Alec Baldwin may be in some hot water
222,640 Views |
1683 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by Urban Ag
Well that sure as **** changed my mind. Dude was playing grab ass. **** him.
The Green Dragon said:
Well that sure as **** changed my mind. Dude was playing grab ass. **** him.
Hold on now, whose ass was he trying to grab? We all get distracted from time to time
Sorry for length. TLDR is still see a serious uphill battle for the DA.
Actual criminal information (charge) here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23593079-alec-baldwin-criminal-information
So nuts and bolts, the criminal information charges, in the alternative, two violations of the involuntary manslaughter statute. One violation in the commission of an unlawful act (negligent use of a deadly weapon) and the other in commission of a lawful act. This is consistent with what has been reported everywhere--nothing new there.
What is not well reported (and the DA has failed to mention for reasons only she can give) is it is not enough for the prosecution to prove negligence, a simple violation of the firearm use statute, or lack of "due caution and circumspection" to convict. Frankly the cases are much more specific and nuanced than the text of the statute. To get a conviction the prosecution will have to prove that Baldwin "acted with willful disregard" for the safety of others. The jury instruction (UJI 14-231) and case law are quite specific and there is no exception for the "unlawful act" charge. So even if the misdemeanor violation can be found without any intent or based on simple or even gross negligence, the manslaughter charge still requires a finding of "willful disregard." In addition, although not in the jury instruction, there is clear case law stating that "the defendant must possess subjective knowledge 'of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions.'" The defense will note that this is required, and if the prosecution says otherwise to the jury and that is objected to, the objection would very likely be sustained (or create likely reversal on appeal if overruled, particularly if the prosecution mis-states the law in closing and the objection is preserved).
So in an odd way Baldwin being an idiot can work in his favor. It is not enough for him to have been an idiot. He must have had subjective knowledge. Still hard to see a conviction here when it is 100% undisputed that there is never supposed to be live ammunition on set. So how could he have subjective knowledge of a risk of shooting someone with a live round? It is not enough to show he should have been more careful--it must be shown--directly or through circumstantial evidence--that he knew of a risk of a live round in the chamber and proceeded anyway. Despite the absolute s***show on set, there actually isn't any evidence he had reason to believe there were live rounds on the set. Even the negligent discharges of blanks don't support an inference of knowledge of live ammo on set.
Frankly the probable cause conclusion reads much more like a civil negligence complaint than a manslaughter charge (from pages 11-12):
This is all tragic, but at the end of the day, especially with how this case gets tried, I think the DA has a serious uphill battle. Keep in mind that "the defendant is an arrogant jerk and an idiot" works sometimes, but usually not to send someone to prison for a felony. Also keep in mind that eventually the evidence will show Baldwin had no power to hire or fire or supervise props people or the armorer on set.
As to the talking heads in the meantime, I would listen carefully as to whether they are actually describing the right legal standard and what a jury will be told. Reasonable minds can differ, and a lot can happen before trial. But a lot of the talking heads are stopping at the text of the statute and treating this like a negligence case. It's not.
Actual criminal information (charge) here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23593079-alec-baldwin-criminal-information
So nuts and bolts, the criminal information charges, in the alternative, two violations of the involuntary manslaughter statute. One violation in the commission of an unlawful act (negligent use of a deadly weapon) and the other in commission of a lawful act. This is consistent with what has been reported everywhere--nothing new there.
What is not well reported (and the DA has failed to mention for reasons only she can give) is it is not enough for the prosecution to prove negligence, a simple violation of the firearm use statute, or lack of "due caution and circumspection" to convict. Frankly the cases are much more specific and nuanced than the text of the statute. To get a conviction the prosecution will have to prove that Baldwin "acted with willful disregard" for the safety of others. The jury instruction (UJI 14-231) and case law are quite specific and there is no exception for the "unlawful act" charge. So even if the misdemeanor violation can be found without any intent or based on simple or even gross negligence, the manslaughter charge still requires a finding of "willful disregard." In addition, although not in the jury instruction, there is clear case law stating that "the defendant must possess subjective knowledge 'of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions.'" The defense will note that this is required, and if the prosecution says otherwise to the jury and that is objected to, the objection would very likely be sustained (or create likely reversal on appeal if overruled, particularly if the prosecution mis-states the law in closing and the objection is preserved).
