Is this it then for the Rust case.
I know Alec reached a settlement with Halyna Hutchins husband. Has anyone heard of any other Civil Suits?
David Halls served six months unsupervised probation.
Suing Hannah wouldn’t be worth it. At least she has spent time in jail for her negligence. Can she even legally own a gun after being released?
Alec has legal bills to pay. I don’t think his bankability as an actor has changed. IMDB lists 10 upcoming projects.
I’ve just been reading about this. In dismissing the case “with prejudice”, the judge stated that if the prosecution was not actually in bad faith, it was “near enough to come within scorching distance”. I don’t know if Baldwin is genuinely “an asshole” as some have alleged – I do remember that famous audio recording of him berating his daughter over the phone – but from what I can tell he definitely didn’t deserve this prosecution. It was quite touching when he and his wife hugged and cried when the judge dismissed the case. “With prejudice” effectively means that the case cannot be brought a second time.
Holy fuck.
This was such a massive screw up.
No. The guy, Troy Teske, said it was related to Rust, but not from the Rust set, as it had something to do with the prop supplier, Seth Kenny. From here:
The bullets were delivered to the Sheriff’s office on the day of the verdict in the Gutierrez-Reed. Why there weren’t turned over earlier isn’t clear.
Morrissey really blundered. She professes that she truly believes that the bullets weren’t relevant, but that’s not for her to decide. It was so stupid and the judge went to the nuclear option.
It’s too bad, but necessary. You can’t have prosecutors and police withholding evidence, especially deliberately.
The judge’s step was clearly a sanction against the prosecutor rather than any finding that Baldwin is not guilty. I completely agree with this.
The judge was referring to the circumstances of the undisclosed evidence, not the very act of bringing a case against Baldwin to begin with.
How likely is Gutierrez-Reed to get a dismissal? If the evidence was turned in after the conviction, doesn’t her attorney have to argue a broader point and use this instance as a supporting argument?
I just saw in this thread about the timing. If it came in after her conviction then it wasn’t undisclosed evidence in her trial and an appeal will have to rest on other grounds. Bringing this so-called evidence into her appeal might reveal how it was never evidence to begin with, making it doubly stupid for the police not to disclose it in the first place.
Can’t someone get a new trial if exculpatory evidence is found later? Or at least a hearing?
Do the police do any investigation as to whether the bullets turned in by this Teske person actually even have anything to do with the Rust shooting? Or would the prosecutor be expected to check into this? I guess somebody would have if the trial had continued and the defense had introduced it?
It just seems weird that the prosecution would have withheld this “evidence” that wasn’t even properly vetted. Like, nobody really seems to know how the live rounds got onto the set. I’m so confused! Not sure why the prosecution didn’t just pony it up, as it might not even be relevant, since nobody was arguing that Baldwin was the one who brought the live rounds in.
IMO the footage of Baldwin saying “hurry up, hurry up” and using prop guns as pointers shows that he was negligent. I don’t know if that rises to the level of criminally negligent. But even if there were never any live rounds on set and if the armorer and others had done their jobs correctly, Baldwin shouldn’t have been waving guns around like that.
ETA: I don’t think he did this on purpose, and I don’t think he’s going to go out in public and just start shooting. But he shouldn’t be in movies that require the use of any guns anymore.
Sure. But how are these bullets exculpatory?
They aren’t, as you said. I misread your earlier post.
Hollywood and the Screen Actors Guild need to sensibly tighten up their gun regulations. They need to do it in a way that can be copied outside of California. The underlying problem is one familiar to the film industry: studios and the union may be permanent but film productions are transient. So you can’t just trust a film production to follow all the rules. Yes, producers get a reputation. But the history of capitalism over the past 150 years or more shows that reputation isn’t sufficient to curb bad practice. Gun accidents are rare, rarer than other fatal and non-fatal accidents on the set. But they are bad PR and leave a wake of trauma.
I think there needs to be a licensure program for theatrical armorers, like there is in the UK, as well as a program for armorer interns, armorer assistants, armorer technicians, or whatever you want to call people undergoing years of training and evaluation. I get that the job isn’t that hard. It’s just something that needs to be done right.
