Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #6

[ch_13]

I was thinking the same. But I personally would ask for full immunity if there was any chance at all that the prosecution could use something I say against me. His lawyer will counsel him and he should take his lawyer's advice.

Part of his plea deal was that he would have to testify truthfully at any subsequent trial. So I don't think he can take the Fifth. And he basically has immunity unless he lies.

But maybe he could he just say that he no longer remembers certain details. I wouldn't have thought so, but based on his recent actions as laid out in the court filings, who knows?

Here's the filing I'm referring to: https://api.realfile.rtsclients.com/PublicFiles/f176abc1e5724236a069e99a176a74d5/34fbfc43-6bb6-4b23-9a33-97a37104152e/Dec%204,%202023%20State's%20Response%20to%20Motion%20to%20Seal%20Certain%20Pleadings%20and%20Documents.pdf

 

[10ofRods]

I'm not an attorney but I'd think since he's pled out already, taking the 5th seems an unlikely out. MOO

How did he "plead out"? He has not taken a plea deal. He has entered a plea of not guilty. Nothing more has happened.

There's not yet any pleading out.

He has stated he's Not Guilty (so that lines up, to me, with not taking the stand against himself).

 

[NCWatcher]

How did he "plead out"? He has not taken a plea deal. He has entered a plea of not guilty. Nothing more has happened.

There's not yet any pleading out.

He has stated he's Not Guilty (so that lines up, to me, with not taking the stand against himself).

Ok. That wasn't my understanding of what happened.

 

[ch_13]

How did he "plead out"? He has not taken a plea deal. He has entered a plea of not guilty. Nothing more has happened.

There's not yet any pleading out.

He has stated he's Not Guilty (so that lines up, to me, with not taking the stand against himself).

The "he" in question is Dave Halls, the first AD who pled no contest to a misdemeanor back in March. Not Alec Baldwin.

At least that's who I'm referring to, and I assume @NCWatcher as well.

 

[NCWatcher]

The "he" in question is Dave Halls, the first AD who pled no contest to a misdemeanor back in March. Not Alec Baldwin.

At least that's who I'm referring to, and I assume @NCWatcher as well.

Yes, thanks. I was referring to DH, not AB. I thought that's who was being discussed in terms of being subpoenaed.

 

[Cool Cats]

Part of his plea deal was that he would have to testify truthfully at any subsequent trial. So I don't think he can take the Fifth. And he basically has immunity unless he lies.

But maybe he could he just say that he no longer remembers certain details. I wouldn't have thought so, but based on his recent actions as laid out in the court filings, who knows?

Here's the filing I'm referring to: https://api.realfile.rtsclients.com/PublicFiles/f176abc1e5724236a069e99a176a74d5/34fbfc43-6bb6-4b23-9a33-97a37104152e/Dec%204,%202023%20State's%20Response%20to%20Motion%20to%20Seal%20Certain%20Pleadings%20and%20Documents.pdf

OK. Then if he doesn't honor his plea deal he could lose it. He has to testify.

I'm surprised he was sentenced. In Ohio if your plea deal requires you to testify you don't get sentenced until after you testify.

You have to meet every requirement of your plea deal in order to get the plea sentence you agreed to. If you refused to testify then your plea deal is off the table which usually means a harsher sentence.

I don't understand NM.

2 Cents

 

[10ofRods]

The "he" in question is Dave Halls, the first AD who pled no contest to a misdemeanor back in March. Not Alec Baldwin.

At least that's who I'm referring to, and I assume @NCWatcher as well.

Ah. I was reading a series of posts about AB and didn't realize we'd switched defendants.

Gotcha.

 

[10ofRods]

OK. Then if he doesn't honor his plea deal he could lose it. He has to testify.

I'm surprised he was sentenced. In Ohio if your plea deal requires you to testify you don't get sentenced until after you testify.

You have to meet every requirement of your plea deal in order to get the plea sentence you agreed to. If you refused to testify then your plea deal is off the table which usually means a harsher sentence.

I don't understand NM.

2 Cents

I think it's pretty much the same way - although case law in NM is spectacularly complicated. IMO.

We don't know all the requirements of DH's plea deal - but I assume NM will hold him to them.

IMO.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Check out the date the text was sent: four days after the shooting which occurred on Oct 21, 2021. Here's the quote from the article:

In attempting to substantiate an alleged "history of reckless conduct," prosecutors shared a text exchange from Oct. 25, 2021, between prop master Sarah Zachry and ammunition supplier Seth Kenney.