So in an odd way Baldwin being an idiot can work in his favor. It is not enough for him to have been an idiot. He must have had subjective knowledge. Still hard to see a conviction here when it is 100% undisputed that there is never supposed to be live ammunition on set. So how could he have subjective knowledge of a risk of shooting someone with a live round? It is not enough to show he should have been more careful--it must be shown--directly or through circumstantial evidence--that he knew of a risk of a live round in the chamber and proceeded anyway. Despite the absolute s***show on set, there actually isn't any evidence he had reason to believe there were live rounds on the set. Even the negligent discharges of blanks don't support an inference of knowledge of live ammo on set.
Frankly the probable cause conclusion reads much more like a civil negligence complaint than a manslaughter charge (from pages 11-12):
- "BALDWIN's deviation from known standards, practice and protocol directly caused the fatal death of HUTCHINS. By not receiving the required training on firearms, not checking the firearm with the armorer, letting the armorer leave the firearm in the church without being present, deviating from the practice of only accepting the firearm from the armorer, not dealing 'with the safety complaints on set and/or making sure safety meetings were held, putting his finger on the trigger of a real firearm when a replica or rubber gun should have been used, pointing the firearm at HUTCHINS and SOUZA, and the overall handling of the firearm in a negligent manner, BALDWIN acted with willful disregard for the safety of others and in a. 'manner which endangered other people, specifically HUTCHENS and SOUZA. BALDWIN clearly should have known the danger of his actions which led to the death of HUTCHINS."
This is all tragic, but at the end of the day, especially with how this case gets tried, I think the DA has a serious uphill battle. Keep in mind that "the defendant is an arrogant jerk and an idiot" works sometimes, but usually not to send someone to prison for a felony. Also keep in mind that eventually the evidence will show Baldwin had no power to hire or fire or supervise props people or the armorer on set.
As to the talking heads in the meantime, I would listen carefully as to whether they are actually describing the right legal standard and what a jury will be told. Reasonable minds can differ, and a lot can happen before trial. But a lot of the talking heads are stopping at the text of the statute and treating this like a negligence case. It's not.
I will also add that the fact the gun broke during FBI testing is a very lucky break for Baldwin. Now his defense team can say they have no way to test the gun because the government took the key piece of evidence and broke it.
Is a professional armorer on set considered a learned intermediary?
Are there any details about this?
Re alleged damage to the pistol by FBI, from the report.
"Hammer at full cock position
With the hammer in the full cock position, Item 2 [Baldwin pistol] could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional. During this testing, portions of the trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. The fracture of these internal components allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin and detonated the primer. This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms."
www.documentcloud.org/documents/22138100-alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-fbi-and-medical-examiner-reports-aug-2022#document/p1
At p. 6.
Basically they broke it while hitting the cocked hammer to see if it would create an accidental discharge. And it discharged when they broke the trigger sear. Defense will say there is no way to test it now.
"Hammer at full cock position
With the hammer in the full cock position, Item 2 [Baldwin pistol] could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional. During this testing, portions of the trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. The fracture of these internal components allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin and detonated the primer. This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms."
www.documentcloud.org/documents/22138100-alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-fbi-and-medical-examiner-reports-aug-2022#document/p1
At p. 6.
Basically they broke it while hitting the cocked hammer to see if it would create an accidental discharge. And it discharged when they broke the trigger sear. Defense will say there is no way to test it now.
So Baldwin's experts never got a chance to look at, or test the evidence in its original state.
You know. I'd presume.
You know. I'd presume.
Dead body is still evidence that I think will be a major consideration...
All I have to add is ....Arek Bardwin... the greatest actor of arr time.
I blame Team America.
When discussing work place safety and OSHA, if I was the manager of a manufacturing facility and allowed an employee to bypass a safety device on a piece of equipment that subsequently allowed an employee to become entangled and killed, I would be responsible.
There are numerous examples in the PC statement showing multiple safety infractions that were not addressed/corrected on set. If it was just Baldwin the actor, then it may be defensible, but since he was both the actor and producer I think they have demonstrated negligence
There are numerous examples in the PC statement showing multiple safety infractions that were not addressed/corrected on set. If it was just Baldwin the actor, then it may be defensible, but since he was both the actor and producer I think they have demonstrated negligence
Although specifically pled as a separate charge, the hiring of the very inexperienced armorer could also be negligent hiring. Akin to putting a truck driver who just popped hot on a drug test on the road.Quote:
There are numerous examples in the PC statement showing multiple safety infractions that were not addressed/corrected on set. If it was just Baldwin the actor, then it may be defensible, but since he was both the actor and producer I think they have demonstrated negligence.
