Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #8

[aafromaa]

DBM - question already answered

 

[aafromaa]

I am beginning to wonder if the press release by Mr. Hutchins’ lawyer about pursuing justice is indicating they will consider an appeal of the criminal charge dismissal to a higher court.

jmo

Wouldn’t such an appeal have to come from the state in an attempt to be able to retry the case? I don’t see that happening.

I suspect the comment from the Hutchins attorney about pursing justice was more directed at civil action rather than criminal.

 

[aafromaa]

I don't know if you have experience in LE, but this is not the usual sequence of events when something is turned over to LE. An example would be someone finds money buried in a backyard and years ago and a convicted bank robber was arrested out of that house. When that call is dispatched or someone shows up at LE's location, a case number is generated, a basic report of found property (or some other title) is issued and it's documented and put into evidence.
Someone would never send it out for forensics without these first steps.
The report/opinion of the witness in this case, does not allow for the ammo being placed into evidence under the death investigation case number. Whoever initially received it and put it into evidence would not have been able to instantly determine if it was relevant and would not have even had the ability to computer access/add information to an ongoing homicide investigation. Police reports can be cross referenced to other case numbers.
I'm not commenting on the misconduct in the trial, just want to clarify that the separate case number use for the surrendered ammo, in my experience, is correct and not suspicious. I'm sure the defense is also aware and knows how to see the date of the issuance of the case number. MOO

That makes perfect sense to me. But what doesn’t make sense is that if it is SOP for a separate case number to be assigned, why did KM say in her testimony that she had no idea it would be assigned a different case number? Would she not know SOP?

I think KM went into CMA mode and then like a bull in a china cabinet she did more damage trying to get out of the mess she created and then backed herself into a corner and even perjured herself on the stand.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Wouldn’t such an appeal have to come from the state in an attempt to be able to retry the case? I don’t see that happening.

I suspect the comment from the Hutchins attorney about pursing justice was more directed at civil action rather than criminal.

Agree. I was considering that the HH family might push the state to appeal the criminal dismissal, as the attorney was slightly ambiguous in his statement where he says they will continue to seek justice and work to present evidence to a jury. Most likely he meant in a civil action; however, Hutchins’ husband and son already settled a wrongful death suit against Baldwin and the film’s producers.

Halyna Hutchins’ Family Files New Suit Against Alec Baldwin Over ‘Rust’ Shooting

The suit was filed by Hutchins' parents and sister. Her widower and son have settled a separate suit against the actor and producer.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[ch_13]

I don't know if you have experience in LE, but this is not the usual sequence of events when something is turned over to LE. An example would be someone finds money buried in a backyard and years ago and a convicted bank robber was arrested out of that house. When that call is dispatched or someone shows up at LE's location, a case number is generated, a basic report of found property (or some other title) is issued and it's documented and put into evidence.
Someone would never send it out for forensics without these first steps.
The report/opinion of the witness in this case, does not allow for the ammo being placed into evidence under the death investigation case number. Whoever initially received it and put it into evidence would not have been able to instantly determine if it was relevant and would not have even had the ability to computer access/add information to an ongoing homicide investigation. Police reports can be cross referenced to other case numbers.
I'm not commenting on the misconduct in the trial, just want to clarify that the separate case number use for the surrendered ammo, in my experience, is correct and not suspicious. I'm sure the defense is also aware and knows how to see the date of the issuance of the case number. MOO

I can't say I agree with this analogy. This isn't a case where the relationship of the ammo to the Rust shooting was in question, like in your example of the found money.

Both Hancock and Morrissey had previously had conversations with Troy Teske. They knew exactly who he was. They also knew all about this cache of ammo that he was holding onto. When he walked into the precinct, he explicitly told them that this was a part of Rust. According to Morrissey, she even considered having the local authorities pick it from Teske and send it to Santa Fe. The only reason she didn't do that was because she didn't think the ammo matched the live rounds from the Rust set. (Erroneously, as we know now.) Presumably, if she had known the rounds were the same, she would have had the ammo brought in to be examined. So, how can they now claim that they didn't know if the ammo was part of the Rust case? Of course they knew it was.

And just pick up on something you said: "Police reports can be cross referenced to other case numbers."
So why wasn't this done? Emily D. Baker mentioned that with case management systems, there's always a way to link different cases. So for example, if two murders have the same M.O. they may get different case numbers, but they're linked so the cops can see if there's any relationships between them. Cross-indexing is the whole point of using computer systems. So, even if this ammo was given a separate case number, why wasn't it linked to Rust when the cops were literally told that this was a part of Rust? There's no legitimate reason for there not to be. Unless they wanted to bury the evidence.