Zachry texted Kenny that Gutierrez had allegedly blacked out the prior weekend and that "I think she was so drunk that she didn’t know she brought live ammo onto the truck when she went to get a gun from the safe," according to the filing.

The article was quite badly written and made it seem like they were talking about a prior incident. I had to re-read it a couple of times. But It seems like the prop master was just guessing that the live rounds were brought on set the day of the shooting because HGR was drunk. It's not a fact.

It's certainly possible that HGR brought the ammo onto the set, but this is just speculation between two people and I don't see how the text would be admissible.

Yes, this is all speculation and hearsay originating from someone else who had access to the guns if the account is to be believed. Any good defence to that will, I am sure, will point out that someone with access to the guns has a strong vested interest in making sure that suspicion lies squarely elsewhere!

It doesn't make much sense either; the shooting happened on a Thursday so even if she'd been blind drunk the prior weekend that was days previously yet the statement implies that she was still drunk when she took it onto the set apparently around the time she retrieved the guns. Doesn't make sense.

It also implies that HGR knew that she had live ammo at some point and that she brought it onto the set in isolation, and not inadvertently as everyone is saying it happened because they were mixed in with dummy rounds.

We also know that the ammo was made with Star-Line brass which means it was either handloaded or was from some very low volume maker who uses Star-Line branded brass in its production. Not impossible but rather unlikely.

 

[PrairieWind]

Yes, this is all speculation and hearsay originating from someone else who had access to the guns if the account is to be believed. Any good defence to that will, I am sure, will point out that someone with access to the guns has a strong vested interest in making sure that suspicion lies squarely elsewhere!

It doesn't make much sense either; the shooting happened on a Thursday so even if she'd been blind drunk the prior weekend that was days previously yet the statement implies that she was still drunk when she took it onto the set apparently around the time she retrieved the guns. Doesn't make sense.

It also implies that HGR knew that she had live ammo at some point and that she brought it onto the set in isolation, and not inadvertently as everyone is saying it happened because they were mixed in with dummy rounds.

We also know that the ammo was made with Star-Line brass which means it was either handloaded or was from some very low volume maker who uses Star-Line branded brass in its production. Not impossible but rather unlikely.

I'm kind of catching up from last night. The text referred to is not likely to be admissible, but the sender could just testify as to what she she observed and perhaps what she said in the text (the text itself is probably not admissible). What would her testimony be worth? That is difficult to say. It sort of depends on how the prosecutions going to present this and how good of job they do. From a legal standpoint, I am interested to see how they approach this. I am a bit surprised the Sherriff's office wasn't able to better track down where that ammo came from. I am still trying to think of why that is and who it hurts/benefits.
I really think the Prosecution would want/need Hall's testimony on this. His apparent reluctance to cooperate has to be really throwing a wrench in things. Is he obligated under his plea agreement? I don't know, but he has been sentenced and typically any plea agreement merges into the Judgement and Sentence so if the Judgement doesn't say anything about him cooperating..... . Now they did get him served with a subpoena, so he has to respond. That is just dumb on his part. Hard to tell what is going on there.

 

[10ofRods]

Yes, thanks. I was referring to DH, not AB. I thought that's who was being discussed in terms of being subpoenaed.

Would be nice if everyone was more specific. Use initials.

Don't assume we all know who you are talking to, because there are several different people at play - and many of us posting.

TIA

 

[NCWatcher]

Would be nice if everyone was more specific. Use initials.

Don't assume we all know who you are talking to, because there are several different people at play - and many of us posting.

TIA

I'm sorry you misunderstood who several of us were talking about. I'll try to remember to insert initials when replying to comments that say "he" or "she"" or "they." But I can't promise I will always remember!

 

[ch_13]

'Rust' Armorer Doesn’t Have to Testify at Alec Baldwin’s Trial

ET is breaking down everything that has come to light about the fatal on-set shooting on Alec Baldwin's movie, 'Rust.'

www.etonline.com

[N]early week after Baldwin waived arraignment, a judge reassignment occurred on Feb. 6. This move triggered the First Judicial District Court to cancel the Aug. 6 jury selection date, thus canceling the trial date.

 

[ch_13]

An interesting article from Variety about how things have changed in the wake of the Rust incident.

As ‘Rust’ Trial Nears, Film Armorers See a Changed Landscape

The upcoming 'Rust' trial will focus on safety standards on film sets, which have been updated since the accident.

variety.com

Specifically, California has passed a new law requiring training for armorers. An industry committee on gun safety has standardized on dummy rounds with BBs inside that rattle when shaken. And more productions are moving to CGI, to the chagrin of armorers.

