lax safety protocols. He bore responsibility as a producer for everything happening on the set. Of course, this court had already decided that Baldwin having had serious management responsibilities on the set was “irrelevant” …
What’s being reported in other places is that this ‘former police officer’ – who had NO CONNECTION to the investigation, and just so happens to be a personal friend of the armorer’s father, and he ‘handed over the bullets’ in a blatant attempt to create reasonable doubt.
One of many reasons this ‘dismissal with prejudice’ is an absolute JOKE.
I read that much but I didn’t see any information regarding where these rounds actually came from (how they got into the officer’s possession), why they appeared out of nowhere (the reasoning offered by the officer), what the claims about them were … I just could not find anything on any of this … not that I looked all that hard, but it wasn’t in any of 6 or so articles I read about it.
Interesting fact: the armorer’s father is also a film armorer — a reputable, competent one. It’s rumored Rust tried to hire him initially, but for one reason or another he turned them down.
TIWAGAS, but ‘anonymous insiders’ said that the armorer wouldn’t do the movie, told them to hire his daughter, and said if they DIDN’T hire his unqualified daughter he would make sure none of his armorer buddies would do the movie either.
(What is TIWAGAS? It doesn’t even web search.)
The dismissal is not a joke. You didn’t watch the trial. The state impeached itself because evidence was not disclosed to the defense. I hate Baldwin as much as anyone but if you want to tip the scales of justice like this, have fun when the state comes down on you with total bullshit charges. We don’t operate that way in America.
Baldwin should be sent to prison.
He won’t go to prison because the state violated his rights.
But the point is that the people in the police office should face charges or at least firing for their goals.
And IF it turns out they were goaded into this by people on the defense side or other Hollywood types then they should be held accountable for that. The whole thing reeks.
I agree people should be held accountable. It will never happen because welcome to America 2024. Trust me, it’s BS. It is also true that what the state did was BS. Both things are not mutually exclusive.
Evidence of what? I don’t understand how these bullets were at all relevant to the case, let alone evidence of anything. Why should they have been included in the case file? They seem just to be random bullets that some random person insisted on handing in to the police for some unknown reason.
I have heard the same thing from Andrew Branca and other legal experts. If the prosecution decides to appeal the decision it seems that there is a good chance the bullets will be ruled not related to the actual charges (I don’t know the correct legal term) and the dismissal overturned. But once again that rests on the prosecution.
If that’s so then it seems to me that if the prosecution doesn’t appeal the dismissal it will be shown to have been colluding with the defense all along.
The rounds that were delivered by Teske, were never on the set of Rust. They were Starline Brass casings that has been reloaded by a friend of Hannah’s step father. They were brought from Arizona to Santa Fe after Gutierrez Reed was convicted to try and cast doubt on the manufacturer of the dummy rounds for an appeal. A dumb jury that doesn’t know anything about people who collect brass and reload it would be easy to confuse. I don’t know why they’d even be accepted as evidence since they were not on the set or in the state.
So, to recap — the case against Baldwin was booted because the prosecution was not given the opportunity to examine some blank ammunition that 1) was never on the set, 2) was never in the hands of anybody involved with the production, and 3) not even filed under the case number of all the other evidence that actually pertained to Baldwin?
Can some lawyer on here explain how any of that makes any sense at all?
No, The fact that box of ammunition was not proffered to the defense by the prosecution. The state screwed the pooch by not providing it. They thought it wasn’t relevant.
And they were correct. These casings are not relevant at all. More importantly, as Andrew Branca correctly notes, this ruling will likely be overturned on appeal because the shells do not qualify as Brady material because they have no exculpatory value as (1) they were never on the set or in the state and (2) have no relevance to the elements of the statutory offense. Second, the Judge didn’t address the second part of the Brady analysis. Specifically, the Bagely materiality test meaning Baldwin had to show that there was a high likelihood the shells would have led to a different outcome at trial which they would not since they were never part of the production.
Juris Doctor – who is appealing? Morrissey said she respected the judge’s decision, and her co-prosecutor quit the case in the middle of the trial because she said it was clearly a Brady violation.
As much as I love Branca, he’s not a Brady expert and said as much today. He’s an expert in one area of the law: self-defense. That’s it.
