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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I don’t plan to see the film. It seems ‘plot-lite’ to me, so this decision has everything to do with spending hard-earned $$ on a mediocre movie and nothing to do with the death of HH and the controversial trials.
 
Smelly Squirrel said:
All the lawyers in this case are so full of bs. That evidence couldn't exculpate HGR. Wherever the live round came from, she was still responsible for whether it ended up in any of the guns on the set. The same goes for AB's part in it. He just got lucky the prosecutor screwed up. (Not saying AB was guilty, but it wouldn't affect him either way.)

And I highly suspect Spiro knew before the trial started that he would be bringing this up, he was just waiting for the right witness to spring it. It's still the prosecutor's responsibility, but it is quite shady on his part. moo
Click to expand...
I agree here. It's completely irrelevant where the ammo came from - the entire point of why we check firearms is because there MIGHT be live rounds present. Live rounds exist in the world and they very often get places they shouldn't be!

The only way it could have ended up in AB's gun, IMO, which would lead to him and HGR being blameless would be if someone had put it in there after he had taken possession of it and I cannot see how that could possibly happen.

If someone had done something to it after HGR handed it to Dave Halls then maybe that breaks the chain of causation making her blameless? If that was the case then AB still failed to check it.

If we go with the facts as to why AB's case was dismissed then, agreed it doesn't exonerate him or HGR necessarily, but there certainly seems to be extreme bad faith on behalf of the prosecution and he wasn't able to mount a defence based on ALL the facts available.

In all honesty, I don't see how this cannot apply to HGR's case as well. The prosecution may not have actually taken possession of it until just after her trial but it seems clear that they knew of its existence well before her trial even started but did nothing to get hold of it!

My thoughts are that she is getting her conviction squashed over this.

Edit: just to add, I don't think that all of the lawyers are full of BS. Erlinda Johnson seems to be completely beyond reproach here. Some genuine ethics and belief in justice in her, I think. I don't believe for a second that she had anything to do with this and she had the good grace to walk at the first sign of impropriety.
 
Betty P said:
www.rollingstone.com

Alec Baldwin Plans to Sue Santa Fe Prosecutor, Sheriff After 'Rust' Charge Dismissal

Alec Baldwin’s lawyers have warned the Santa Fe sheriff and prosecutors of "future litigation" over their actions in the 'Rust' shooting trial.
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com

Baldwin’s attorneys have sent preservation notices to the Santa Fe prosecutors and sheriff’s offices asking them to preserve all evidence relating to his trial.
Click to expand...
This is often being reported as Baldwin is going to sue the prosecutor. I think that is very unlikely. However, he may be preparing to sue Santa Fe County. But I do also wonder if this could be an attempt to use this as leverage to get the State of New Mexico to reconsider the denial of the tax incentives for "Rust."
 
Betty P said:
www.rollingstone.com

Alec Baldwin Plans to Sue Santa Fe Prosecutor, Sheriff After 'Rust' Charge Dismissal

Alec Baldwin’s lawyers have warned the Santa Fe sheriff and prosecutors of "future litigation" over their actions in the 'Rust' shooting trial.
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com

Baldwin’s attorneys have sent preservation notices to the Santa Fe prosecutors and sheriff’s offices asking them to preserve all evidence relating to his trial.
Click to expand...

This is gross imo. The dismissal didn't exonerate him, he should be grateful there was the misconduct, which allowed him to walk away not due to the merits of the case. He should just keep walking far way from it.
 

In Tuesday’s filing, Gutierrez Reed’s attorneys argue that her case should be thrown out or retried in part because of the judge’s determination of withheld evidence in Baldwin’s case; what they assert was Morrissey lying in court about the evidence on Friday; and what they say were other instances of suppressed evidence in the armorer’s case.

In a statement Wednesday to CNN, Morrissey said she would respond “in writing” to the defense motions.

“I have always been the subject of personal attacks from Mr. Bowles (Gutierrez Reed’s attorney) and Mr. Baldwin’s legal team, so nothing new there,” Morrissey said.

Yes, the defense is taking shots at the prosecution because the prosecution didn't do their job properly. That's what a defense lawyer is supposed to be doing, as Morrissey should well know. In all the filings I read and the trial testimony I watched, absolutely none of it was personal attacks. IMO, this chip on Morrissey's shoulder is a large part of what got her into trouble in the first place.


Edit - Here's the motion from Bowles.

Lots of interesting information in the filing. I think HGR may have a decent shot at a new trial or even an outright dismissal. Not necessarily because of the ammo by itself, but because of other evidence that the prosecution knew about but didn't come to light until after the trial. That includes the supplements to the Haag report as well as interviews with Seth Kenney and Brian Carpenter that were potentially exculpatory.
 