 

[Marantz4250b]

An interesting article from Variety about how things have changed in the wake of the Rust incident.

As ‘Rust’ Trial Nears, Film Armorers See a Changed Landscape

The upcoming 'Rust' trial will focus on safety standards on film sets, which have been updated since the accident.

variety.com

Specifically, California has passed a new law requiring training for armorers. An industry committee on gun safety has standardized on dummy rounds with BBs inside that rattle when shaken. And more productions are moving to CGI, to the chagrin of armorers.

To add to that the article says;

There are several types of dummies. Some have a hole on the side. Some have depressed primer. Some have a BB inside and rattle when shaken. Gutierrez Reed had a mix of dummies on “Rust.” The new rule attempts to standardize the ones with the BB.

Standardising on the ones which rattle when shaken is the best choice; Ones with a hole in the side don't look real if you position them wrongly, ones with no primer don't look real at all. The ones with already depressed primers are potentially incredibly dangerous as it may be the case that it's a live round which hasn't been struck with enough force to set it off and could be set off with a subsequent impact. It's unlikely but not impossible and I've seen it happen to someone who thought it was a dummy round. Scary af!

The practice of having several versions of something (and this applies to many things not just firearms) is usually a bad idea, quite frankly.

 

[PrairieWind]

To add to that the article says;

There are several types of dummies. Some have a hole on the side. Some have depressed primer. Some have a BB inside and rattle when shaken. Gutierrez Reed had a mix of dummies on “Rust.” The new rule attempts to standardize the ones with the BB.

Standardising on the ones which rattle when shaken is the best choice; Ones with a hole in the side don't look real if you position them wrongly, ones with no primer don't look real at all. The ones with already depressed primers are potentially incredibly dangerous as it may be the case that it's a live round which hasn't been struck with enough force to set it off and could be set off with a subsequent impact. It's unlikely but not impossible and I've seen it happen to someone who thought it was a dummy round. Scary af!

The practice of having several versions of something (and this applies to many things not just firearms) is usually a bad idea, quite frankly.

I would agree. Standardize what a dummy round looks like so everyone knows what they are looking at. You would think that an armorer would want all their dummy rounds the same, regardless of what style they are.

 

[Betty P]

I would agree. Standardize what a dummy round looks like so everyone knows what they are looking at. You would think that an armorer would want all their dummy rounds the same, regardless of what style they are.

Training and certification also sounds like an excellent idea. I wonder if New Mexico will adopt the same regulations?

 

[DI_Isokawa]

Training and certification also sounds like an excellent idea. I wonder if New Mexico will adopt the same regulations?

I doubt it. One state legislator proposed a law that movie personnel who were to handle guns would have
to take the firearms safety course nonresidents have to pass to get a NM hunting license. The bill died. Very unlikely that the movie business will be inconvenienced in this state.

 

[PrairieWind]

Training and certification also sounds like an excellent idea. I wonder if New Mexico will adopt the same regulations?

As for certification, that depends on how the process works. If it is just another process for a state agency to collect some license fees, then no, it wont help. So, what licensing requirements will there be?
Who knows about NM. Given the Governor's stance on firearms, I wouldn't expect many firearm heavy movies to film there now.

 

[ch_13]

As for certification, that depends on how the process works. If it is just another process for a state agency to collect some license fees, then no, it wont help. So, what licensing requirements will there be?
Who knows about NM. Given the Governor's stance on firearms, I wouldn't expect many firearm heavy movies to film there now.

This is the best description of the legislation I can find:

California Legislates New Rules for Firearm and Production Set Safety | Insights | JD Supra

The tragic death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of "Rust" in October 2021 led studios and labor representatives to immediately commence...

www.jdsupra.com

Regarding training, it says that "the property master or armorer must have completed training on industry protocols, state and federal laws, and best safety practices." It doesn't say who would be doing the training but the article mentions the Industry-Wide Labor Management Safety Committee, and I know from other reading that they are heavily involved in these kinds of issues.

There are also several other requirements in the law, many of which seem to directly address issues with the Rust production. These two in particular stood out to me.

• [the armoror] is the only person who hands the firearm to the performer/cast/crew member during the scene, and must collect the firearm upon completion of the activity;
• such individual must not have any other responsibilities during the time the individual is preparing the use of a firearm and the firearm is in the possession of the performer, and until the firearm is no longer in use and safely locked away;