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

[Cool Cats]

'Rust' Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's Lawyer Discloses Private Emails With Prosecutors

"Rust" armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's lawyer has disclosed private emails with special prosecutor Kari Morrissey in the latest court filing.

news.yahoo.com

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's attorney also asked that special prosecutor Kari Morrissey be removed as the case’s special prosecutor “for the misconduct that has been found, and the violations committed in Ms. Gutierrez Reed’s case.”

In the court filing, Bowles revealed that his defense team “has also become aware of another possible 900 or so pages of material related to state’s witnesses Bryan Carpenter and Haag” that they were unaware of during her trial earlier this year.

 

[IceIce9]

Too bad he cant just let it go

It damaged his reputation, cost a great deal of money, and stress to himself and his family. So I can understand why he is suing. JMO

 

[ColyH]

It damaged his reputation, cost a great deal of money, and stress to himself and his family. So I can understand why he is suing. JMO

His reputation was already ruined even if the investigation was completely clean and legal.

 

[ilovewings]

His reputation was already ruined even if the investigation was completely clean and legal.

I have to disagree- it is one thing for people to think he is an arrogant jerk, quite another to be charged with a crime---- being charged with a crime of involuntary manslaughter ( I think that was the charge)- being charged with a crime could devastate someone's reputation- and if convicted could have all but ruined his life.

 

[IceIce9]

His reputation was already ruined even if the investigation was completely clean and legal.

Some people did not like him but his reputation was damaged by the charges.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

A couple of jurors were favoring Baldwin. But imo theur conclusion are premature, they don't know whether any coming witnesses could have persuade them otherwise.

2 Jurors in Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' Case Speak Out After Its Dismissal: 'It Was Clearly an Accident'

Two jurors in the involuntary manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin — which was ultimately dismissed with prejudice last week — are opening up about how they felt it 'didn’t seem like a very strong case' against the actor.

people.com

In a conversation with The New York Times, jurors Gabriela Picayo and Johanna Haag expressed their doubts in the prosecution's case against the 30 Rock alum, 66. (If the case hadn't been dismissed — which was a result of Baldwin's defense attorneys arguing that the prosecution had buried evidence — all 12 jurors would have had to come to a unanimous decision on the verdict.)

“As the week went by, it just didn’t, it didn’t seem like a very strong case,” Haag, who works in the advertising and marketing field and was known as juror No. 7, told the Times.
....
"It was clearly an accident, and the idea that there’s anything purposeful, or the idea that there was this grave carelessness that caused this, didn’t seem realistic to me," Haag said.

Similarly, Picayo — a scientist who served as juror No. 9 — told the Times that as an actor, Baldwin should not have been expected to know a lot about gun safety, adding he instead should have trusted the experts on set.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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.

Changed the outcome in what manner, though? Is that restricted to a simple likelihood of acquittal or something more subtle?

AB's lawyer when addressing the court seemed to emphasise the point that if they don't have all the evidence available to them then they are incapable of properly defending their client. A defence lawyers job, as I see it, is not simply to get an acquittal at all costs but, rather, to advise their client as to his best course of action, even if that means admitting guilt and taking a plea deal.

Let's play the hypothetical game and say, for the sake of argument, that even if the suppressed evidence were judged by the defendants lawyers to actually be more damaging to him and would make a conviction more likely to occur (even if the prosecution thought differently) then that is still something they need to know because they can say to him .....dude, look, this is bad you really need to take a deal here... That is an outcome which may very reasonably be different.

So, yeah, my personal opinion is that the evidence of these additional rounds probably wouldn't have made any difference to his defence - he didn't make any effort to actually check the gun so had no idea what was or wasn't in it - but that's not really the point. It's up to his lawyers to decide whether they are relevant or not but they were denied that opportunity.

 

[Waxahachie1]

It seems like the following case will set the standard for the judge's decision in HGR's post-conviction case. But given the outcome in AB's case, and given that the same judge will hear HGR's motion, I think the verdict in her case will be vacated, the appeal will be mooted, and the prosecutor will have to decide whether to try her again. It seems likely that they will have to: pursue further investigation into the roles of the prop master and ammunition suppliers, with a greater focus on how and why the live rounds came to be on this set; and figure out how to restore the credibility of investigators and experts who apparently lied on the stand. Re-trying the case is going to be an uphill battle.

----
Smith v. Cain:

"We have explained that 'evidence is ‘material’ within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.' Cone v. Bell, 556 U. S. 449, 469–470 (2009). A reasonable probability does not mean that the defendant 'would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence,' only that the likelihood of a different result is great enough to 'undermine[] confidence in the outcome of the trial.' Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419, 434 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted)."

We have observed that evidence impeaching an eyewitness may not be material if the State’s other evidence is strong enough to sustain confidence in the verdict. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97, 112–113, and n. 21 (1976).

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Changed the outcome in what manner, though? Is that restricted to a simple likelihood of acquittal or something more subtle?

AB's lawyer when addressing the court seemed to emphasise the point that if they don't have all the evidence available to them then they are incapable of properly defending their client. A defence lawyers job, as I see it, is not simply to get an acquittal at all costs but, rather, to advise their client as to his best course of action, even if that means admitting guilt and taking a plea deal.

Let's play the hypothetical game and say, for the sake of argument, that even if the suppressed evidence were judged by the defendants lawyers to actually be more damaging to him and would make a conviction more likely to occur (even if the prosecution thought differently) then that is still something they need to know because they can say to him .....dude, look, this is bad you really need to take a deal here... That is an outcome which may very reasonably be different.

So, yeah, my personal opinion is that the evidence of these additional rounds probably wouldn't have made any difference to his defence - he didn't make any effort to actually check the gun so had no idea what was or wasn't in it - but that's not really the point. It's up to his lawyers to decide whether they are relevant or not but they were denied that opportunity.

I was speaking to whether the conviction is vacated over a violation, not whether there was a violation at all.