Last edited:
The judge did say in her dismissal order that post-trial discovery of evidence under Brady requires a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. So, it's not just proving a violation, have to prove it would have changed the outcome.
 
Smelly Squirrel said:
The movie has such a dark cloud over it, seems like it wouldn't do well, but who knows? Lots of people did go see The Crow and Twilight Zone. But then those didn't have the star of the movie being a real life killer during the movie.
Click to expand...
All the publicity surrounding this movie quite likely will improve the box office.

I personally couldn’t watch the helicopter scene in Twilight Zone knowing that two young children and Vic Morrow had been killed during production.
 
Smelly Squirrel said:
That evidence couldn't exculpate HGR. Wherever the live round came from, she was still responsible for whether it ended up in any of the guns on the set. The same goes for AB's part in it.

And I highly suspect Spiro knew before the trial started that he would be bringing this up, he was just waiting for the right witness to spring it. It's still the prosecutor's responsibility, but it is quite shady on his part. moo
Click to expand...
RSBM

IIRC, there were not supposed to be any live rounds on this set - only blanks and dummies. HGR and AB were operating from this assumption in assessing risks. There is no evidence AB or HGR authorized, requested, received, or used any live rounds on this set before the shooting.

At this point, I don't know:

Who brought the live rounds to the set,

for what purpose

and at whose request (if any); and

Who handled the live rounds immediately after they arrived,

what s/he did with them, whether HGR became aware of the presence of live rounds on the set

and how they came to be in the gun that killed Halyna.

For me, that's too many unanswered questions to support a prosecution based on gross negligence.
 
ch_13 said:

In Tuesday’s filing, Gutierrez Reed’s attorneys argue that her case should be thrown out or retried in part because of the judge’s determination of withheld evidence in Baldwin’s case; what they assert was Morrissey lying in court about the evidence on Friday; and what they say were other instances of suppressed evidence in the armorer’s case.

In a statement Wednesday to CNN, Morrissey said she would respond “in writing” to the defense motions.

“I have always been the subject of personal attacks from Mr. Bowles (Gutierrez Reed’s attorney) and Mr. Baldwin’s legal team, so nothing new there,” Morrissey said.

Yes, the defense is taking shots at the prosecution because the prosecution didn't do their job properly. That's what a defense lawyer is supposed to be doing, as Morrissey should well know. In all the filings I read and the trial testimony I watched, absolutely none of it was personal attacks. IMO, this chip on Morrissey's shoulder is a large part of what got her into trouble in the first place.


Edit - Here's the motion from Bowles.

Lots of interesting information in the filing. I think HGR may have a decent shot at a new trial or even an outright dismissal. Not necessarily because of the ammo by itself, but because of other evidence that the prosecution knew about but didn't come to light until after the trial. That includes the supplements to the Haag report as well as interviews with Seth Kenney and Brian Carpenter that were potentially exculpatory.
Click to expand...

Agree. Also Kari Morrissey is being disingenuous - it's not 'personal attacks' it's legitimate criticism of her professional conduct. She's at risk of bringing her profession into disrepute and looking like a 'bent cop' hounding someone.

If the allegations put to her in court about words she used to describe AB are true, then it is she who has used derogatory and personal asides. I appreciate she 'couldn't recall' but she wasn't able to flat out deny.
 
Waxahachie1 said:
RSBM

IIRC, there were not supposed to be any live rounds on this set - only blanks and dummies. HGR and AB were operating from this assumption in assessing risks. There is no evidence AB or HGR authorized, requested, received, or used any live rounds on this set before the shooting.

At this point, I don't know:

Who brought the live rounds to the set,

for what purpose

and at whose request (if any); and

Who handled the live rounds immediately after they arrived,

what s/he did with them, whether HGR became aware of the presence of live rounds on the set

and how they came to be in the gun that killed Halyna.

For me, that's too many unanswered questions to support a prosecution based on gross negligence.
Click to expand...
The thing is that if you choose to use real firearms you should not "assume" that there is never going to be ammunition around. This is why there are various checks and methods of handling them in order to mitigate the risks. If you assume that live ammo is never going to be an issue then that is absolutely 100%, guaranteed to result in an accident at some point. That's just how probability works.

How the live rounds got to the set, why, who handled them, etc, etc are fairly irrelevant points to consider, to be honest. HGR almost certainly loaded that live round and Alec Baldwin was holding the gun when it discharged. Of the two, only the latter we know as a certain fact.

As to the evidence as to how they got to the set; on the balance of probabilities, it would seem that they got there via HGR unknowingly introducing them as remnants of the ammo that her dad was using to instruct actors for a previous film. That's just my opinion but I'm not seeing any other reasonable explanation.