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/alec-baldwin/alec-baldwin-demands-to-disqualify-special-prosecutor-calling-her-status-as-gop-lawmaker-unconstitutional/
The crux of the motion attacks special prosecutor Andrea Reeb's election as a state lawmaker, on the GOP ticket.
Baldwin claims that this flatly violates New Mexico's constitution, which he claims prohibits mixing the two branches of government.
"Under Section 1 of Article III of the New Mexico Constitution, however, a sitting member of the Legislature may not 'exercise any powers properly belonging' to either the executive or judicial branch," Baldwin's attorney Luke Nikas writes in a motion to disqualify. "As a special prosecutor, Representative Reeb is vested by statute with 'all the powers and duties' of a District Attorney, who is considered to be a member of either the judicial or executive branch of the New Mexico government."
The crux of the motion attacks special prosecutor Andrea Reeb's election as a state lawmaker, on the GOP ticket.
Baldwin claims that this flatly violates New Mexico's constitution, which he claims prohibits mixing the two branches of government.
"Under Section 1 of Article III of the New Mexico Constitution, however, a sitting member of the Legislature may not 'exercise any powers properly belonging' to either the executive or judicial branch," Baldwin's attorney Luke Nikas writes in a motion to disqualify. "As a special prosecutor, Representative Reeb is vested by statute with 'all the powers and duties' of a District Attorney, who is considered to be a member of either the judicial or executive branch of the New Mexico government."
Prosecution's argument may be that Baldwin willfully disregarded safety of others by failing to attend firearms safety meetings and/or pay attention when he was there. He may have been an ignorant idiot, but he was a willfully ignorant idiot.
As to subjective knowledge, he was told to attend the safety meetings because guns on set are inherently dangerous. If they weren't dangerous, there would be no meeting.
So in summation, Baldwin was given subjective knowledge of the danger when he was told to attend the safety briefings covering safe handling of weapons on set. He willfully disregarded the safety of others by not attending those meetings and eschewing the knowledge on how to safely handle firearms on set, yet still handling those firearms. You can't refuse knowledge and then plead ignorance.
As to subjective knowledge, he was told to attend the safety meetings because guns on set are inherently dangerous. If they weren't dangerous, there would be no meeting.
So in summation, Baldwin was given subjective knowledge of the danger when he was told to attend the safety briefings covering safe handling of weapons on set. He willfully disregarded the safety of others by not attending those meetings and eschewing the knowledge on how to safely handle firearms on set, yet still handling those firearms. You can't refuse knowledge and then plead ignorance.
If this is true, holy hell.
It doesn't work like that, Alec.
It doesn't work like that, Alec.
— Ben Owen🇺🇸 (@hrkbenowen) February 8, 2023
annie88 said:
If this is true, holy hell.
It doesn't work like that, Alec.— Ben Owen🇺🇸 (@hrkbenowen) February 8, 2023
This makes me hope she throws the book at him. Smug bassturd.
I posted an article in this thread yesterday that goes into the details if you're interested. It makes more sense than it sounds.
Agree. Not knowing all the ins and outs of NM constitution, the article explained for a novice why this may be an issue that has to be addressed.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
lethalninja said:
I posted an article in this thread yesterday that goes into the details if you're interested. It makes more sense than it sounds.
interesting....I'll give it a read.
Wait, what? I'm confused.
LINK
Quote:
Alec Baldwin is being sued by the family of Halyna Hutchins after the cinematographer died on the set of "Rust."
Hutchins was killed on Oct. 21, 2021, after a gun Baldwin was holding fired on the New Mexico movie set.
Attorney Gloria Allred filed a lawsuit alleging battery, loss of consortium, infliction of emotional distress and more on behalf of Hutchins' mother, sister and father, Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Allred further claimed that Hutchins was financially responsible for her family and had plans to bring them with her to live in America.
Quote:
The lawsuit names Baldwin, producers of "Rust" and other defendants the lawyer argued are responsible for the death of Hutchins.
Allred told reporters that Baldwin had not reached out to the family and offered an apology since the fatal shooting on Oct. 21, 2021.
