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.

 

[Cool Cats]

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.

It always means that this was exculpatory evidence for the defendant....It is Supreme Court Law that the prosecution must turn over any and all exculpatory evidence.

This is evidence that might help the defendant and the defendant has every right for the jury to at least see this evidence.

Where the live rounds came from and how they got on set is important for the jury to know and could help the defendant.

2 Cents

 

[Betty P]

It always means that this was exculpatory evidence for the defendant....It is Supreme Court Law that the prosecution must turn over any and all exculpatory evidence.

This is evidence that might help the defendant and the defendant has every right for the jury to at least see this evidence.

Where the live rounds came from and how they got on set is important for the jury to know and could help the defendant.

2 Cents

The copy of the motion to dismiss filed by AB's defense attorneys spells it out pretty well, if you can find a copy on the internet. For AB, that evidence could have been exculpatory because it proved that the live bullet that killed Halyna came from the bullets supplied by the outside supplier, not Hannah the armourer. That meant they can't accuse AB of culpability as a producer because the bullets came from someone he didn't hire. They came from the person who Hannah purchased them from.

 

[Cool Cats]

The copy of the motion to dismiss filed by AB's defense attorneys spells it out pretty well, if you can find a copy on the internet. For AB, that evidence could have been exculpatory because it proved that the live bullet that killed Halyna came from the bullets supplied by the outside supplier, not Hannah the armourer. That meant they can't accuse AB of culpability as a producer because the bullets came from someone he didn't hire. They came from the person who Hannah purchased them from.

WOW.!!!

Thanks! The prosecution says all the time that:

HGR brought live ammunition onto the set ... it came from her personally.

This is exculpatory evidence HGR's jury needed to see and what the Supreme court ruling is all about.

I cry foul

2 Cents

 

[Betty P]

WOW.!!!

Thanks! The prosecution says all the time that:

HGR brought live ammunition onto the set ... it came from her personally.

This is exculpatory evidence HGR's jury needed to see and what the Supreme court ruling is all about.

I cry foul

2 Cents

I suppose that's why HGR's attorneys are appealing.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The copy of the motion to dismiss filed by AB's defense attorneys spells it out pretty well, if you can find a copy on the internet. For AB, that evidence could have been exculpatory because it proved that the live bullet that killed Halyna came from the bullets supplied by the outside supplier, not Hannah the armourer. That meant they can't accuse AB of culpability as a producer because the bullets came from someone he didn't hire. They came from the person who Hannah purchased them from.

But that shouldn't be relevant to the trial since he wasn't being tried as producer.

And that evidence didn't prove where the live round came from, it just provided a possibility.

Judge rules Alec Baldwin's co-producer role not relevant in 'Rust' shooting case

A judge ruled Alec Baldwin’s role as co-producer isn’t relevant to the involuntary manslaughter trial over a fatal shooting on the set of “Rust.”

www.pbs.org

 

[Marantz4250b]

But that shouldn't be relevant to the trial since he wasn't being tried as producer.

And that evidence didn't prove where the live round came from, it just provided a possibility.

Judge rules Alec Baldwin's co-producer role not relevant in 'Rust' shooting case

A judge ruled Alec Baldwin’s role as co-producer isn’t relevant to the involuntary manslaughter trial over a fatal shooting on the set of “Rust.”

www.pbs.org

Agreed.

It's still my opinion that it's pretty irrelevant where the rounds came from as AB didn't check the gun. Even if he wasn't required to personally check it, he still didn't take the status of it from the authorised person (Hannah) that it was safe. That looks like negligence to me, tbh.

It's still my opinion that it was probably Hannah who unwittingly introduced the live ammo which originated from her dad/Seth Kenney in some manner. However, neither her defence, nor AB's defence, had the opportunity to investigate the status or origin of these rounds and that compromised their respective cases. Moreover, it does very much seem as though the prosecution/police intentionally buried the ammo in the hope it would never come to light. At the very best they made absolutely no effort to get it in to them for examination even though they kept saying they'd send someone to get it.