It ain’t up to you or Branca or Morrissey or anyone else to tell the defense – you can’t use this evidence, if it can in fact be legit used by the defense. Just because you might think it’s a stupid defense doesn’t count. That’s up to a jury to decide. When the defense asks the state for ALL bullet evidence, and the state knowingly declines to hand things over because they don’t think it’s relevant, they have violated Brady.
That’s the whole point. I think it’s not relevant, either.
“Here’s a box of bullets I made that look like the bullets that gun shoots.”
How the F is that any kind of “evidence” whatsoever?
It doesn’t qualify as evidence. There’s starline brass all over the country and those casings don’t qualify either.
Why should they have provided it to the defense? In what way was it evidence of anything? What connection did it even have to the case?
In what way could it have been used by the defense?
What defense? What possible argument could be helped by these random bullets?
If it’s not relevant it’s not evidence. Or should they have handed over all bullets that happened to be in the state’s possession, all over the state?! Empty out all policemen’s guns, all over the state, because the defense asked for all bullet evidence and these are bullets? After all, it’s not for the state to say that a bullet in the gun of a policeman in Albuquerque isn’t relevant to this case, is it? Or is it?
No, the prosecution/cops had evidence that was required to be turned over to the defense, and they sat on it. One police witness impeached herself on the stand. They all tried to weasel their way out of it. The lead prosecutor took the witness stand to “defend” this BS, meanwhile the 2nd prosecutor resigned in the middle of trial today after finding out what had happened. She didn’t want to be associated with this sham.
Feel free to watch this (it’s long), or FF because it is long-ass long. All these lawyers are on the correct side of the political spectrum, which shouldn’t matter (one of them brought a MAGA hat for a moment), but I feel compelled to say that. All of them agree that the state was in the wrong. The judge was pissed, understandably.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3gD-NisKg8
I cannot imagine there is a lawyer anywhere who would approve what the prosecution did.
Please explain what it was evidence of, and why it was required to be turned over to the defense?
I agree, the prosecution screwed the pooch on this one, and the judge was PISSED! Whether this is appealed depends on how much more money the State wants to throw at a case that will net at max 18 months in jail for the defendant.
As to the politics, keep this in mind. This is a BLUE leaning defendant, who was changed with crime in a BLUE state, charged in a BLUE county, prosecuted by a BLUE district attorney’s office (who by the way did not have anyone competent enough to try this case from their own office. They had to hire someone with NO prosecutorial experience. Let that sink in.), with a crime investigated by a BLUE county’s Sheriff’s office that is understaffed and underfunded, and as demonstrated by this case marginally incompetent.
Do you see a trend in the above? A comment element?? Could it be the word “BLUE”?
“He bore responsibility as a producer for everything happening on the set.”
This is not so. The producer’s job is to see to it that appropriate safety personnel are hired. But once those personnel begin work, the director or assistant director (whichever is present) is responsible for safety on the set (this is why the AD was charged). Directors and ADs have responsibility for everything on set, because they are the persons responsible for everything that happens there, good and bad. The armorer, once production begins, is responsible for all firearms safety within the workplace, on set or not, and the director or AD is responsible for overseeing the armorer’s performance.
Producers are usually not present during filming. They’re often just money men, not movie makers. Baldwin was on the set in his capacity as an actor, and had no responsibility for safety on the set (having hired, as a producer, subject matter safety experts for the production so that they would be responsible for safety). A film production has several safety specialists in the various production environments. They are responsible for assuring safety, each within their own sphere of expertise.
But we know that that is certainly not true in this case. Baldwin was the star of the movie and was a petit tyrant while on set. It was “his” movie, and I’m sure he would have been the first to tell you exactly that.
No. REAL producers are the actual movie-makers. The money “producers” are just leeches who want their names on credits and to be part of Hollywood, but there is usually a central producer who actually makes the movie, directing and running everything. All the other “producers” are BS.
The troubles on this set were well-known. In fact, they were well-known enough to have made the trades, I believe, even before Baldwin killed Hutchins.
My comment stands. As a producer, Baldwin’s responsibility for workplace safety was satisfied by the hiring of professional safety experts. Oversight of those experts is the responsibility of the director and AD, not the producers. This is a fact. A producer on set has no responsibility for anything that happens there. That’s why he hired a director and an AD, so there would always be someone on set who is overseeing the entire operation.
As the individual handling the firearm, it was Baldwin’s responsibility to observe the rules of firearm safety, period.