This is yucky, even by Allred's low standards.Quote:
Photos of Hutchins along with her mother, father, sister and son were shown during the press conference. Her mother and sister made an appearance via video, where they gave a statement for the first time. The video was translated from Russian to English.
"We are the sister and the mother of Halyna Hutchins. To lose my sister, at least personally for me, was a horrible experience," Hutchins' sister Svetlana Zemko said. "And it is one of the biggest losses of my life. And even more devastating is to see the utter suffering of our parents and how their health has sharply declined. "It is for this reason that I would like those who are at fault, for somebody to carry that responsibility. And not just someone, but that very someone who is truly responsible for this. I believe to let this go and to leave this unpunished is unallowable."
LINK
Should they not sue Baldwin?
Difference between civil negligence and criminal recklessness. Andrew Branca talks about this a lot and how it's easy to get them mixed up.
If Baldwin had just shut up and not arrogantly, given those police, interviews or media interviews, they may never have had enough to charge him. But he was borderline bragging in the police interview about how much he knew about guns and how experienced he was with guns. He also said he didn't check the gun because he didn't want to "embarrass" the armorer. That's all on top of him skipping safety meetings and basically blowing off the firearms training.
If Baldwin had just shut up and not arrogantly, given those police, interviews or media interviews, they may never have had enough to charge him. But he was borderline bragging in the police interview about how much he knew about guns and how experienced he was with guns. He also said he didn't check the gun because he didn't want to "embarrass" the armorer. That's all on top of him skipping safety meetings and basically blowing off the firearms training.
I don't think it's yucky, although I'm not a big fan of hers. Seems like a reasonable suit.
I was under the impression that he had already settled with the family.
I was under the impression that he had already settled with the family.
I think with her husband and children. These are her parents and extended family back in Russia.Not a Bot said:
I don't think it's yucky, although I'm not a big fan of hers. Seems like a reasonable suit.
I was under the impression that he had already settled with the family.
nmNot a Bot said:
I don't think it's yucky, although I'm not a big fan of hers. Seems like a reasonable suit.
I was under the impression that he had already settled with the family.
Ahhh ok. That makes a difference.
https://lawandcrime.com/objections-podcast/why-alec-baldwin-may-be-facing-way-less-jail-time-than-you-think/
"The five-year mandatory for use of a firearm in involuntary manslaughter did not become New Mexico law until 2022, which is important because this happened in 2021," former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner noted on the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld."
The U.S. Constitution's ex post facto clause forbids retroactively punishing people for crimes that did not exist at the time of the offense, Epner noted.
Though New Mexico's firearm enhancement predates the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of "Rust" in October 2021, the version of it charged against Baldwin was enacted the year after the incident.
For Baldwin, the change may be a critical one because the earlier iteration, in effect between July 1, 2020, and May 17, 2022, punished "brandishing" a weapon defined in the statute as "displaying or making a firearm known to another person while the firearm is present on the person of the offending party with intent to intimidate or injure a person."
"That's the exact opposite of what was going on here," Epner said in the interview. "Everybody thought that this was acting, nobody thought that Alec Baldwin was actually trying to make somebody afraid for their life."
The broader version of the enhancement has only been in effect since May 18, 2022, and applies to the "Use, brandishing or discharge of firearm."
"So I don't think that that penalty is likely to be imposed," said Epner, referring to the 5-year enhancement. "The 18-month default thing is very real, though, and 18 months in jail is a substantial penalty for any human being."
"The five-year mandatory for use of a firearm in involuntary manslaughter did not become New Mexico law until 2022, which is important because this happened in 2021," former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner noted on the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld."
The U.S. Constitution's ex post facto clause forbids retroactively punishing people for crimes that did not exist at the time of the offense, Epner noted.
Though New Mexico's firearm enhancement predates the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of "Rust" in October 2021, the version of it charged against Baldwin was enacted the year after the incident.
For Baldwin, the change may be a critical one because the earlier iteration, in effect between July 1, 2020, and May 17, 2022, punished "brandishing" a weapon defined in the statute as "displaying or making a firearm known to another person while the firearm is present on the person of the offending party with intent to intimidate or injure a person."
"That's the exact opposite of what was going on here," Epner said in the interview. "Everybody thought that this was acting, nobody thought that Alec Baldwin was actually trying to make somebody afraid for their life."