 

[mickey2942]

I sincerely hope that AB is thankful that the judge dismissed the case. And that he does not go out on a tour of talk shows, crowing about his triumph. Halyna Hutchins is still dead, and he did, in fact kill her.

 

[jbc]

I can't say I agree with this analogy. This isn't a case where the relationship of the ammo to the Rust shooting was in question, like in your example of the found money.

....Unless they wanted to bury the evidence.

Why, why, why would they want to bury this evidence?
It doesn't seem (to me) to cut in any direction relative to HGR or AB.
Either way, HGR was negligent and AB pulled the trigger using the gun in a cavalier manner, no matter what was loaded and who sourced it.
Why wasn't the ammo origin a separate case, if it shed light on who may have introduced it to the set?
AB was tried as the negligent actor, and not the negligent producer, right? (I see the argument that if the ammo came onto the set via a malevolent actor, then the producer cannot be held accountable)
BTW, doesn't the AZ ammo circle back to Seth Kinney?

 

[ch_13]

Why, why, why would they want to bury this evidence?
It doesn't seem (to me) to cut in any direction relative to HGR or AB.
Either way, HGR was negligent and AB pulled the trigger using the gun in a cavalier manner, no matter what was loaded and who sourced it.

It's a good question and I don't really have an answer for it. I made some suggestions earlier in this post: Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #8

I don't think it would have hurt the prosecution much, if at all. In fact Morrissey did a good job of rebutting the accusation when the ammo was brought up on Thursday. Although at that time they were still claiming that the ammo didn't match what was on the Rust set. We only found that out that was incorrect on Friday.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone has overreached and committed wrongdoing when they didn't need to.

Why wasn't the ammo origin a separate case, if it shed light on who may have introduced it to the set?
AB was tried as the negligent actor, and not the negligent producer, right? (I see the argument that if the ammo came onto the set via a malevolent actor, then the producer cannot be held accountable)
BTW, doesn't the AZ ammo circle back to Seth Kinney?

As for the ammo origin...it may be a separate case, but they still have to let AB's defense know about it. They aren't allowed to hide it by giving it a different case number. (And I fully believe this was done on purpose, having listened to the less than honest answers from Hancock in particular.)

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

why did KM say in her testimony that she had no idea it would be assigned a different case number? Would she not know SOP?

I don't think she would have put much thought to it. The 911 system automatically generates a number every time someone calls 911. If an officer has a walk in, the walk in is told to call 911 or the officer asks 911/radio for an on-view case number for a walk in report.
I don't think most prosecutors think about the why or when LE uses the dispatched number or decides to write something as a follow-up or supplemental report using the death investigation case number or that a closed case in the system doesn't even allow this. Prosecutors are used to all of their reports/evidence used at trial having the same case number.

What I find disturbing is that LE didn't have these bullets tested, dismissed them as being irrelevant, and/or failed to disclose them to the defense at some point.

As I said, I was only pointing out that in all likelihood, no one made a decision to use a different case number to mislead or hide anything. I can see how the ammo, which has nothing to do with whether or not Baldwin was reckless, would be ignored by LE in preparation for the trial. Wrong and due diligence was not done and the judge was fair to dismiss the charges. It can be argued that this should have never gone to trial, but not because of the ammo issue. I'm sure the victim's family won't see it this way, but a valuable reminder to do the right thing, has been brought to the attention of prosecutors and LE all over this country. Better it happened in this case than a first-degree murder case. MOO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
I see prior comments that I disagree with, the case number in question, used for the ammo, which is really the only issue I addressed, was not for the purpose of hiding the existence of the report or the ammo. It was correct, in my experience, for the report of the ammo brought into the Sheriff's office, to not be filed as a follow-up report to the death investigation. It may not have even been possible in the report writing system.
Follow up, discovery and lack of disclosure at trial is a different subject. MOO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

When he walked into the precinct, he explicitly told them that this was a part of Rust.

His opinion that the ammo was "part of the Rust case" does not warrant or require writing the report as a follow-up or supplemental report to the death investigation. That just isn't how it works when citizens make claims that haven't been verified and turn in what they think is usable evidence.

So, even if this ammo was given a separate case number, why wasn't it linked to Rust when the cops were literally told that this was a part of Rust? There's no legitimate reason for there not to be. Unless they wanted to bury the evidence.

