First case involving Halyna Hutchins's death goes to trial .

[44 AMP]

for the reasons she died which was not that Baldwin pulled the trigger, he had to. It's how the live round found it's way to that Pietta SAA clone.

I am going to dispute this, slightly...

The live round getting into the gun is the primary contributing factor. And, if it had been absent then no one would have been shot, this is true.

But the live round was what did the work, not the reason she died. She died because Baldwin shot her.

This was not a case of an actor pointing a gun and "firing" it at a cast member because the script called for it. This was Baldwin screwing around, pointing a gun at a crewmember (NOT an actor on the set) cocking the gun and whether he remembers doing it or not, he must have pulled the trigger.

OF course he thought the gun was harmless, he had been told so, but he just assumed it was because he was told it was and he KNEW proper procedure had not been followed.

Much has been said about how actors aren't expected to be firearms experts, and not required to be. But what they are expected to be is experts at their own jobs, and I've been watching Baldwin use guns in the movies for over 30 years.

He HAD to have known that the proper protocols had not been followed, and he didn't care. He got what he wanted, when he wanted, he was the boss and following the rules wasn't done if it got in the way of what he wanted and wanted "right now!". And "everything was fine" until his cinematographer got shot...

Its not the actor's "job" to point guns and pretend to shoot the crew members. It is part of the actor's job to witness the gun to be used being loaded, so that they know it IS loaded, and what it is loaded with. Baldwin did neither.

[HiBC]

Well said!

[mehavey]

Can anyone point out/follow the trail of
- Who physically loaded the gun;
- When it was loaded;
- Where it was kept after it was loaded;
- How it wound up in the Ass't Dir's hands when he gave it to Baldwin?

I've heard too many versions.

[MZ5]

Nope, and for me, that's what makes this something juries decide. It's hard to follow; hard to figure out. So, you argue it the best you can and let a group of 12 decide what happened.

[Metal god]

- Who physically loaded the gun;
- When it was loaded;
- Where it was kept after it was loaded;
- How it wound up in the Ass't Dir's hands when he gave it to Baldwin?

Hanna loaded the gun , there was testimony Hanna specifically pointed out which box of dummy rounds she loaded the gun from . That box of dummy rounds contained at least one live round still in the box when investigators examined it after the shooting. That was a big moment in the trial for me .

Hanna handed that loaded gun to the AD outside the church and told him it was cold . I don’t recall if she loaded it in front of the AD or brought it to him already loaded . There was no dispute who loaded the gun .

The AD brought the gun into the church and handed it to the actor ( Baldwin) and told him it was a cold gun .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Hanna loaded the gun , there was testimony Hanna specifically pointed out which box of dummy rounds she loaded the gun from . That box of dummy rounds contained at least one live round still in the box when investigators examined it after the shooting. That was a big moment in the trial for me .

Hanna handed that loaded gun to the AD outside the church and told him it was cold . I don’t recall if she loaded it in front of the AD or brought it to him already loaded . There was no dispute who loaded the gun .

The AD brought the gun into the church and handed it to the actor ( Baldwin) and told him it was a cold gun .

Assuming all that is true and correct, I would say that Hannah and Halls should be considered equally guilty -- and possibly Halls more so that Gutierrez. The First Assistant Director is supposed to be THE top guy for safety on the set. Halls had been in the industry for 30 years. He knew that the protocol is for the armorer to load any firearm in front of the 1AD, physically shaking each round so they can BOTH hear the BB rattle inside. So even if Gutierrez loaded the gun, Halls should not have accepted it from her without insisting on verifying that the dummies were in fact dummies. And he certainly should not have handed the gun to anyone else, OR called out "cold gun," without having performed that safety check.

Not only that -- they weren't filming. They were blocking out the scene. Which means there was no need to have dummy rounds in the chambers at all. Blocking out the scene could -- and should -- have been done using a rubber replica revolver but, even if Baldwin had insisted on having the real thing because reasons ... there was still no reason to have anything in the chambers, and the industry guidelines seem to say that there should not have been anything in the chambers.

[Metal god]

Likely why he took the deal and testified against Hanna

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Likely why he took the deal and testified against Hanna

Of course. And I'm sure that's why Sarah Zachry cut an immunity deal and agreed to testify against Gutierrez.

All in all, I think I agree with Gutierrez's lawyer's statement from his closing argument. Basically, he said the fix was in. They had a dead woman and they needed someone to be the scapegoat. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was the chosen sacrificial lamb. Everybody else lined up to pin all the blame on her. I didn't believe much of anything Seth Kenny said. Sarah Zachry was his employee and, whether or not he told her to do it, she tampered with evidence and discarded rounds from the gun (or from the prop cart -- I can't keep all the stories straight and I'm not sure it matters -- she tampered with evidence) and was allowed to walk away, as free as a bird.