One of the things that never seems to have been investigated - or maybe it was and it was just never mentioned - was how did the rounds get to the various places they were in when the police seized them? There was one in the gun, at least one other in AB's gunbelt and several others in other gun belts used by other actors.

If they all originated from the mythical green ammo can then how did they get to be so dispersed over the set? That question may not seem relevant but if you can answer that then it may lend clues as to how they got near the set in the first place?

The fact that, I think, all the live rounds were in gun belts apat from the one which was in AB's gun which killed HH might be relevant to the guilt of various people here. Hannah claimed she believed that she loaded the gun with dummy rounds. Well, if for a minute we take that as being true, it is entirely possible that someone after Hannah - DH or AB or other parties currently unknown - could have been playing around with it and swapping ammo between the gun and the gun belt. How did that round get into the gun is an important question, especially given that none others, to my knowledge, were recovered from guns. I don't think that any were even recovered from boxes, only gun belts. I may be wrong on that, however.

 

[Betty P]

Agreed.

It's still my opinion that it's pretty irrelevant where the rounds came from as AB didn't check the gun. Even if he wasn't required to personally check it, he still didn't take the status of it from the authorised person (Hannah) that it was safe. That looks like negligence to me, tbh.

It's still my opinion that it was probably Hannah who unwittingly introduced the live ammo which originated from her dad/Seth Kenney in some manner. However, neither her defence, nor AB's defence, had the opportunity to investigate the status or origin of these rounds and that compromised their respective cases. Moreover, it does very much seem as though the prosecution/police intentionally buried the ammo in the hope it would never come to light. At the very best they made absolutely no effort to get it in to them for examination even though they kept saying they'd send someone to get it.

One of the things that never seems to have been investigated - or maybe it was and it was just never mentioned - was how did the rounds get to the various places they were in when the police seized them? There was one in the gun, at least one other in AB's gunbelt and several others in other gun belts used by other actors.

If they all originated from the mythical green ammo can then how did they get to be so dispersed over the set? That question may not seem relevant but if you can answer that then it may lend clues as to how they got near the set in the first place?

The fact that, I think, all the live rounds were in gun belts apat from the one which was in AB's gun which killed HH might be relevant to the guilt of various people here. Hannah claimed she believed that she loaded the gun with dummy rounds. Well, if for a minute we take that as being true, it is entirely possible that someone after Hannah - DH or AB or other parties currently unknown - could have been playing around with it and swapping ammo between the gun and the gun belt. How did that round get into the gun is an important question, especially given that none others, to my knowledge, were recovered from guns. I don't think that any were even recovered from boxes, only gun belts. I may be wrong on that, however.

They were dispersed over the set because HGR mixed them all together then put them in her fanny pack, without checking. Every time she needed a dummy for someone’s prop gun, she pulled it out of her pack. That meant the distribution of the live rounds was random. Some prop guns got them, others didn’t based on which she pulled out. Random, like rolling dice.

 

[Marantz4250b]

They were dispersed over the set because HGR mixed them all together then put them in her fanny pack, without checking. Every time she needed a dummy for someone’s prop gun, she pulled it out of her pack. That meant the distribution of the live rounds was random. Some prop guns got them, others didn’t based on which she pulled out. Random, like rolling dice.

Was that actually proved (or at least shown as being likely), though? Lots of theories were put out there as to how things happened but I'm not sure anything was ever definitive.

If they got into her bag then how did they get there from the green ammo can which literally no one has ever seen other than Seth Kenney and Hanna's dad? How did they get from the can to being mixed up by Hannah? Or, did they get to the set via another route/person that Hannah had no control over?

I agree that, on the balance if probabilities, Hannah probably loaded the round but we cannot really say that for sure.

 

[Betty P]

Was that actually proved (or at least shown as being likely), though? Lots of theories were put out there as to how things happened but I'm not sure anything was ever definitive.

