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

[10ofRods]

This is great thanks. I was trying to get a handle on it.

I am following the Oxford school shooting and the Crumbly parents being charged for that shooting. Their trials will be interesting.

If found guilty of manslaughter, this will be precedent setting in law.

Right? Several WSers started saying that there was this sea change in cases like this, long before I ever did - but you (and they) are right.

Celebrities are no longer revered; more of them are getting convicted.

Negligence is a thing and juries are perfect for apportioning blame for negligence. Leaving a gun where your kid can find and take it to school is gross negligence. If the Crumbly's are convicted - and I think they will be - it'll be a much needed game changer for the US (gradual, I probably won't live to see the extent of the change, legally, but I'll get to see some of it).

When is negligence gross? When a jury says it is. When is recklessness criminal? When a jury so states. And prosecutors have their ear to their local ground. I have to say that in my recent stay in Santa Fe, I talked to locals about the outlines of Alec's case and they universally shook their heads and said "Never point a gun at anyone you aren't ready to destroy; never assume a gun is unloaded." Drilled into everyone, from childhood (NM still has lots of accidental gun deaths; everyone has guns; when I lived there a man asked the kids next door to feed his cats while he was gone for the weekend; he forgot he had a loaded gun in the glove compartment of his car - in the garage - which is where the cat food and bowl were; two brothers, one shot the other; I will never forget the sound of the helicopter and the terror I felt about my own kids going to someone else's house). That man was charged with something but I don't remember what it was (he pleaded guilty).

So in a land where everyone knows gun rules (and children are now routinely taught them in school), jurors are going to consider the behavior on set as wildly departing from local common sense - ergo, reckless or gross negligence).

There's even an element of willfulness in this case, as Alec and Dave were both told to use the plastic gun and Alec insisted (supposedly, remains to be introduced in court) on the real gun. As Dave's boss, Dave had to do what the producer says as producer trumps AD in the hierarchy. Not that I believe Dave wanted a plastic gun. But it was just a rehearsal, so why not? Why not remove all danger?

IMO.

 

[PrairieWind]

NM apparently thinks it does (and I do too). I'll defer to the DA of Santa Fe County.

The DA specifically said that THREE people had to be negligent for this to happen and they're all guilty.

To prove her point, she can mention that one of the three has already pleaded guilty. Two more to go.

IMO.

That the director pleaded guilty can't be considered by the jury in finding guilt on the other two.

 

[10ofRods]

10ofRods, I don't think you point is getting lost (or maybe it is). Its just not on target. All the cases you linked are very distinguishable from this case because of the knowledge of the defendant.
But we're going in circles and eating up pages needlessly. Lets just move on.

So I can't ask what "knowledge of the defendant" is relevant here? Okay - let's not discuss that part. We're obviously on two different pages, but I will submit that a practicing DA in Santa Fe seems to agree that this is involuntary manslaughter, the judge agreed with the PCA and now we will wait a decade for the trial.


I truly do appreciate your opinions on these legal matters. But I have no clue what you mean by "the knowledge" of the defendant (which is not remotely in evidence yet, IMO). I will continue to argue that Alec was in the email chain that discussed the safety violations on set and he definitely knew that the main camera crew had walked off due to specific fears about guns. IMO.

 

[PrairieWind]

Right? Several WSers started saying that there was this sea change in cases like this, long before I ever did - but you (and they) are right.

Celebrities are no longer revered; more of them are getting convicted.

Negligence is a thing and juries are perfect for apportioning blame for negligence. Leaving a gun where your kid can find and take it to school is gross negligence. If the Crumbly's are convicted - and I think they will be - it'll be a much needed game changer for the US (gradual, I probably won't live to see the extent of the change, legally, but I'll get to see some of it).

When is negligence gross? When a jury says it is. When is recklessness criminal? When a jury so states. And prosecutors have their ear to their local ground. I have to say that in my recent stay in Santa Fe, I talked to locals about the outlines of Alec's case and they universally shook their heads and said "Never point a gun at anyone you aren't ready to destroy; never assume a gun is unloaded." Drilled into everyone, from childhood (NM still has lots of accidental gun deaths; everyone has guns; when I lived there a man asked the kids next door to feed his cats while he was gone for the weekend; he forgot he had a loaded gun in the glove compartment of his car - in the garage - which is where the cat food and bowl were; two brothers, one shot the other; I will never forget the sound of the helicopter and the terror I felt about my own kids going to someone else's house). That man was charged with something but I don't remember what it was (he pleaded guilty).

