The prosecution has spent a lot of time trying to convince the jury that HGR is the one that brought the live rounds to the set. I’m not sure they have succeeded in that because they haven’t convinced me. I think it is likely that she brought them but haven’t really seen proof of that. But my question is, does it really matter who brought them regarding whether or not HGR should be convicted? Isn’t the armorer still the one responsible for making sure the weapons and ammo are safe?
In no way do I believe this to be the case but for the sake of argument, let’s say that live ammo was intentionally brought to the set by someone who wanted to sabotage the film and they put them on HGR’s cart or where ever it was that she found that mysterious box of ammo that she had no idea where it came from but was so happy to have it because they needed it. Is there any plausible defense to her not individually checking each of the 6 rounds she loaded in AB’s gun? Is there any way that a live round could have been exchanged for a dummy AFTER she loaded the gun? I can only see that happening if either DH or AB INTENTIONALLY did it - there might have been opportunity for one of them to do it but I certainly don’t think they did. But again even if someone else switched it out, she still neglected to check it after lunch and would still be responsible. I don’t think there is any reasonable doubt that HGR loaded that live round in that gun regardless of where the live round came from and to me that is involuntary manslaughter under the “without due caution or circumspection” clause in New Mexico.
I know the trial isn’t over yet - but I’m not on the jury and have not taken an oath not to make up my mind before all the evidence is in - though I do reserve the right to change my mind if the defense is able to bring some evidence to the forefront that creates reasonable doubt for me - I just can’t imagine what that would be at this point.
I think you've kind of hit the nail on the head. Regardless of corner-cutting, poor working conditions, hurried schedule, overconfident actors, and so on, in the end it's the armorer's responsibility to ensure that the firearms and ammo are being handled and used safely. And she clearly failed in her duty.
Unless the defense can show someone switching out the bullets in the gun, then I don't see how she will be found not guilty.
I do have some sympathy for her because I think she was set up to fail, both by the production and by her dad. She clearly didn't have the experience, knowledge or training necessary to hold this position. At the very least she should have had a few previous stints as an assistant armorer (and I don't mean just shadowing her dad). But I don't think she ever realized her lack of competency. It's a true instance of the Dunning-Kruger effect.