The NY Times did an excellent job researching this case. I learned a lot about the difficult conditions on a rushed production.
The political pressures behind the case are clearly explained. That won’t matter at trial.
I wasn’t sure either, but I assume we’ll find out more if anything becomes of it. However, now that other sites have started running articles on it, we can get a bit more insight. I think what they’re saying is that in Baldwin’s case, Baldwin’s lawyers are arguing that these marks prove the gun was altered, allowing it to discharge without the trigger being pulled, before it was handed over to Alec.
The person who originally wrote the report saying that Hanna must have made those marks has changed their mind and now feels the FBI made them. He changed his mind when he found out they were testing it, not with any kind of precision equipment or tools, but by hitting it with a mallet in an uncontrolled way.
In the third report, he wrote that the unexplained markings did “not appear to be original manufacturing marks” or the result of the damage incurred by the FBI.
Haag said that at the time he wrote the report, he thought the mallet testing was conducted with a precision apparatus. He later learned, before Gutierrez-Reed’s trial, the the mallet testing was conducted “freehand,” so the angled markings made sense, he claimed.
The problem I see is that only one of them can use this report to help them. If the gun was altered before it was given to Alec, Hannah will have a difficult time proving it wasn’t her fault. If Hannah can prove the FBI altered it, Alec can’t use the marks as a defense.
At this point I think New Mexico has made such a mess of this there can be no determination that Baldwin should be tried much less convicted if there was any justified prosecution to begin with. At the moment I have switched my position from “let the justice system work” to “justice cannot be done now”, which means further pursuit of prosecution is unfair and unjust.
Jury selection is scheduled for July 9.
I think they brushed over the assistant director who actually gave him the gun.
Is it a fact the the FBI damaged the gun?
Ziegler said he used the rawhide mallet to strike the gun, while the hammer was pulled back, from several directions. The tests were intended to determine whether bumping or jostling the weapon would result in a discharge. He said he was trying to simulate scenarios for the gun to go off — without the handler pulling the trigger.
During that test, he broke several components of the gun. The fractured parts included the tip of the trigger, the sear and the hammer.
Now, I see that the Courts have refused to dismiss the case based upon that fact (?) but do they doubt that the FBI damaged the gun?
Prosecutors said it was “unfortunate” the gun broke, but it wasn’t destroyed and the parts are still available. They say Baldwin’s attorneys still have the ability to defend their client and question the evidence against him.
Judge rules Alec Baldwin’s role as co-producer not relevant in fatal set shooting of cinematographer
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer ruled that evidence won’t be allowed at trial about Baldwin’s secondary role on the movie, siding with defense attorneys.
“I’m having real difficulty with the state’s position that they want to show that as a producer he didn’t follow guidelines and therefore as an actor Mr. Baldwin did all of these things wrong that resulted in the death of Ms. Hutchins because as a producer he allowed these things to happen,” Marlowe Sommer said. “I’m denying evidence of his status as a producer.”
https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-trial-rust-shooting-movie-7111ebd9d360a261eade601b5e4ec297
I think this makes it more doubtful he will be convicted.
If his role as a producer proves he was negligent, why isn’t the judge allowing it? Or is she siding with the “He’s a producer, but monitoring gun safety wasn’t one of his responsibilities” side. I’m fine with the latter, I just not sure if that’s what she’s saying.
Unrelated to that, ISTM a good way to see how much his role as a producer plays into all of this would be to ask if he’d be under the same amount of scrutiny if he wasn’t the shooter (and/or a celebrity). Would the state be going after him, as a producer, if everything was the same, but someone else was holding the gun?
Have any of the other producers been charged?
No. I believe the only ones charged have handled the gun: the armorer, the assistant director (who said “cold gun”) and the shooter Baldwin.
But suppose it was another actor who had killed Halynah–and thus no one who had any production/management responsibilities at all. And he said: 1. There wasn’t supposed to be any live ammunition on the set. 2. The armorer checked all guns/ammunition. 3. the assistant director checked this particular gun. 4. Industry standards say it is not the responsibility of the actor to recheck after all these checks have been done. I don’t see any way he would be convicted.
I think the judge ruled that the actions of the co-producer did not contribute to the alleged involuntary manslaughter and thus are not relevant to the case.
If the co-producer and actor were two different people, then presumably the co-producer’s actions wouldn’t be relevant to the actor’s case. Additionally is it likely the co-producer would also be charged with involuntary manslaughter? If so, wouldn’t all of the producers be charged?