So in a land where everyone knows gun rules (and children are now routinely taught them in school), jurors are going to consider the behavior on set as wildly departing from local common sense - ergo, reckless or gross negligence).

There's even an element of willfulness in this case, as Alec and Dave were both told to use the plastic gun and Alec insisted (supposedly, remains to be introduced in court) on the real gun. As Dave's boss, Dave had to do what the producer says as producer trumps AD in the hierarchy. Not that I believe Dave wanted a plastic gun. But it was just a rehearsal, so why not? Why not remove all danger?

IMO.

Who has stated that Alec was told to use a plastic gun? I was unaware of that.

 

[10ofRods]

That the director pleaded guilty can't be considered by the jury in finding guilt on the other two.

Nope. But we out here in internet-land can certainly check one of the three parties off our personal lists of negligent players.

And Dave can testify and probably will. He can get on the stand, describe all the safety violations and say, "These are examples of gross negligence and ought not to have happened; I was one of the broken links in that safety chain." He can say way more than that, I wager.

Are you saying Dave can't say that at trial? That he personally witnessed gross negligence and recklessness? Because it seems to me, that having admitted that he himself was reckless, he might want to take the high road and tell the truth as a humbled man. You don't think that'll happen?

IMO.

 

[PrairieWind]

Nope. But we out here in internet-land can certainly check one of the three parties off our personal lists of negligent players.

And Dave can testify and probably will. He can get on the stand, describe all the safety violations and say, "These are examples of gross negligence and ought not to have happened; I was one of the broken links in that safety chain." He can say way more than that, I wager.

Are you saying Dave can't say that at trial? That he personally witnessed gross negligence and recklessness? Because it seems to me, that having admitted that he himself was reckless, he might want to take the high road and tell the truth as a humbled man. You don't think that'll happen?

IMO.

No, he can't testify that this was gross negligence. He can testify to what he saw and witnessed. But he is also a target for the jury to put blame on. So his testimony will cut both ways.

 

[10ofRods]

No, he can't testify that this was gross negligence. He can testify to what he saw and witnessed. But he is also a target for the jury to put blame on. So his testimony will cut both ways.

Can he really be prohibited from saying it was negligent? Can't the SP ask him if he is aware of regular standards and of what constitutes negligence on a film set? I mean it's an ordinary English word.

I understand that he can't offer an opinion about legal matters. If Halls chooses to use the word negligence in an answer to a question, will it be stricken from the record? Can he be asked if he's ever seen negligence on a film set and whether this was one of the worst examples? (We know that he had had a gun problem in the past - but he's already admitted his own negligence and can't be tried again).

(Thank you for trying to answer my questions).

Questioning - not even an opinion. Blathering by me. IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins' parents, sister sue Alec Baldwin over 'Rust' shooting

The parents and sister of Halyna Hutchins, the cinematographer killed in the "Rust" on-set shooting, have filed a new lawsuit against Alec Baldwin and the film's producers, according to the family's attorney. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges negligence...

www.yahoo.com

Halyna Hutchins‘ Parents and Sister Sue Alec Baldwin and ‘Rust’ Producers

The parents and sister of Halyna Hutchins have sued Alec Baldwin for his part in her death on the set of "Rust" in October 2021.

variety.com

Feb 9, 2023 12:14pm PT

The Ukrainian parents and sister of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins filed a lawsuit on Thursday against Alec Baldwin and the producers of “Rust” in connection with her death in October 2021.

Attorney Gloria Allred announced the lawsuit at a press conference at her office on Thursday morning.

 

[Cool Cats]

Nope. But we out here in internet-land can certainly check one of the three parties off our personal lists of negligent players.

And Dave can testify and probably will. He can get on the stand, describe all the safety violations and say, "These are examples of gross negligence and ought not to have happened; I was one of the broken links in that safety chain." He can say way more than that, I wager.

