Attorneys for Alec Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez, have successfully challenged the 5 year mandatory sentence firearm enhancement to their charges.

The challenge was based on the statute for the enhancement not being in place at the time of the shooting. The DA agreed to drop the enhancement.

That limits the potential sentence for involuntary manslaughter to 18 months, plus a $5,000 fine.

https://news.yahoo.com/sneaking-preside ... 24280.html

Special prosecutor Andrea Reeb in Alec Baldwin 'Rust' case to step down

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/s ... -step-down

Baldwin's lawyer argued that Reeb could not simultaneously serve as the special prosecutor and as a member of the New Mexico House of Representatives in court documents obtained by Fox News Digital.

Dave Halls has been sentenced for his role in the accidental Rust shooting. He plead no contest to a misdemeanor charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon.

He will have 6 months unsupervised probation, a $500 fine, 24 hours community service, a mandatory firearms safety course, and a requirement to testify on behalf of the state. Also no contact with any other Rust defendents or witnesses.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/rust-assistan ... d=98268586

Charges against Baldwin are, reportedly, dropped.

Prosecutors plan to dismiss charges against Alec Baldwin in ‘Rust’ shooting, Baldwin’s attorney tells CNN

Prosecutors in the “Rust” fatal shooting case plan to file a notice to dismiss involuntary manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin, his attorney, Luke Nikas, tells CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/entertai ... index.html


A tragic incident but not one that, it seems, Mr. Baldwin will be not held criminally responsible for.

In a statement Thursday night, Morrissey and Lewis said "new facts were revealed that demand further investigation and forensic analysis in the case."

"Consequently, we cannot proceed under the current time constraints and on the facts and evidence turned over by law enforcement in its existing form. We therefore will be dismissing the involuntary manslaughter charges against Mr. Baldwin to conduct further investigation," they said. "This decision does not absolve Mr. Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled. Our follow-up investigation will remain active and ongoing."

The special prosecutors said the charges against Gutierrez-Reed "remain unchanged." A status conference is scheduled for Friday.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/charges-dropp ... d=98734243

Avatar2go wrote:

Attorneys for Alec Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez, have successfully challenged the 5 year mandatory sentence firearm enhancement to their charges.

The challenge was based on the statute for the enhancement not being in place at the time of the shooting. The DA agreed to drop the enhancement.

That limits the potential sentence for involuntary manslaughter to 18 months, plus a $5,000 fine.

https://news.yahoo.com/sneaking-preside ... 24280.html

I'm just reading about this and the "enhancement" would have been ridiculous considering the context. Baldwin wasn't committing some kind of crime or using the gun to commit a crime or anything like that, he wasn't being stupid with a known live gun either.

Aesma wrote:

I'm just reading about this and the "enhancement" would have been ridiculous considering the context. Baldwin wasn't committing some kind of crime or using the gun to commit a crime or anything like that, he wasn't being stupid with a known live gun either.

Yes, the case has been significantly weakened in the last month or so. First the enhancement was dropped, then the original prosecutors had to step down due to conflicts of interest.

Now the new special prosecutors have been informed that the trigger was modified on the gun, which the sheriff apparently missed, even after a year of investigation. It's just a lot of missteps.

The armorer's attorneys are pushing to have her charges dropped as well. The special prosecutors might have to oblige, if for no other reason than to reset the case and start over.

Avatar2go wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I'm just reading about this and the "enhancement" would have been ridiculous considering the context. Baldwin wasn't committing some kind of crime or using the gun to commit a crime or anything like that, he wasn't being stupid with a known live gun either.

Yes, the case has been significantly weakened in the last month or so. First the enhancement was dropped, then the original prosecutors had to step down due to conflicts of interest.

Now the new special prosecutors have been informed that the trigger was modified on the gun, which the sheriff apparently missed, even after a year of investigation. It's just a lot of missteps.

The armorer's attorneys are pushing to have her charges dropped as well. The special prosecutors might have to oblige, if for no other reason than to reset the case and start over.