And that beast of a productions person -- Pickles, I think her name was -- testifying that production suggested she initiate a sign-out/sign-in system for the firearms, and the prosecution portraying that as "help." Let's think about the logistics of that for a moment. There were reportedly thirty firearms on the set. The only way a sign-out/sign-in system makes any sense at all is if you track each firearm by at least make, type, and serial number. I think a realistic estimate of how long it would take to retrieve a gun from a safe, check it's serial number, and have an actor sign for it would probably average at least a minute for each gun but to be generous, assume it could be done in half that. That's fifteen minutes at the start of each day's action, another fifteen minutes to log them all back in at lunch break, yet another fifteen minutes to hand them out after lunch, and yet another fifteen minutes at the end of each day. That's a full hour, and if it takes a minute per gun times fur transactions per day it's TWO hours per day. This was a budget production being run on a shoestring budget -- there]s no way Baldwin and the other producers would have allowed one to two hours per day to be chewed up by distributing guns and checking them back in by serial number.

And that time estimate doesn't even touch on trying to keep track of ammunition.

There were reports early on that Gutierrez initially thought she wasn't experienced enough to take this job. Sadly, it appears that she was correct. She should not have taken the job.

[5whiskey]

They had a dead woman and they needed someone to be the scapegoat. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was the chosen sacrificial lamb.

This is essentially my take on it. There are targets that are at least equally, if not more, culpable in this episode... but Guitierrez is the 24 year old low hanging fruit. I see her conviction also severely impeding any conviction of Baldwin, who will show up with a serious legal team that continually reminds the jury that Guitierrez was been found to be responsible for this young lady's death by a jury. Not saying its sure to work, but I think it's sure to help.

[stagpanther]

I see her conviction also severely impeding any conviction of Baldwin

I bet not--as JohnKsa said you need to seperate the two things.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

I bet not--as JohnKsa said you need to seperate the two things.

Fine in theory, but when Baldwin is on trial you can bet the defense will not allow the jury to separate the two things.

[Metal god]

I don’t see how you can separate the two in the filming context. Yes I know we should but it is the armorer’s responsibility to give the actor a safe gun .

Also some say Baldwin was trying to blame Ms Hutchins by saying , she was telling me where to hold the gun for the camera to capture it correctly. I see his point , if where the gun needs to be held for the camera is a specific place and that results in a unsafe pointing of the firearm . Then the crew needs to move not the actor . How do you know if it will be unsafe ? Running that blocking test . That test not only determines where the actors will be, but where the crew and equipment needs to be as well . That’s another reason why the replica should’ve been used during the test

Civil liability yes for sure but criminal I don’t know . Baldwin at least had a reason to believe the gun was cold , the armorer not so much . To be clear, I’m not looking at this as a firearms enthusiast that knows what Alec Baldwin did was totally wrong . I’m looking at this as a random person of a jury . I can totally see random people from the public finding him not criminally liable due to the armorer, putting a live round in the gun and telling him it was safe .

The separation is the difference between civil liable and criminally liable and that’s something the lawyers will make sure the jury understands are separate

[Ricklin]

Baldwin. He is the man that is responsible.
Not only did he shoot the woman for no reason whatsoever, he created the environment in which many long time industry pros walked off the job over safety issues. He hired one part time inexperienced armorer, when he was advised a minimum of two were needed based on 30 guns on set.
Cheap has consequences. As does complacency with firearms. Those two factors combined caused the death of Halyna.
Greed, it is a terrible thing.

[stagpanther]

Why the gun went off--for whatever reason--it has already been established that Guiterrez is responsible for the live round getting in the gun. I think it's going to be a waste of time to argue "yeah, but only if Baldwin had done this or that while holding the gun it wouldn't have mattered." They might, though, so I think it will be at least mentioned.

I think the prosecutor made it clear the door was still open for some kind of contributory negligence on Baldwin's part. She does not strike me as having any kind of favorable disposition towards Baldwin--and while I suspect she'll have to bring her A+ game to have any hope against what will likely be a formidable defense; I see the issue of over-all safe management of the production aspect for Baldwin as making him vulnerable. Connecting the dots such that it proves Guiterrez is not solely responsible for the live ammo discharging might be hard--but I think the case for contributory negligence is certainly a possibility.

[Metal god]

Do we know if the same prosecutor will be prosecuting Baldwin? You would think so since she is intimately familiar with this case But who knows . If it’s a different prosecutor, I would think that would be an indication that the fix is in to acquit Baldwin .

[stagpanther]

Do we know if the same prosecutor will be prosecuting Baldwin?

Good question. I don't know for certain. I do not think there is any kind of "fix."

[JohnKSa]

Fine in theory, but when Baldwin is on trial you can bet the defense will not allow the jury to separate the two things.

They most certainly will separate them.

One issue is the responsibility/culpability of the production company/owner (Baldwin will be in this mix somehow) for the situation on the set. Underqualified armorer, lax safety practices, ignoring previous incidents, possibly browbeating a young armorer, etc. This will probably be a civil case, but it might be treated as a criminal situation, I don't know.