Are you saying Dave can't say that at trial? That he personally witnessed gross negligence and recklessness? Because it seems to me, that having admitted that he himself was reckless, he might want to take the high road and tell the truth as a humbled man. You don't think that'll happen?

IMO.

Dave has to testify as part of his plea agreement but there is apparently conflicting statements:

Rust Assistant Director Contradicts Others' Recollection Of On-Set Shooting Events - Looper

"Rust" assistant director David Halls' story may sound believable to some, but it's completely different from what others have been saying about the shooting.

www.looper.com

Halls has agreed to a plea deal for negligent use of a deadly weapon that will allow him to get a suspended sentence and probation in exchange for testimony against Baldwin and Gutierrez Reed.

According to prosecutors, the district attorney's office is well aware of Halls' CONFLICTING statements and stands by their case.

 

[deugirtni]

OK, here's a question for the legal experts: AB is charged because his negligence (gun handling) led to a death. HGR is charged because her negligence (gun was loaded) led to the same death. The consequence (death) only exists if both acts of negligence occur together. That is, AB's act does not lead to a death unless HRG is negligent, and HGR's negligence does not lead to a death unless AB is negligent. But they are being tried separately. Does this make sense from a legal point of view?

Do we know for sure they are being tried separately? They both have the same date for first appearance? They would both need their own lawyer, etc. ?

 

[deugirtni]

The law in effect when the crime was made simply said "use of a firearm" so this crime falls under that. I'm quoting from memory.

The change was to include brandishing as opposed to "use" of a firearm, to make it clear that the term "use" didn't just mean firing. In this case the firearm was used, so it's not a brandishing case and the new language is irrelevant. The 2020 changes just say "use of a firearm" which is what Alec did. He didn't brandish - but brandishing is now a part of NM code.

It's all good - the law in effect at the time of the crime still works - and the changes do not affect that portion of the law (use of a firearm) it just expands it to waving a gun around, without using it (but adds intent ONLY for brandishing).

So if a person willfully gets a gun out and intentionally uses it to scare someone (but it goes off and harms someone - perhaps not even the person they're trying to scare) and it was an accidental discharge, they can get the enhancement.

The core of the statute involving USE of a weapon was unchanged. I think the firearms enhancement came in 2020, the brandishing is more recent.

Alec is not charged with brandishing, his actions fall under use.

IMO.

Imo, in the PDF I linked, it does say 'brandish', and it seems to have been signed/effective in 2020:

SECTION 3. Section 31-18-16 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1977,
Chapter 216, Section 5, as amended) is amended to read:
"31-18-16. BRANDISHING OF FIREARM--ALTERATION OF BASIC
SENTENCE--SUSPENSION AND DEFERRAL LIMITED.--
A. When a separate finding of fact by the court or
jury shows that a firearm was brandished in the commission of
a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment
prescribed for the offense in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978
shall be increased by three years, ...
...
D. As used in this section, "brandished" means
displaying or making a firearm known to another person while
the firearm is present on the person of the offending party
with intent to intimidate or injure a person."
...
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.--The effective date of the
provisions of this act is July 1, 2020.

https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/20 Regular/final/HB0006.pdf

 

[deugirtni]

NM apparently thinks it does (and I do too). I'll defer to the DA of Santa Fe County.

The DA specifically said that THREE people had to be negligent for this to happen and they're all guilty.

To prove her point, she can mention that one of the three has already pleaded guilty. Two more to go.

IMO.

Is there a link to where the DA said: THREE people had to be negligent for this to happen and they're all guilty. ?

 

[PrairieWind]

Can he really be prohibited from saying it was negligent? Can't the SP ask him if he is aware of regular standards and of what constitutes negligence on a film set? I mean it's an ordinary English word.

I understand that he can't offer an opinion about legal matters. If Halls chooses to use the word negligence in an answer to a question, will it be stricken from the record? Can he be asked if he's ever seen negligence on a film set and whether this was one of the worst examples? (We know that he had had a gun problem in the past - but he's already admitted his own negligence and can't be tried again).

(Thank you for trying to answer my questions).