As to supporting a negligence prosecution, that is your opinion but I respectfully disagree. Live rounds exist in the world so it is not unreasonable to expect that sooner or later they will show up where they aren't supposed to be. That is simply common sense which means that it's common sense to properly check for them.

As someone who knows about firearms and who has experience of this type of firearm, ammo and dummy rounds over many years. I can tell you that were I working in an environment where I knew dummy rounds would be present I'd be incredibly anal about checking guns, rounds, etc. Incredibly! Dummy rounds, IMO, are extremely dangerous things - their entire purpose is to fool you into thinking they are live rounds. That carries big risks with it. Simply assuming that they pose no danger is the very definition of negligent.

As I've said many times on this thread - if you aren't prepared to bear the consequences of what might go wrong when using firearms then don't use firearms. Especially in a professional capacity!

All MOO, obvs.
 
Last edited:
Marantz4250b said:
The thing is that if you choose to use real firearms you should not "assume" that there is never going to be ammunition around. This is why there are various checks and methods of handling them in order to mitigate the risks. If you assume that live ammo is never going to be an issue then that is absolutely 100%, guaranteed to result in an accident at some point. That's just how probability works.

How the live rounds got to the set, why, who handled them, etc, etc are fairly irrelevant points to consider, to be honest. HGR almost certainly loaded that live round and Alec Baldwin was holding the gun when it discharged. Of the two, only the latter we know as a certain fact.

As to the evidence as to how they got to the set; on the balance of probabilities, it would seem that they got there via HGR unknowingly introducing them as remnants of the ammo that her dad was using to instruct actors for a previous film. That's just my opinion but I'm not seeing any other reasonable explanation.

As to supporting a negligence prosecution, that is your opinion but I respectfully disagree. Live rounds exist in the world so it is not unreasonable to expect that sooner or later they will show up where they aren't supposed to be. That is simply common sense which means that it's common sense to properly check for them.

As someone who knows about firearms and who has experience of this type of firearm, ammo and dummy rounds over many years. I can tell you that were I working in an environment where I knew dummy rounds would be present I'd be incredibly anal about checking guns, rounds, etc. Incredibly! Dummy rounds, IMO, are extremely dangerous things - their entire purpose is to fool you into thinking they are live rounds. That carries big risks with it. Simply assuming that they pose no danger is the very definition of negligent.

As I've said many times on this thread - if you aren't prepared to bear the consequences of what might go wrong when using firearms then don't use firearms. Especially in a professional capacity!

All MOO, obvs.
Click to expand...
My personal standard for handling firearms is identical to yours. I am extremely careful what I do with them. But respectfully - I am a shooter of targets and wild game, not an actor rehearsing a role in a movie.

I agree completely that the expert armorer Gutierrez should have been able to tell the difference between dummy and live rounds as she loaded the gun, and - given the high standard of legal responsibility applied to experts and the possibility that live rounds could be present where they shouldn't be - a jury could find her guilty of acting with reckless disregard for the safety of others, which is the criminal standard.

I believe Baldwin was culpably negligent for his poor management of safety and security on the set, for his negligent hiring and supervision of Gutierrez, for his failure to take the firearms training with Gutierrez seriously, and more. Perhaps a civil jury would feel as you do, that he should have known the difference between dummy and live rounds, and checked himself - although that does not seem to have been the industry standard. The civil cases have been and will be settled for a lot of money because Baldwin has no real defense.

But respectfully, an actor handling a prop gun on a set, supported by a team of people responsible for assuring the gun is safe, cannot be held to act with CRIMINAL negligence for accepting the statement of his staff that the gun contains only dummy bullets. The element of recklessness is just not there.
 
ilovewings said:
Too bad he cant just let it go
Click to expand...
The document referred to in the article is probably a "notice of claim" - a procedural prerequisite to filing suit against a public entity or public employee in New Mexico. It was probably accompanied by a "demand to preserve evidence" - a procedural step that enhances the consequences for those named in the notice in the event evidence within the scope of the demand is destroyed or lost.

Not everyone who files these documents sues the state, but failure to file them timely harms the prospects of the claimant.

I'm not sure what Baldwin's claims are against the state and its officials, but the case was weak to start with and hiding the evidence just leaves law enforcement hanging out to dry.

Baldwin must have spent $750.000 - $1,000,000 on the criminal defense alone. He has a substantial reason to sue to get that back. And the state has plenty of reason to settle without a lawsuit being filed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 149 more.
Total: 2,167 (members: 150, guests: 2,017)

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
2,017
Total visitors
2,167
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,124
Messages
18,104,194
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top