Whether the weapon was loaded with blanks, live rounds, or all the chambers were empty, has no bearing. Baldwin should have known that pointing any weapon at any person at any time while pulling the trigger, fanning the hammer, or even holding it with two fingers is WRONG. Baldwin was negligent, and an innocent woman’s death was the result. Those are the facts in evidence.
It’s known as “negligent” homicide for a reason.
As much as I would have liked to see him convicted and sent to prison this was the correct decision by the judge.
The prosecutor should have entered the bullets into the case just to CYA themselves. Putting it under a different case number and than not telling the defense when the defense saw all the other bullets was just asking for a problem. Baldwin has top notch attorneys working for him. The moment they find out something like this of course they are going to hard at it.
Those attorneys earned their money.
He sure dodged a bullet in this one.
It would be nice if AB would just ride off into the sunset never to be seen or heard from again.
Take up a soft hobby like stamp collecting. No one can got manslaughter-murdered by licking stamp hinges.
And stay away from collecting medieval blunt force objects like ball peen hammers, cudgels and maces..
“No one can got manslaughter-murdered by licking stamp hinges.”
George Costanza
NM prosecutors botched the case. Wow.. what a non-surprise. That’s pretty typical in this state, even with high profile cases.
This was an accident. Even assholes have accidents.
As a plain actor, it was an accident for Baldwin. As a producer (and set tyrant) it was manslaughter by Baldwin. As a two-faced anti-gun loon who claims to be a maven of gun safety and who would have come down like a ton of bricks on someone else this had happened to, Baldwin deserves scorn of society and the maximum penalty he would have advocated for others in this same situation.
If one is in possession a firearm, point it at another person and the firearm discharges that’s on the person who broke several basic firearm safety protocols. Accidentally causing a death via dumbass behavior is why we have the charge of manslaughter. Eff this whole ‘oh, Hollywood has their own rules BS it was someone else’s fault NOT the guy holding the weapon’. Hell to the no no nooo.
If you jump off a tall building, you could die, and you know this, so normally you’d never do it. But when a rigger tells Tom Cruise the rigging is safe, and he jumps, it’s the rigger’s fault if something goes wrong, not Tom Cruise’s fault. An actor on a set relies on the subject matter safety experts. Actors “checking” the work of the safety experts could actually muck something up. Imagine allowing an actor to check on pyrotechnics/explosives and you’ll get the idea that it’s not a good idea.
What if he had checked the gun himself and made the same mistake as the armorer, mistaking a live round for a dummy round? Would that have made him more or less culpable? Mucking about with the gun himself may have allowed an accusation that he was the one who introduced a live round into the cylinder. He was much better off relying on the armorer and not second-guessing.
As politely as possible… BS. You always check the equipment you are going to use. Ultimately it is your responsibility not anyone else.
Just b/c some goon tells them the gear is good to go doesn’t mean they don’t check the portion under their control. Is the D ring locked? Straps secure? Harness fits properly? All that is on the individual user of that equipment.
Sure you can’t worry about the guy operating the crane or the guy who set up the stunt or the guy who did X, Y, Z else. That’s their job and their responsibility. Gotta trust their reputation, experience and professionalism that’s teamwork.
However you don’t get to abdicate personal responsibility for dangerous situations with things under your control and ability to check.
Hollywood doesn’t get to have separate standards for manslaughter b/c ‘reasons’. Hell they didn’t even follow the industry safety protocols so they can’t hide behind that fig leaf. Why you raise the ‘it’s different b/c its Hollywood’ argument is beyond me.
There isn’t a Hollywood exemption to manslaughter laws
You sure about that.
To CommoChief:
Not BS. I’ve been on tank ranges (run them, actually) and what the range safety officer says is the word of almighty god. Nobody being trained on the range whose current state of knowledge doesn’t permit him to safely investigate a situation has any business “checking” that situation when it’s already been checked by an expert. Baldwin is not a firearms safety expert.
Paratroopers (for instance) are highly-trained professionals. Naturally, they, like other professionals, are qualified to check the work of experts, because they’re experts too. Baldwin was an experienced (and possibly highly-trained) actor, not a firearms safety expert. If I were responsible for firearms safety somewhere (and I have been), I wouldn’t want any non-professional mucking about in my work. If I’m responsible, I don’t want anyone messing with something, causing it go wrong, and making me responsible for it. The firearms on set passed through the hands of at least two persons responsible for delivering cold firearms to the set. Does everything have to be checked three times? Why not four? The purpose of hiring an expert it to allow others to do their own jobs without also having to attend to the work assigned to the expert. A young lady actress was injured on the set of a Marvel movie when a wire stunt went wrong. Was she responsible for her own injury for not checking the rigging herself? A person not an expert would be foolish to take any job in which they become responsible if they fail to check the expert’s work. As non-experts, why would anyone think them capable of competently checking an expert’s work?