MOO I don't know the answer to that but it's not uncommon to not link cases if they don't play a part in the original investigation. This ammo was not going to be used after the fact, to prove that anyone had access to this box of ammo. When you say "evidence", do you mean the ammo itself, or that a report existed that should have been disclosed regardless of its content? Perhaps a mistake that should have been simply acknowledged and the consequences accepted.

 

[katykat]

His opinion that the ammo was "part of the Rust case" does not warrant or require writing the report as a follow-up or supplemental report to the death investigation. That just isn't how it works when citizens make claims that haven't been verified and turn in what they think is usable evidence.

MOO I don't know the answer to that but it's not uncommon to not link cases if they don't play a part in the original investigation. This ammo was not going to be used after the fact, to prove that anyone had access to this box of ammo. When you say "evidence", do you mean the ammo itself, or that a report existed that should have been disclosed regardless of its content? Perhaps a mistake that should have been simply acknowledged and the consequences accepted.

Aside from the fact that there was good reason to place stock in the evidence because it was delivered by Troy Teske (someone familiar to Hancock and who had been on phone calls or otherwise referenced in communications with Seth Kenny), it's worth noting that the prosecutor even implciitly acknowledged - eventually - that it should have been assigned the same case number. She simply claimed to not know that was procedure.

 

[ch_13]

His opinion that the ammo was "part of the Rust case" does not warrant or require writing the report as a follow-up or supplemental report to the death investigation. That just isn't how it works when citizens make claims that haven't been verified and turn in what they think is usable evidence.

MOO I don't know the answer to that but it's not uncommon to not link cases if they don't play a part in the original investigation. This ammo was not going to be used after the fact, to prove that anyone had access to this box of ammo. When you say "evidence", do you mean the ammo itself, or that a report existed that should have been disclosed regardless of its content? Perhaps a mistake that should have been simply acknowledged and the consequences accepted.

With all due respect, it's extremely deceptive for you to only quote one part of my post, changing the context of what I wrote and not even bother to acknowledge that you snipped it.

Here's what you quoted:

When he walked into the precinct, he explicitly told them that this was a part of Rust.

Then you only replied to that one sentence on its own and ignored the rest of the paragraph, which was completely relevant.

Here's the entirety of the paragraph.

Both Hancock and Morrissey had previously had conversations with Troy Teske. They knew exactly who he was. They also knew all about this cache of ammo that he was holding onto. When he walked into the precinct, he explicitly told them that this was a part of Rust. According to Morrissey, she even considered having the local authorities pick it from Teske and send it to Santa Fe. The only reason she didn't do that was because she didn't think the ammo matched the live rounds from the Rust set. (Erroneously, as we know now.) Presumably, if she had known the rounds were the same, she would have had the ammo brought in to be examined. So, how can they now claim that they didn't know if the ammo was part of the Rust case? Of course they knew it was.

You know very well that changes the whole context of what I wrote. As I note in my post, it wasn't just a "citizen claim" as you said. They were discussing a store of ammo that they knew existed for years.

And, at 6:38:03, here's Hancock admitting that Morrissey was involved in the discussions to assign the ammo a separate case number. So, do you really believe that the police called the special prosecutor on the Rust case and asked her what to do about the ammo, that they thought had nothing to do with Rust?

 

[katykat]

Um no the state was never worried that the Teske evidence would hurt their case. The proof of that is that Bowels had it and never used it. Teske was at court ready to testify and Bowels didn’t call him. The origination of the live bullets on set was a MAJOR factor in HGR’s defense so the fact that Bowels didn’t use it says a lot about the materiality of this so called evidence. JMO

I don't think that constitutes proof at all.

For starters the source of this claim is Morrissey, someone who has absolutely no credibility at all. She already lied once under oath when asked about the reasons for her co-counsel's resignation.

She was spinning every web possible to justify her unilateral classification of what was evidence and what wasn't. There could well be other technical/admissibility factors involved in why the defence did what they did. And if you go back and watch Spiro's cross examination of Seth Kenny it's basically the best defence HGR ever received and she's not even his client! The bombshell revelations about what was in the Teske box and its resemblance to Rust rounds would have dramatically changed the complexion of Hannah's case IMO.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Aside from the fact that there was good reason to place stock in the evidence because it was delivered by Troy Teske (someone familiar to Hancock and who had been on phone calls or otherwise referenced in communications with Seth Kenny), it's worth noting that the prosecutor even implciitly acknowledged - eventually - that it should have been assigned the same case number. She simply claimed to not know that was procedure.