A separate issue is the culpability of the actor (Baldwin) holding the gun when the incident occurred.

Assuming Baldwin (the actor) is prosecuted, that will be a different trial from Baldwin (the production company/owner) just as the armorer had a separate trial.

There's always more than enough blame to go around even after it's all split up fairly. So it's possible that Baldwin (the actor) might be convicted, but I do think it's true that finding the armorer was negligent weakens the case against Baldwin (the actor).

[44 AMP]

I see her conviction also severely impeding any conviction of Baldwin, who will show up with a serious legal team that continually reminds the jury that Guitierrez was been found to be responsible for this young lady's death by a jury.

I'm sure they will try that tactic, but it may not work, because one of the things about the law and courts is the way "legal hairs" get split. DID the jury find Reed guilty of causing the death of Hutchins?? OR did they find her guilty of the negligence that led to the conditions that resulted in her death?

That small matter of language can be a big deal in court.

[JohnKSa]

Involuntary manslaughter is the crime.

From a legal website:

Involuntary manslaughter (New Mexico) is the unintentional killing of a person while committing a misdemeanor criminal offense. Involuntary manslaughter can also occur if a person is engaging in a lawful act but unintentionally kills someone by being negligent or not exercising due care.

And another legal website:

Two types of killings may qualify as involuntary manslaughter (New Mexico): killing someone while committing a misdemeanor and killing someone through criminal negligence.


...

Criminal negligence is conduct that is reckless, wanton, or willful—another phrase that requires explanation. You are criminally negligent if you ignore or disregard obvious risks of harm to the life or safety of others. If your criminal negligence kills someone, you can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

You need not have anticipated killing someone. It is enough that your behavior showed sufficient disregard for the safety of others.

[HiBC]

A car wreck can occur while one person is playing with their phone and another is trying to eat a cheeseburger while driving.

Both were distracted. Often if either was paying attention the accident may have been avoided.

I don't notice much argument claiming Hannah is guilt free and the jury found her guilty.

There is nothing about her verdict that clears Baldwin of his negligence.

He needs to (if found guilty) be held accountable.

[Metal god]

I had a thought , maybe Hanna testifies against Baldwin to get a lesser sentence consideration

[44 AMP]

I don't see that going anywhere. What can she testify to?? That she was negligent allowing (at least one) live round to go into the gun, her conviction makes that a matter of record now.

She didn't hand the gun to Baldwin, she wasn't on the set at the time of the shooting, so she can't testify to any of that.

IF she tried to offer her testimony I think it would be turned down, as unnecessary. But the legal system has surprised me before, so I suppose they might accept the deal.

[Metal god]

She can testify Of the toxic environment, and how she was unable to do her job Correctly by being refused additional help and or Baldwin and the production company, cutting corners, etc. Don’t know if it’d be credible it was just a thought

I’m assuming the state is saving the camera crew that walked off and other employees of the production To testify in Baldwin’s case . Although I did watch a video of Andrew Branca going over the states witness list for the Baldwin case and a very closely mirrored this cases list . Not sure if they are saving some as a surprise just before trial or what .

On a side note, do we know if there has been any preliminary hearings in the Baldwin case and if they are video or audio taped?

[44 AMP]

Not sure if they are saving some as a surprise just before trial or what .

As I understand it, per court procedure, neither side is allowed to "surprise" the other. But what they can do (and often do, do) is keep things from the press and the public so when it shows up in court it is a surprise to us.

[5whiskey]

As I understand it, per court procedure, neither side is allowed to "surprise" the other.

That would be correct... generally. Not calling a witness, or removing one from the witness list, is generally OK. Adding new witnesses at the last moment as an intentional surprise is frowned upon, and could well be denied. If the witness is not intended as a surprise, but is intended to clean up a specific matter of evidence or law that arose during trial prep, it well may be allowed. Or maybe not, depending on if the defense consents or if the judge allows it (absent consent). A lot of this hinges on counsels reputation and professional relationship with the judge. And judges tend to be a tad more lenient with defense (especially when adding witnesses last minute, maybe less so for other trial issues).

There's always more than enough blame to go around even after it's all split up fairly. So it's possible that Baldwin (the actor) might be convicted, but I do think it's true that finding the armorer was negligent weakens the case against Baldwin (the actor).

For sure it's possible that Baldwin is convicted as both can have contributed criminal negligence. As you say, and my point was, Guitierrez's conviction is public... and you best bet Baldwins defense team is going to try and infer that her conviction absolves Baldwin to the jury. There are steps that prosecution can take to mitigate this, but I would be shocked if his defense didn't lean heavy on this tactic. A tactic that may well prove effective.


Then again, I completely called it wrong on Guitierrez's trial. I thought there was no way she would be convicted without a rock solid chain of custody for the gun from the time she loaded it until the time it was fired, with multiple witnesses ensuring it wasn't tampered with. Although a chain of custody seemed to be established, I don't think the defense made much hay about the possibility that someone else COULD HAVE tampered with it.