What about onsite inspections by the state? That is probably not a good idea, since we’re discussing rare problems in struggling productions. I can imagine a program of fines levied after someone, probably associated with the union, files a formal complaint. Recall that we want reform that is lenient enough to be replicated in states outside of California.
I suspect there can be broader agreement on this than on blaming a worker who is complying with industry standards for a rare bad outcome.
Live ammo on a set, let alone a gun related injury, let alone a death, should be never events. Not just extremely rare.
I do not presume to know what the changes should be. Maybe all CGI and other technological fixes. Maybe some certification of armorers. But a root cause analysis with industry wide adoption of its findings seems called for.
This very incident is an example of reputation being insufficient. David Halls was the producer in charge of set safety. The armorer’s boss, as it were. The guy who actually handed the gun to Baldwin and declared it cold.
He was dismissed from a previous film set where he held the same role because of an accidental shooting on set. How he ever got another job in that same role boggles my mind.
And as a refresher, he copped a plea weeks after this fatal shooting for 6 months unsupervised probation.
From the wiki page for the Rust shooting:
It can happen. But I think the "new’ evidence doesnt do the armorer any favors.
My understanding is that the judge doesn’t care about whether there is probative value. The prosecution is simply not entitled to make that decision. All evidence relevant to the case must be turned over during discovery, so that both prosecution and defense can decide for themselves whether to bring it up at trial.
That’s the big issue here: the defense was not able to make a full defense without all the information. That is a huge mistake, that is considered to violate the concept of due process. Hence why it is enough to dismiss the case with prejudice, without worrying about the guilt of the defendant.
The prosecutor admitted she made a choice, deciding it wasn’t relevant. That is, as I understand it, the “willful” part. It doesn’t matter why. It could be conspiracy or mistake, but both would be willful.
Though, of course, I am not a lawyer. I’m just going by what I’ve read.
No, the article linked in this thread outlined the judges decision, and dismissal required satisfying three separate prongs: “the prosecution suppressed evidence, the evidence was favorable to the accused and the evidence was material to the defense.” The prosecution could abuse their power by withholding evidence, but that doesn’t necessarily lead to a dismissal.
The judge and at least one member of the prosecution believed it probative. That’s what led to my reaction and question. It’s been asserted several times in this thread that the evidence was irrelevant. Then why did these two see it differently?
The judge found that it was relevant for the purposes of impeachment (to attack the credibility of a witness). Which I suppose it was. So, not necessarily probative on its own (being utterly irrelevant to whether Baldwin’s conduct satisfied the elements of involuntary manslaughter), but admissible for narrow purpose of impeachment, which itself can be considered material.
I thought about that, but I seem to recall from the Hunter Biden trial that one of our attorneys said evidence that impeaches a witness’s credibility when that evidence is not otherwise relevant is generally not admitted.
This was in reference to the form Biden filled out that the gun shop subsequently altered—but the alteration had nothing to do with the “I am not a druggie” checkbox Biden checked. The judge wouldn’t allow it.
I’d have to read the rules of evidence for NM to be sure (which I don’t plan to do).
Sometimes, yes, extrinsic evidence (as it’s called) cannot be admitted if, for example, it’s not material to the case (eta: a classic example would be inquiring about whether a witness testifying for the prosecution was expelled from school for cheating on their exams: the fact that they cheated and lied can perhaps be used to impeach, but evidence of the cheating and lying likely can’t be introduced at trial: the defense just has to accept their answer, but then if they don’t answer truthfully the detective has quite possibly opened themselves up to a perjury charge). Whether these bullets were material or not, IDK (and, IIRC, the judge seemed to consider that there wasn’t enough time to be sure, what with the trial having already started and the defense not getting to consider the evidence as part of its preparation for trial).
But even if it’s not admissible itself, I do believe it can still for the basis for cross-examination. As in “Detective, you’ve previously testified that the bullets came from A, and B in fact had no bullets that resembled those used in the shooting. Correct? But then, isn’t it true, that bullets resembling those used in the shooting were found at B, and handed over to your office on April fools day, 2024?”
Got it.