Had Baldwin checked the gun and made the same mistake as the armorer appears to have made (mistaking a live round for a dummy – a dummy is meant to resemble a live round), I believe that would have exposed him to greater liability. Even if that greater liability is only a possibility, why should a non-expert expose himself to it?
Dave, some things are just good common sense.
If an RSO told you to turn and point the gun at the person in the lane beside you, would you do it? After all, their word is treated “as the word of God” according to you.
Once the weapon is in your hands, YOU are responsible. Not the armorer, not the director, not the producer, not the valet. YOU.
This is basic firearm safety. Baldwin violated it, and should be held accountable.
This is idiotic. He was doing a blocking scene. It wasn’t being filmed. There was no need for not just blanks or dummies – there was no need for the F-ing pistol. But he insisted, and if Baldwin, self-proclaimed firearms expert, cannot bother to look to see if there is a GD cartridge in the cylinder for a situation that didn’t call for one (seriously, how hard is that?) and insists on pointing a real firearm and pulling the trigger that is totally on him.
Also – there was no live ammo on the set when Brandon Lee died. Blanks kill people.
This argument that he gets a pass is so stupid.
“Baldwin is not a firearms safety expert.”
Are you sure of that?
Baldwin was (and still is, as far as I know) a Director of the Everytown Creative Council.
What is the Everytown Creative Council?
A Director.
I’m surprised he didn’t bring it up every day at his trial.
Dave,
No. You are always responsible for the gear under hour own control. If it is a firearm then you follow basic firearm safety rules. One big one is not pointing the firearm at another person. Even Hollywood rules don’t allow that after several other incidents with ‘blanks’. You cannot abdicate your individual responsibility for safe handling of a firearm.
The problem sir is that the New Mexico State Supreme Court does not agree with your interpretation of the of the involuntary manslaughter statute. In a 1954 ruling, they stated that it does not matter who loaded the firearm or how it was loaded If an individual handles a firearm that at any time was functional, and does so without “due care and circumspection” and someone is killed as result of that failure, that is all that is necessary to prove involuntary manslaughter. Andrew Branca has shown this NM Supreme Court many times, including yesterday, and it is also included in the NM standard jury instructions that the jury would have seen sometime next week as things not gone south yesterday.
It did not matter who loaded the gun or last checked it. It could have been Alec Baldwin, the armorer Reid, Helyna Hutchins, Donald Trump, “the tooth fairy”. That does not matter. It was Baldwin’s responsibility under NM State law and NM State Supreme Court case law to ensure that the gun was NOT loaded before he pointed it at Hutchins. In doing so, he acted without “do care and circumspection”.
@DaveGinOly If you are an RSO then I pray to God you are never one on any range I am attending.
So according to you as an RSO, if a Drill Sgt. hands an M-16 to a recruit on the firing line, lets even say it has no magazine and the dust cover is closed. The Drill Sgt. tells the recruit the rifle is unloaded and safe. So you are saying if that recruit points the rifle at a fellow recruit, pulls the trigger and ends up shooting and killing his battle buddy, then the recruit bears no responsibility and isn’t Negligent?
Because that is exactly what you just described.
I hope whoever certifies you as an RSO sees this post and immediately decertifies you. You are ignorant, dangerous, and have no business being an RSO.
The problem is, there was negligence in his actions that caused the death of another. It wasn’t a simple “oops”.
He will pay millions.
Nothing involving a firearm is an accident. Period. Baldwin violated every rule of gun safety there is. He failed to check the firearm for ammunition, he had it pointed in an unsafe direction and he was doing it in a room full of people. A handgun is not a toy. A lady is dead because Baldwin was reckless.
I’m no fan of Alec Baldwin, but this was the proper decision. We seem to live in a world where, for any and every accident, some culprit must be found, so money can be extracted. Mostly for the lawyers. Shit happens. Unfortunate accidents happen. Alec Baldwin is certainly no firearms expert. He relied on others, and standard protocols, to inform him regarding the safety of the arms on the set. The idea that he would have knowingly and recklessly mishandled of firearm without regard for the safety of others is ridiculous and preposterous.
