It’s kind of ironic, in that the prosecutor who was basically saying ‘it doesn’t matter how the bullets got there, Baldwin was holding the smoking gun’ is now faced with ‘it doesn’t matter how the evidence didn’t get there, it’s your bag.’
The larger question concerning this is not if the evidence is eventually admitted or not.
The evidence absolutely must be turned over the the defense to they can start looking more into potential defenses. Maybe a particular piece of evidence can’t be admitted, but it can lead to more information which would be useful.
The problem is that we don’t know. The prosecution misconduct was so egregious, the only solution dismissing the case with prejudice.
It’s too bad, because I believe that Baldwin was reckless, and was looking forward to having a jury examine all the evidence.
I expected an investigation of Kari Morrissey and possible sanction by the American Bar Association. Instead, it’s business as usual.
I thought Hannah’s gun charge was dismissed?
Apparently not. Geez, a Felony for carrying a gun into a bar? A lot of people conceal carry and could forget to leave it in their car trunk.
Legal Eagle has their video on it, by their “resident prosecutor.”
Also pinging @RivkahChaya because of her thread asking for the factual info.
Thanks! that was really interesting, and answered some of the questions I had about the case.
So, according to the prosecutor who stepped down, apparently, the rules about never putting your finger on the trigger or pointing the gun at someone do still apply on a movie set.
I’m sure that wouldn’t apply in every single situation, but it does make sense to have that rule as the basic rule, and only have certain exceptions when absolutely necessary.
I also note that I’ve seen a YouTube video where Mila Kunis (I believe it was) was taught how to do gun stuff, and part of the training involved learning to point the gun in a way that it looked like it was pointing at someone, but really wasn’t.
That makes sense, too: avoid pointing it at anyone if you can cheat the angle.
That was a really interesting video. Thanks for that.
There are no such rules. Those are basic gun safety guidelines, which film and TV ignore, just like they ignore traffic safety guidelines. . The prosecutor is a moron.
He’d probably also tell you that you’re not allowed to punch somebody in the face at a hockey game, and yet…
You can also build a giant fake hand holding a giant fake gun, if you want to point it directly at Ingrid Bergman, and have the hand, gun, and actress in focus. The gun can look like a revolver, but doesn’t need to have any moving parts, nor a hollow barrel, and since it’s several feet high, it won’t be mistaken for a real gun.
I’d link to the scene where Hitchcock did this in Spellbound, but aside from the spoiler effect, I don’t know if people want links to gun scenes here, even fake ones.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals has granted a motion allowing the First Judicial District Court to rule on former Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed’s request for a new trial…
The Court of Appeals’ order issued Thursday grants Gutierrez-Reed’s unopposed motion asking the District Court to rule on her request for a new trial, despite her appeal. According to her motion, a court can only grant a request for a new trial, based on newly discovered evidence, “on remand of the case” if an appeal is pending. The appeals court’s order grants “limited remand.”
Prosecutor is confident she’s right and everyone else is wrong.
This link includes the The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruling.
I’m not surprised. This case was handled badly since the beginning.
Kari Morrissey seems so clueless. She can’t look back and see her own mistakes? Criticizing the Judge is not going to help.
Good find. Hard to argue with this:
My recommendation is this: that no guns should ever be allowed. Nothing real that can fire anything. It should all be fake from here on to eternity. And there should still be armorers even because it’s fake, because they’re still not safe unless there’s an armorer.
But maybe I’m just biased.
I disagree. I am not saying allow real guns that can fire real ammo, but guns that can only shoot blanks are still needed. But yes, they are still dangerous.
And if the people on the Rust set didn’t follow the rule about no live ammo, why would they follow the rule about no real guns?
I think the solution is not gun safety related, but reporting and over site related.
You cant fix stupid.
By your logic, then, we shouldn’t even have any rules at all.
Except that’s not how (good) systems are designed. The fact that some layers of protection fail is evidence that more layers of protection may be appropriate, or less. The only (viable) counter-argument against that is one of cost-benefit.
Prosecutor wants another bite of the apple. (I almost said “another shot,” but the rather obvious implication sank in in time.)