How can the armorer's charges be dropped? Who cares if the trigger was modified? The number one issue is that there was a real bullet inside the gun. Any modification of the trigger or other defect in the gun have nothing to do with the fact that a live bullet was in a gun where it wasn't supposed to be.

victrola wrote:

How can the armorer's charges be dropped? Who cares if the trigger was modified? The number one issue is that there was a real bullet inside the gun. Any modification of the trigger or other defect in the gun have nothing to do with the fact that a live bullet was in a gun where it wasn't supposed to be.

Agreed. The issue is that the sheriff was unable to determine where the live found came from, or how it got into the gun. Given that the chain of custody was almost non-existent, it could have happened after the armorer loaded and checked the gun. That is what her attorneys claim, and it can't be proven either way.

The other issue is the elevation to criminal charges, which is not normally the case for a death that is ruled accidental. There are no similar cases on record, that don't have some clear evidence of culpability. All these things together, make the case weak overall.

The only people who could have detected the live round with certain custody, were Halls and Baldwin himself. Halls has admitted his fault & plead guilty to mishandling a firearm, which is a misdemeanor. Baldwin claims it was not his responsibility to check the gun. He is backed by the actors union, who see it as a dangerous precedent if actors are held accountable for things they are asked to do in making films.

The truth is that the blame lies with the lax safety protocols on set. If things were done properly, none of this would have happened. And even if it did, the events would have been clearly traceable.

This incident follows the basic principle that many things have to go wrong for an accident to occur, and that distribution makes it difficult to apply criminal charges to any one individual or entity. Juries are reluctant to make someone a scapegoat for problems that existed in their employment.

This is why civil litigation is the preferable route for accidents, over criminal. It only needs to be shown that the events actually occurred, and they contributed to the accident. The "why and how" are not relevant for compensatory damages, and only arise in the context of punitive damages. And most cases settle out of court anyway. That's not an option for a criminal case.

Slain ‘Rust’ Cinematographer’s Family Plans to Sue Alec Baldwin

Now that prosecutors have dropped their criminal charges against Alec Baldwin, Halyna Hutchins’ parents and sister are planning a civil lawsuit.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/slain-rus ... ec-baldwin

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Slain ‘Rust’ Cinematographer’s Family Plans to Sue Alec Baldwin

Now that prosecutors have dropped their criminal charges against Alec Baldwin, Halyna Hutchins’ parents and sister are planning a civil lawsuit.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/slain-rus ... ec-baldwin

Actually they announced this shortly after Baldwin settled with the husband, Matthew Hutchins, last year. They were unhappy with that settlement and decided to pursue their own case. It has surfaced in the news again with the dropping of the charges.

Baldwin did not oppose the case with the husband and son. But he does oppose the case with the parents and sister. If they do sue, I'd imagine it will settle rather than go to trial.

Avatar2go wrote:

He is backed by the actors union, who see it as a dangerous precedent if actors are held accountable for things they are asked to do in making films.

…

Juries are reluctant to make someone a scapegoat for problems that existed in their employment.

I could buy this line of defense - except for the fact that Baldwin was a producer for the film. In his actor role he may have been innocent but in his producer role he had at least some responsibility for safety protocols on the set and was at least in part the employer. But I’m not a lawyer and will leave the legal intricacies to those who are.

QF7 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

He is backed by the actors union, who see it as a dangerous precedent if actors are held accountable for things they are asked to do in making films.

…

Juries are reluctant to make someone a scapegoat for problems that existed in their employment.

I could buy this line of defense - except for the fact that Baldwin was a producer for the film. In his actor role he may have been innocent but in his producer role he had at least some responsibility for safety protocols on the set and was at least in part the employer. But I’m not a lawyer and will leave the legal intricacies to those who are.

Criminal negligence has a much higher standard to meet than civil, even for producers. There has been zero evidence produced so far that indicates criminal negligence.

georgewall42 wrote:

There has been zero evidence produced so far that indicates criminal negligence.

There WAS criminal negligence; we just don't know from who. Whoever snuck the live rounds onto the set could have no legitimate reason to bring them there. It wasn't for shits and giggles, to use an old term.

QF7 wrote:

I could buy this line of defense - except for the fact that Baldwin was a producer for the film. In his actor role he may have been innocent but in his producer role he had at least some responsibility for safety protocols on the set and was at least in part the employer. But I’m not a lawyer and will leave the legal intricacies to those who are.