He pointed a gun at a human and pulled the trigger. Even on movie sets, that’s just not allowed.
Agreed and a competent prosecution of Baldwin and not the damn armourer who, whatever else she did or failed to do, certainly didn’t hold, point and discharge a round at another person causing their death. The prosecution including LEO bungled this entire event IMO from start to finish.
“The prosecution including LEO bungled this entire event IMO from start to finish.”
Next time he guest-hosts SNL, instead of doing Trump, he should do Church Lady.
“How conVEEEEEEEnient!”
There’s no conspiracy, it’s just standard New Mexico laziness + ignorance.
Have you ever watched a movie??? They point guns at each other all the time!
No longer, not after Brandon Lee was killed by a ‘blank’. They have used multiple camera angles to create the illusion of it being pointed at another person. Where they simply must use a prop with the film shot they use a totally fake firearm/facsimile; a ‘rubber duck’ to point for the film shot then add in sound at editing.
The armorer failed. She had sole responsibility for ensuring any live ammunition was segregated from blanks and held in a locked container or safe of which only she had access to. Baldwin failed by not immediately checking the firearm for ammunition when he picked it up, having it pointed in an unsafe direction and playing with it in a room full of people. Everyone was at fault but ultimately Baldwin bears the blame. This may have been the right decision by the judge but Baldwin is guilty of killing someone.
Did you mean like pointing a firearm at someone and pulling the trigger? Because we know the Hammer had to be cock and in the trigger had to be pulled because that’s how single action revolvers work and that’s how they have worked for over a hundred years.
Not exactly. In an original single action revolver a hard enough strike on the hammer can cause them the discharge. That is why you always carry them with 5 rounds and the hammer down on the empty 6th chamber.
The indisputable facts are that Alec Baldwin did knowingly and recklessly mishandle the firearm without regard for the safety of others. He pointed a revolver at a living human which is by definition a reckless act. It has been pointed out that he had enough experience with firearms while making movies that there is virtually no way that he would not have known that pointing it at someone was reckless.
“Alec Baldwin is certainly no firearms expert.”
Oh yeah? Alec Baldwin will disagree – he’s blabbed all over how much he knows about handling firearms. His own words would have sunk him in this trial. You are correct that this was the right decision, but you are so off base as to why.
Let’s do an experiment. I’ll take out one of my SA revolvers from the safe – in fact, the very same kind that Baldwin had on that set – and I’ll give it to you. You are not allowed to check it. Oh, but I promise it’s not loaded, I say. Not only that, I tell you that I’ve got blank ammo in the house, too. Google what blanks can do to a human being at close range if you aren’t sure about it.
I want you to put it to your head. Do you trust me enough to pull the trigger?
“We seem to live in a world where, for any and every accident, some culprit must be found…”
This is what happens when a person kills someone in self-defense. Many prosecutors feel they must find someone to blame for the death, and will prosecute the person whose life was threatened, because the person responsible for the death is already dead.
This is an element of my concept of the “right to survive,” which states that any victim of a physical assault has a right to survive that assault while the perpetrator has no right to survive the events that unfold due to his aggressive, unlawful acts. Having initiated the events that follow the assault, the perpetrator is entirely responsible for any deaths that occur as a result, whether the victim dies or the perpetrator himself dies. Period.
It’s a work in progress.
Sure there is – continue the case for a month to give the defense time to examine and incorporate the rounds as “evidence”. The rounds were only presented to the prosecutors a few months ago (after all these years), so the most time the defense had lost was three months … But it’s difficult to understand what these rounds were, exactly, how they were hidden for years and why they are relevant.
In any event, the court could have made it all right just by giving the defense time to incorporate the new “evidence” and, perhaps, sanctioning/contempt for prosecutors.
Nope. They concealed the evidence. It wasn’t as if it was some last minute lab report that came in at trial they sat on this for months. The accused has the right to examine all the evidence not just what a prosecutor decides they can have. That makes every other bit of the prosecution’s case suspect b/c they lied. What else did they conceal? Fudge any reports? Alter any statements? Coach witness to be deceptive? Why should we believe the prosecution when they everything else is kosher?
Baldwin is guilty as Sin IMO, but the prosecution violated his right to fair trial by willfully concealing evidence Frankly as egregious as this was I would dismiss with prejudice if it were my call. I would then exert every oz of pressure and influence I had to make sure the prosecution team was professionally nuked from orbit so to speak.