I disagree, the issue of who brought the ammo to LE gives it no weight as evidence of anything, it just cannot work that way. It has to be examined. LE cannot enter things as being evidence in a death investigation just because of who brought in the ammo, which was not recovered by LE, not at the scene, not secured for years, not even yet examined. It would not be on a follow report with the same case number, it would be on a separate case number issued on the date it was turned in.
The prosecutor is not LE, and has no say in whether or not a report should be a follow-up or new event. They messed up discovery, nothing more nefarious than that happened. MOO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

With all due respect, it's extremely deceptive for you to only quote one part of my post, changing the context of what I wrote and not even bother to acknowledge that you snipped it.

Here's what you quoted:

Then you only replied to that one sentence on its own and ignored the rest of the paragraph, which was completely relevant.

Here's the entirety of the paragraph.

You know very well that changes the whole context of what I wrote. As I note in my post, it wasn't just a "citizen claim" as you said. They were discussing a store of ammo that they knew existed for years.

And, at 6:38:03, here's Hancock admitting that Morrissey was involved in the discussions to assign the ammo a separate case number. So, do you really believe that the police called the special prosecutor on the Rust case and asked her what to do about the ammo, that they thought had nothing to do with Rust?

I really didn't mean to change anything or be deceptive, or to offend. All of the content does not change my opinion, it is still a citizen claiming or thinking the ammo is evidence of something which does not mean or require that LE to accept that at face value. My opinion again, years after the death or not, it is normal and correct for this ammo to be on a separate case report. Never did I say any shenanigans of withholding anything from the defense was okay. MOO

 

[IDK]

I disagree, the issue of who brought the ammo to LE gives it no weight as evidence of anything, it just cannot work that way. It has to be examined. LE cannot enter things as being evidence in a death investigation just because of who brought in the ammo, which was not recovered by LE, not at the scene, not secured for years, not even yet examined. It would not be on a follow report with the same case number, it would be on a separate case number issued on the date it was turned in.
The prosecutor is not LE, and has no say in whether or not a report should be a follow-up or new event. They messed up discovery, nothing more nefarious than that happened. MOO

IMO, messing up discovery is pretty nefarious ! Unless one believes they were actually that blatantly incompetent?

 

[windrower]

that is the MOST sad part of this....does not matter where the live rounds came from.

I feel like it matters. That’s where the whole tragedy started, isn’t it?

Why wouldn’t LE, etc., try to determine how the live rounds got on the set AND got mixed in with the armorer’s materials AND ended up loaded into a prop gun?

How could the determination be made that this was an unintentional death without knowing who brought the live rounds on the set?

Because whomever brought the live rounds may have wanted “someone” to be hurt or killed, if not HH in particular.

(My apologies if this has been discussed before, as I did skip parts of threads to catch up.)

 

[ch_13]

I was rewatching Friday’s hearing, and I noticed something.

Earlier the judge had said that she just wanted to read Poppell’s report on what Teske brought in, she didn’t need to see the actual ammo. Then she apparently notices something in the report and her whole demeanor changes. She suddenly now wants to see the evidence, and conducts the inquiry herself, donning gloves and sorting through the ammo.

I think she read through the inventory of what Teske turned in and saw that some of the bullets were Starline brass with silver primer. These are the exact rounds that were used on Rust and were tested by the FBI.

I believe that’s when the judge realized that Poppell was not being truthful. This wasn’t regular ammo that you can pick up from your local gun store. These bullets were made by Joe Swanson specifically for use on movie sets. Almost certainly the only time Poppell would have seen them before would be on the Rust investigation, so it’s just not credible that she inventoried them, yet couldn’t recall what Teske had turned in and didn’t think it was tied to Rust.

You can watch it here at 1:07:30.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Aside from the fact that there was good reason to place stock in the evidence because it was delivered by Troy Teske (someone familiar to Hancock and who had been on phone calls or otherwise referenced in communications with Seth Kenny), it's worth noting that the prosecutor even implciitly acknowledged - eventually - that it should have been assigned the same case number. She simply claimed to not know that was procedure.

It's very possible the prosecutor did not know LE's SOP re: the case numbers. But at the very end of Hancock's testimony, the judge asked one more question, almost as an afterthought, which was if Morrissey was included in the discussions of what to do with the ammunition, and Hancock said yes. She was aware. For me, that was jaw dropping. That ended it right there. Judge asked the right question, finally.
MOO.