This is a valid point, especially if his producer responsibilities included supervision of the set, props, and armorer. But as it happens, he was in charge of recruiting and managing the talent (other actors).

Of course he still has some accountability, as he must have had some awareness of complaints about conditions on the set, even if it wasn't his direct responsibility.

The armorer had complained to management about being unable to schedule time with Baldwin & other actors, for firearm training. I'm sure he was aware of that as well.

I think it’s sad that Baldwin can’t get the rehabilitation he needs. His killed an innocent woman by mishandling a gun that he was basically waving around, like a clown, during a moneymaking activity. Left unaddressed, I believe Baldwin could kill again.

LCDFlight wrote:

I think it’s sad that Baldwin can’t get the rehabilitation he needs. His killed an innocent woman by mishandling a gun that he was basically waving around, like a clown, during a moneymaking activity. Left unaddressed, I believe Baldwin could kill again.

That may be a bit harsh. In fact he was de-cocking the gun, after the scene called for him to cock it. He didn't do it safely and the gun discharged, which he believed was not possible. My guess is that he is very aware of his error.

Avatar2go wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

I think it’s sad that Baldwin can’t get the rehabilitation he needs. His killed an innocent woman by mishandling a gun that he was basically waving around, like a clown, during a moneymaking activity. Left unaddressed, I believe Baldwin could kill again.

That may be a bit harsh. In fact he was de-cocking the gun, after the scene called for him to cock it. He didn't do it safely and the gun discharged, which he believed was not possible. My guess is that he is very aware of his error.

He may be "aware" of it, but he's never admitted it. Of course, there's always the matter of who brought the live rounds to the set. That investigation seems to have disappeared.

johns624 wrote:

He may be "aware" of it, but he's never admitted it. Of course, there's always the matter of who brought the live rounds to the set. That investigation seems to have disappeared.

The sheriff was unable to determine the source of the live rounds, after a year of investigation.

The armorer said she had no knowledge of live rounds and did not see them in the ammunition box where they were found, when she loaded the gun. Her implication is that the rounds were added after she handled the box. Same story for the round in the gun.

Her father suggested that the gun shop owed him some live rounds, and may have put them in the box, in order to return them to him through his daughter. But if so, she should have seen them in the box.

The gun shop said they provided no live rounds to anyone on the Rust set.

The armorer also said she was carrying rounds in her pockets, and used them to load Baldwin's gun, but didn't have enough, and retrieved more from the ammunition box.

Further although the guns were secured in a safe, the ammunition box was not. Since there is no clear chain of custody for the ammunition, it's impossible to trace it.

johns624 wrote:

He may be "aware" of it, but he's never admitted it.

Generally not good practice to go around admitting things when there's a potential criminal and civil cases against you.

vikkyvik wrote:

johns624 wrote:

He may be "aware" of it, but he's never admitted it.

Generally not good practice to go around admitting things when there's a potential criminal and civil cases against you.

Baldwin's statements on this are confusing. He said he did not pull the trigger, but that may have been in response to claims at that time, that he purposely pointed the gun and pulled the trigger, as if to fire it.

While he's correct that those were not his actions, he would have been holding the trigger back in order to de-cock the gun, as that is the required procedure for an unmodified gun with full safeties.

For that gun to accidently discharge while de-cocking, is a well known hazard. All it takes is for the hammer to impact the rest at too high velocity. It has to be done carefully. Baldwin did not apply the needed care, partly because he believed it had no live rounds.

A matching gun had already had an accidental discharge of a blank round on the set, while de-cocking, for the same reason. That incident was the basis of staff complaints about safety.

The FBI tested the gun and found that the safeties were intact, the gun could not discharge without the trigger being held back during de-cocking. However in one trial, the gun did discharge with no trigger pull, because the internal safeties broke during the test.

It has since emerged that the trigger of the gun had been previously modified. That raises the possibility that the mechanism was in a worn or inappropriate state, that might have allowed a discharge.

Nothing about this case is simple, because of lax procedures and practices that should have provided a definite audit trail, ensured the proper operation of the gun, and that an accidental discharge could not happen.

The "Rust" film has been completed and is in post-production. It's being marketed at the Cannes film festival. It does not yet have a distributor.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 92518/amp/

Charges against the armorer have not been dropped, but a preliminary hearing has been scheduled for August, to determine if sufficient evidence exists to proceed to trial. Prosecutors asked for additional time to gather and review evidence.