If they got into her bag then how did they get there from the green ammo can which literally no one has ever seen other than Seth Kenney and Hanna's dad? How did they get from the can to being mixed up by Hannah? Or, did they get to the set via another route/person that Hannah had no control over?

I agree that, on the balance if probabilities, Hannah probably loaded the round but we cannot really say that for sure.

IIRC, she admitted during testimony that she put all the bullets/dummies into her fanny pack and distributed them from there.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/prosecutors-explore-how-live-rounds-got-onto-set-baldwin-movie-rust-2024-02-28/

She says she combined bullets from the supplier and put them on the tray, combined bullets from another box, etc.

In the video, the armorer tells detectives the white cardboard box she drew a live round from was provided by props supplier Seth Kenney about a week earlier.
Asked by New Mexico state prosecutor Kari Morrissey on Tuesday whether the statement was correct, Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office detective Alexandra Hancock said it was not.

Later, in a Nov. 9, 2021 interview seen by Reuters, Gutierrez told Hancock she brought the box on set, then immediately added that the tray of rounds inside it could have been switched from another box.

If someone else brought the live rounds to the set, they would have had to unknowingly buy them from the same supplier and later mix them in with HGR's supply of bullets. That's a lot, JMO

 

[arielilane]

Jason Bowles, Gutierrez-Reed’s attorney, declined to comment for this story.

After the case against Alec Baldwin was abruptly dismissed with prejudice last week, TheWrap combed through all the testimony from both trials, including dozens of photo, video and police bodycam exhibits. A half-dozen key principals and witnesses from the case were contacted and interviewed on condition of anonymity to assess the many theories that have been floated about the original source of the deadly loads.

‘Rust’ Trials Leave Clues to Mystery of Live Bullets on Set – and a Likely Answer

The 'Rust' trials are over, but the mystery remains of how live bullets got onto the set. TheWrap investigates and finds the likely answer

www.thewrap.com

July 19, 2024

Among those alternate theories are that munitions supplier Seth Kenney and Thell Reed (Hannah Gutierrez-Reed’s father, a legendary trick shooter and Hollywood armorer) somehow brought them after a live-rounds training exercise on the Texas set of the “Yellowstone” spinoff “1883.” Kenney took the stand in both trials and denied any involvement, and no evidence was ever presented that would link him or his PDQ Arm & Prop shop to the live rounds.

Another theory was that “someone” wanted to create mischief for Gutierrez-Reed, who was feuding with Kenney while a union camera crew walked off the job over sloppy safety measures. The “sabotage” theory was suggested by defense teams for both the armorer and Baldwin — though there was never any evidence to support it.

There is plenty of evidence, however, to suggest that the live bullets were on the “Rust” set — even in Gutierrez-Reed’s possession — for several days before Hutchins’ death, and before any of Kenney’s ammunition supply arrived. Though their presence is obvious in photos, they weren’t detected until after catastrophe struck.

Gutierrez-Reed told detectives she had brought two boxes of her own prop ammo over from a previous project, a low-budget Western starring Nicolas Cage. Investigators later admitted that they somehow lost track of one. The other, pictured below, was found to contain a live round.


Evidence photo of the ammo box from which the deadly round (not pictured) was pulled. One other “live” bullet, right column with the silver dot in the center, was found in the box. (Court exhibit)

 

[Waxahachie1]

Baldwin's defense attorneys filed their proposed jury instructions to the effect that in order to find Baldwin guilty of criminal negligence the jury must find:

1. that his conduct was “more than merely negligent or careless,"

2. that he “consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk”, and

3. that Baldwin was “subjectively aware” of the risk of his actions, not just that he should have known of the risk.

This is a higher standard than the instruction the trial court used in HGR's case. The standard instruction in New Mexico includes language that the defendant “should have known” of the unreasonable risk of significant harm— but the defense in both cases has argued that the state NM Supreme Court has set a higher standard.

I would say that the NM standard instruction applied to HGR seems to make any negligent act that results in injury or death a criminal offense - a far lower standard than other states.