It’s the only way to be sure.
Indeed so and I am frequently surprised by folks who seem to want to tip the scales in favor of gov’t and not the accused… especially when those same people regard most other govt actions as corrupt, incompetent or both. The State must meet its burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Withholding evidence from the accused who has a Constitutional right to see all of it is not an acceptable way to meet the burden. Nor is lying, dissembling or making excuses for the State’s illegal actions to deny the prosecution of the Constitution to an accused.
This judge did her job, like Judge Cannon. Judges so rarely do what they’re supposed to do (protect the rights of the accused and NOT defer to the state), that when one actually performs their core functions that the behavior is met with disbelief and opposition.
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.”
Thomas Paine
Common Sense
Damn, Hardcore. Nuke the entire sight from orbit? Bold move.
Did they? How was this evidence? What was it evidence of?
It doesn’t matter when they got it, if it’s not evidence then they weren’t sitting on it, it just had nothing to do with the case.
But the accused does not have the right to examine random objects that have nothing to do with the case. So please explain why these bullets should have been in the case file, and why they should be considered evidence that the defense was entitled to. Because I’m confused by that fundamental point.
I imagine Baldwin’s lawyers make $1,000 an hour, plus charge for all paralegal hours, copying, telephone calls, etc. So to extend a trial for a month comes at considerable expense to the defendant. And, as others have pointed out, the fact that the prosecution out and out lied about one thing makes all their other evidence suspect.
How did they lie? For them to have lied, you have to first explain how these bullets were evidence in the case, that should have been shown to the defense. And yet there seems to be no explanation available of that crucial point. Without it there was no suppression, no lie, and this whole discussion makes no sense.
Why drag poopy pants Biden into this?
Because Biden shoots blanks whereas Baldwin uses real bullets.
Hehe.
Every actor has to be insurance before production can begin. Either Baldwin is uninsurable or the costs to insure becomes exorbitant. Either way the only thing open to him now is hosting snl. FJB
New Mexico has a booming film business
the prosecutor got sent for
Dershowitz said it was an unconstitutional charge in the first place – the law as written gives you no clue whether you’re violating it or not.
Was that in an interview and if so you have a link or where you got it from. I’d like to hear his take on that.
How so? The “reasonable man” standard is well-established in law, and is an element of many crimes; is he saying those are all void for vagueness?! How do you even have a manslaughter or negligent homicide charge, without a “reasonable man” standard? I just don’t understand the argument.
With something so basic, I’d have to conclude that it was done on purpose to get the case dismissed.
Unlike the charges, that suspicion isn’t so easily dismissed.
Just in passing, I wonder if this will have any effect on the box offices of any films he is acting in or involved in behind the scenes? After all, to Hollywood Leftists [and their fans] killing an innocent and avoiding consequences is sexy.
Subotai Bahadur
The rich and famous and leftist don’t often get made accountable
Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.
As an avid firearms enthusiast, hunter, marksman in rifle and pistol….
I think it unforgivable not to check the firearm for ammunition and type.
However, Alec is an actor.
He has used firearms many times in his career as an actor.
And, even though I think him a jerk…
I’d never equate him to me in firearms handling.
I can see no reason why he, as an actor , would even think any ” Prop Firearm ” had anything in it other than blanks.
And, even though I do not like him, I’d never believe for a second that he would ever wish to murder another actor on his job that he was working with.
They hand him the pistol, and direct him to shoot….
He does.
Live ammunition on the set?
Well, that is only ok if it is your personal firearm.
And it should never be allowed on the actual set. Left in glove-box, or otherwise secured.
Do Cops and Prosecutors lie?
Yeah, well, they could probably give acting lessons.
Alec is a dumb actor. That is all.
Well put.
I can’t stand Baldwin, but I agree with everything you said. It was the armorer’s responsibility to ensure that only blanks were in that weapon, and she utterly failed.
Ask Brandon Lee if there was live ammo on his set.
I’ll help you out: no.
This is why SAG rules state that guns should never be pointed at any individual on a film set during rehearsals or actual filming.
You point away from a person and use the camera to make it look as if that’s what you’re doing. Blanks can be fatal. Blanks were all over that set. Human beings make mistakes. Why the hell you do not bend over backwards to do all you can to prevent someone from getting shot with a blank I will never understand. Again, see Brandon Lee. Carelessness killed him.