Among the evidence to be considered, is that the armorer had asked the prop gun vendor about using live ammunition in the weapon, on her previous film set. She wanted to shoot the weapon for herself, but was advised to never use live ammunition in a prop gun. She indicated that she wanted to try it anyway.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/21/rust-armo ... ring-date/

Prosecutors have responded to a motion to dismiss by attorneys for the armorer, by alleging there is evidence of her substance abuse in the evenings on set, prior to the shooting incident. They also said they are looking into potential evidence that the armorer herself brought the live rounds onto the set.

In another revelation, the prosecution has found at least one dummy round that did not have the audible BB rattler inside the case.

They also said the gun, its newly installed hammer, and the replaced broken sear parts are being re-examined for the possibility that the gun misfired, as alleged by Baldwin. If the conclusion is that the gun could not have misfired, charges against Baldwin will be reinstated. That decision is expected within 60 days.

It now appears that during the original testing, authorities repaired the gun after it misfired during a test. Thus at least some of the original test results that it could not have misfired, are from the repaired gun.

https://apnews.com/article/baldwin-rust ... bbc5cd8931

If the testing has basically broken the gun as it was when the accident happened, I don't see how the prosecution can prove it couldn't have misfired.

Aesma wrote:

If the testing has basically broken the gun as it was when the accident happened, I don't see how the prosecution can prove it couldn't have misfired.

Indeed - and if did misfire during testing (which apparently required the repair), then..... d'oh... isn't that reasonable grounds that could have misfired on set?

If it misfired in a test, then they repaired it so it wouldn't misfire, then declared it couldn't have misfired, someone is about to lose their job.

The question will be if the worn parts would have allowed a misfire. Since they were worn enough to break during the testing, and the gun misfired when when they broke, it's at least plausible that they allowed a misfire.

I suspect this will be difficult to establish either way, with any certainty. Even if they conclude it couldn't have misfired, the defense will still have grounds to argue the opposite. And there just needs to be reasonable doubt that it might have.

I personally think this whole focus on the gun is misguided. That particular gun is renowned for accidental discharges while disarming, which does normally require a trigger pull. It had already occurred once on the "Rust" set, with a blank round.

The real issues, in my view, are the presence of live ammunition, gun safety training, and the necessity of supervision by the armorer.

The Rust armorer has been charged with evidence tampering and transfer of narcotics, in connection with the shooting.

The prosecution alleges that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed gave a bag of cocaine to an associate on the evening of the shooting, to avoid being caught with it in the shooting investigation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ru ... -rcna91981

Avatar2go wrote:

The Rust armorer has been charged with evidence tampering and transfer of narcotics, in connection with the shooting.

The prosecution alleges that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed gave a bag of cocaine to an associate on the evening of the shooting, to avoid being caught with it in the shooting investigation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ru ... -rcna91981

She's toast. It appears that someone was trying to do her daddy a favor by hiring her.

In new developments, a forensic examination that reassembled the gun from original parts, found that it could not have misfired, and required a trigger pull. However it also acknowledged that a partial pull could have ocurred in the act of decocking.

Baldwin had claimed he did not pull the trigger while decocking the gun. So the charging decision will now be up to the prosecutors.

The report also clarifies the rounds used on the set, but was unable to determine the source of the live rounds. They were not consistent with the dummy rounds from the supplier. The dummy rounds also were of four different types.

In addition to the fatal round, five other live rounds were also found on the set. The forensic experts were also tasked with attempting to figure out the source of the live rounds. However, all they were able to conclude, according to the report, was that the rounds were dissimilar to other rounds seized from Kenney by investigators weeks after the shooting.

The report also found that there were four different kinds of dummy rounds on set. Some rattled when they were shaken, indicating that they were not capable of being fired. Others had a hole in the side, while others lacked a primer. The report found that the live rounds could be distinguished from those types of dummies, either by rattling them or by noticing the lack of a hole.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/alec ... 235697194/

Meanwhile the armorer's motion to dismiss was denied, she will face trial in December.

https://www.avclub.com/judge-declines-t ... 1850698493