The broader version of the enhancement has only been in effect since May 18, 2022, and applies to the "Use, brandishing or discharge of firearm."
"So I don't think that that penalty is likely to be imposed," said Epner, referring to the 5-year enhancement. "The 18-month default thing is very real, though, and 18 months in jail is a substantial penalty for any human being."
Quote:
The Santa Fe District Attorney on Monday announced it dropped the gun enhancement charge against Alec Baldwin.
LINKQuote:
"If any one of these three people Alec Baldwin, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed or David Halls had done their job, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today. It's that simple," Andrea Reeb, the special prosecutor appointed by the DA to the case, said in a statement, according to Fox News. "The evidence clearly shows a pattern of criminal disregard for safety on the 'Rust' film set. In New Mexico, there is no room for film sets that don't take our state's commitment to gun safety and public safety seriously."
The gun enhancement charge would have carried a five-year prison sentence.
Baldwin is still facing the involuntary manslaughter charge which carries an 18-month prison sentence if convicted.
ABC News
They're correct though. That whole ex post facto thing.
I was surprised he was charged at all. Didn't realize the gun enhancement was a newly passed law, though. Enhancements like that are very, very common.TexasRebel said:
They're correct though. That whole ex post facto thing.
Prosecutorial amateur hour bringing that enhancement in the first place. They are way, way out of their depth. Stocking up on my popcorn . . . .
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/alec-baldwin/rust-armorer-can-keep-gun-in-home-pending-trial-after-persuading-judge-she-needs-it-for-self-defense/
"Rust" armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed can keep a gun in her home pending trial, after her lawyer persuaded a New Mexico judge that she needs it for self-defense after the government released her private information.
Lasting less than 10 minutes, Reed's hearing did not involve any plea, only the setting of Reed's conditions of release. Her attorney Jason Bowles requested the "least restrictive" conditions allowing her maintain employment.
"We are also requesting your honor an exclusion to the normal standard condition that she be allowed to possess a firearm in her home only," Bowles said.
He said that the reason for that request is that authorities failed to properly redact Reed's personal information, leading to "numerous threats."
"She had voicemails that were very, very bad," the lawyer continued, adding that she had to obtain a restraining order against one "stalker."
On Thursday, Baldwin waived his appearance in court, obviating the need for a hearing. Judge Sommer issued an order setting his conditions of release, which will restrict him from having firearms or consuming alcohol. He can maintain contact with potential witnesses only in connection with completing the "Rust" movie and "unrelated business matters."
Baldwin may not, however, "discuss the accident at issue, or the substance of his or the witnesses' potential testimony in this case," the order reads.
"Rust" armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed can keep a gun in her home pending trial, after her lawyer persuaded a New Mexico judge that she needs it for self-defense after the government released her private information.
Lasting less than 10 minutes, Reed's hearing did not involve any plea, only the setting of Reed's conditions of release. Her attorney Jason Bowles requested the "least restrictive" conditions allowing her maintain employment.
"We are also requesting your honor an exclusion to the normal standard condition that she be allowed to possess a firearm in her home only," Bowles said.
He said that the reason for that request is that authorities failed to properly redact Reed's personal information, leading to "numerous threats."
"She had voicemails that were very, very bad," the lawyer continued, adding that she had to obtain a restraining order against one "stalker."
On Thursday, Baldwin waived his appearance in court, obviating the need for a hearing. Judge Sommer issued an order setting his conditions of release, which will restrict him from having firearms or consuming alcohol. He can maintain contact with potential witnesses only in connection with completing the "Rust" movie and "unrelated business matters."
Baldwin may not, however, "discuss the accident at issue, or the substance of his or the witnesses' potential testimony in this case," the order reads.
Featured Stories
See All
8:52
1h ago
965
In-Home Visit: Peach State pipeline brings 'explosive' Upshaw to Aggieland
by TexAgs Recruiting
2:49
1h ago
732
Development plan led Jaden Upshaw to his Aggie commitment
by Jason Howell
12:39
5h ago
3.3k
Isaiah Horton letting his actions speak this spring
by Billy Liucci
Studious Anto Saka learning from A&M's pass-rushing past
by Olin Buchanan
Sdcable
2027 Leesburg (GA) Lee County WR Jaden Upshaw commits to Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
50