It seems to only matter if both Baldwin’s actions as co-producer and actor are necessary to establish involuntary manslaughter.
IANAL and this is a WAG.
Reminder that OSHA already determined for themselves that Baldwin wasn’t that kind of producer. He was a producer in the context of casting and script changes, not running the set.
The prosecution’s response to OSHA’s findings was that “OSHA isn’t relevant” when it comes to legal matters.
Looks like the judge feels the same way that OSHA did.
IIRC, the prosecution long ago dropped the variant of the manslaughter charge premised directly on Baldwin’s responsibility as producer (since it turns out he didn’t have much). I believe the prosecution was seeking to introduce evidence related to his producer role even so as part of a more tortured and indirect path related to the remaining charge, which is at least in theory related t solely to his role as the person holding the gun that killed someone.
Something like “The fact that he was a producer suggests he had or should have had greater awareness of the safety problems on set, including safety problems involving firearms. Therefore, he either knew or should have know, in his role as an actor with the additional awareness of the big picture a producer would or should have, that there was a higher than normal risk to using firearms in this production.”
It is perhaps minimally relevant to the question of his negligence or recklessness as an actor. But I suspect the judge determined the evidence should be deemed inadmissible regardless (in spite of the fact that the default is that relevant evidence should be admissible) on the basis that it would be unfairly prejudicial (and could potentially lead the jury to punish him implicitly for his actions as a producer, even if the prosecution fails to meet its burden regarding his culpability as an actor) or else confuses the issue (such that the jury might think that there is a theory of liability related to his role as producer, when in fact there is not).
FWIW, I do think he is morally more culpable in light of his role as producer (even if it was only a title that allowed him to take in a larger share of the profits on a production that seems to have cut a lot of corners, resulting in death). Which is all the more reason why I think the judge was right to exclude evidence of his role as a producer (since that’s not actually what he’s being charged for).
Thanks for the explanation and clarification.
It seems like considering both his roles as actor and co-producer could be confusing to the jury – with the line of reasoning hopping from one role to the other.
I’m not saying that is a reason to exclude his role as co-producer; just that it would complicate the deliberations.
I think that if his actions as an actor don’t rise to the level of involuntary manslaughter, then nudging it across the line with his actions as co-producer is problematic.
The trial has started:
Prosecutor says Alec Baldwin ‘violated the cardinal rules of firearm safety’ in openings at trial
Streaming of the trial at a lot of places:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alec+baldwin+trial&sp=EgJAAQ%253D%253D
Not that again. 
So do chase scenes and fight scenes and everything else in any action film.
The prosecutor’s opening, from the CNN article:
He pointed the gun at another human being, cocked the hammer and pulled that trigger, in reckless disregard…
For the prosecution’s sake, I hope they aren’t just hanging their argument on whether he actually pulled the trigger.
It seems like that is their point- “Never point a gun at anyone” and “he did and pulled the trigger”. Obviously you can’t have a film gun fight and follow that rule.
Basic gun safety rules are important- but they are not law, nor regulation. The question should be- “did Baldwin ignore film gun safety regulations?” And i am not sure he did- but that would be a definite point if they can prove he did ignore such film safety regs.
I’m seriously beginning to question whether the prosecution actually cares about winning this trial. Defense Exhibit 1 being 4,575,914 clips of unsafe firearm shit that happens in movies.
Defense opening statement: “According to acceptable practice on a movie set, if someone in authority (like an AD charged with set safety) hands you a weapon and says “cold gun”, you, as an actor and NOT a firearms expert, are are perfectly within your rights to assume it’s a cold fucking gun. It’s not our fault the DA let the primary guilty party here skate on a sweetheart plea deal - maybe you should ask them why they did that.”
This case absolutely infuriates me.
What absolutely infuriates me is how we are, it would seem, supposed to accept that whatever the movie industry says is safe, is safe.
Personally, I look forward to seeing how the trial plays out. It’s not a slam dunk by any means, but I don’t think the prosecution is being nearly so vindictive as others apparently do.
To me, using real guns on a movie set seems about as appropriate in this day and age as the practice of using trip wires to cause horses to fall mid-gallop as if they’ve been shot for a battle scene.
Ignoring the movie aspect of this… It is illegal to point a gun at someone, even if you don’t pull the trigger. At least in my state it’s a misdemeanor to “intentionally point a firearm at or toward another”.