Baldwin didn’t have a prop firearm, it was a fully functional 1873 Colt replica. I have Baldwin’s exact model in my safe, and it shoots real .45LC.
They also didn’t “direct him to shoot.” Baldwin was asked to point the gun at Hutchinson. Not pull the trigger. I happen to think that idea was stupid. And her death is the F-ing textbook reason why it was stupid. Why did he have a gun, period, in a blocking scene? It was completely unnecessary, as there was no filming at the time. Baldwin showed on video over and over he had no trigger discipline on that set. And he insisted on having a real firearm and pointed it at a real person, and he failed to check it and he couldn’t keep his stupid finger off the trigger ever – I cannot for the life of me understand how you think this is OK.
I said this above: I hand you my 1873 Colt, you aren’t allowed to check it, and I say – put it to your head and pull the trigger. Are you seriously going to do that? You’d trust your life like that with me? Not just me, but with anyone? If I see you check a gun, and you hand me that gun, I am immediately checking that gun for myself, because it’s ingrained in me, and any lapse by me could end up in a disaster.
Your arguments would make more sense if they used toy guns on set. They don’t. And this is what happens when you are irresponsible and F around with them.
Brandon Lee was killed by a squib load stuck in the barrel, which was propelled forward by a blank round. No one checked the barrel when the ammo was swtched in preparation for a direct shot at Lee. That was in 1993. It was Jon-Erik Hexum who accidentally killed himself with a blank cartridge in 1984, while pretending to play Russian roulette and placing the barrel directly on his temple.
Alec baldwin would have no problem lecturing you or me on “gun safety” as he promoted himself as a gun expert in his drive to destroy the 2nd amendment and to disarm all law-abiding citizens. He considers himself to be one of the world’s greatest experts on guns – so expert that he thinks he knows more about guns than any gun owners do. Further, he has used prop guns in movies for decades and should have learned something by now.
As to live rounds on the set … the stories that came out when this all happened said that the armorer and her friends were trampling over all safety protocols and were out shooting targets (with live rounds) in the desert after filming and that this was well known. On top of that, people had complained about lack of safety on the set and a couple of people (?) left the production a couple of weeks before the killing, precisely because they said it was unsafe. That’s what I recall from this.
I don’t hold Baldwin liable as an actor but I hold him liable as a producer, as a tyrant on the set and as a dipsh*t anti-AMerican gun grabber who would come down on anyone else like a ton of bricks.
He was never directed to take that revolver, cock the hammer and pull the trigger. This was a blocking sequence and the firearm shouldn’t have even been loaded.
The Prosecution Intentionally left out evidence to cause the issue
same way the Prosecution in the OJ case had him try on the glove
they didnt want the city to burn again
same way the scotus refused to hear the PA case in the 2020 elections
and on and on the corruption goes
BTW,,, I dont know how he could be guilty when he was given the gun by the expert and told to fire the gun
iff thats the way it really happened
They were afraid extremely rich Hollywood actors would riot?
or have their blmplo army do it for them
1. The evidence wasn’t evidence that was actually applicable to the case. It was live ammunition that had been reloaded in Arizona using the same brand of brass as the dummy rounds. That brand of is used by reloaders all over the country as well as ammunition manufacturers. It was never on the set or in the state.
2. He was never told to fire the revolver. He did that all on his own. The cinematographer was working with him to get the correct blocking for the upcoming scene. All she needed was his body and his hand.
You had to always know Alec wasn’t going to pay for this death
And the Best Actor Oscar goes to Alex Baldwin; in portraying a man who got away with murder and for the ability to bring tears at the right moment. And the Best Supporting Actor Oscar goes to the prosecutor; in being so derelict in performing the duties that you helped allow a man get away with murder.
Has the prosecutor who quit given any statement as to why she left the case?
Also, can a prosecutor just quit a case they have been assigned?
so now I wonder
if he hadnt pulled the trigger when he did
BUT HAD PULLED THE TRIGGER WITH THAT SAME LIVE ROUND when he was suppose to
WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT TARGET???
If they were obeying Hollywood’s rules, the target would have been an unattended running camera.
Another question, doesn’t the “with prejudice” mean that they can just file the charges again? If not would one of the legal minds explain what it does mean?
cannot refile>>with prejudice
It means the exact opposite. It means the case can’t be refiled.