Questioning - not even an opinion. Blathering by me. IMO.

I think the defense would argue that saying AB was negligent, is testimony regarding an opinion on the key element of the crime, and thus is the same as testifying that AB is guilty. And that would normally not be admissible under the rules of evidence.

 

[deugirtni]

I have to say that in my recent stay in Santa Fe, I talked to locals about the outlines of Alec's case and they universally shook their heads and said "Never point a gun at anyone you aren't ready to destroy; never assume a gun is unloaded."

RSBM, BBM

Is it lost on anyone/everyone that this was a movie in the making, rather than a day-to-day regular life situation?

Surely in all of the movies where actors pretend to shoot other actors, they must point the gun at that person as part of the script?

And from what I have read, it doesn't seem to me that AB was making an assumption the gun was unloaded - he was flat out told that it was a 'cold gun'.

Don't these things make this situation different than if it had happened with a bunch of locals over at Jo Blow's house while making a home video with neighbours?

Personally, if it had been me in HH's position, I wouldn't have felt comfortable with AB removing the bullets and reloading them, which is what I have read would need to have been done in the case of this particular gun, to know whether dummies or blanks were being used. That sounds like an accident waiting to happen, imo. AB may be an experienced actor, but he is not an armorer. Surely they should've been able to rely on the armorer, since that was her exact role?

According to reports, HGR took out the FIVE rounds to show the AD prior to lunch... then got the gun back, loaded one more round that she had previously been unable to load, and then handed it back to AD after lunch, without telling him she'd loaded another round and without taking the rounds out again for him to show him they were dummies, she merely 'spun it', (which apparently isn't possible to determine to begin with, by merely spinning that type of gun, which, as armorer, she should have known?) (Apologies if my language terms aren't spot on and I'm saying that a bit off.)

After cleaning the cylinder to make the sixth round fit, Gutierrez Reed hurried the Colt .45 to the weathered wooden church set, her attorney says, and presented it to assistant director Dave Halls: “She then spins the cylinder for him, showing him it’s got six rounds in it, and hands it to him. He said, ‘Okay.’ She then leaves the church. She did not take them out and shake them again for Halls,” Bowles adds. “But she had done that before lunch.”

Of course, that was before she added the final round.

“This Cannot Be Right”: How the Gun in Alec Baldwin’s Hands Turned the ‘Rust’ Set Deadly

 

[Deleted member 39678]

RSBM, BBM

Is it lost on anyone/everyone that this was a movie in the making, rather than a day-to-day regular life situation?

Surely in all of the movies where actors pretend to shoot other actors, they must point the gun at that person as part of the script?

And from what I have read, it doesn't seem to me that AB was making an assumption the gun was unloaded - he was flat out told that it was a 'cold gun'.

Don't these things make this situation different than if it had happened with a bunch of locals over at Jo Blow's house while making a home video with neighbours?

Personally, if it had been me in HH's position, I wouldn't have felt comfortable with AB removing the bullets and reloading them, which is what I have read would need to have been done in the case of this particular gun, to know whether dummies or blanks were being used. That sounds like an accident waiting to happen, imo. AB may be an experienced actor, but he is not an armorer. Surely they should've been able to rely on the armorer, since that was her exact role?

According to reports, HGR took out the FIVE rounds to show the AD prior to lunch... then got the gun back, loaded one more round that she had previously been unable to load, and then handed it back to AD after lunch, without telling him she'd loaded another round and without taking the rounds out again for him to show him they were dummies, she merely 'spun it', (which apparently isn't possible to determine to begin with, by merely spinning that type of gun, which, as armorer, she should have known?) (Apologies if my language terms aren't spot on and I'm saying that a bit off.)

After cleaning the cylinder to make the sixth round fit, Gutierrez Reed hurried the Colt .45 to the weathered wooden church set, her attorney says, and presented it to assistant director Dave Halls: “She then spins the cylinder for him, showing him it’s got six rounds in it, and hands it to him. He said, ‘Okay.’ She then leaves the church. She did not take them out and shake them again for Halls,” Bowles adds. “But she had done that before lunch.”

Of course, that was before she added the final round.

“This Cannot Be Right”: How the Gun in Alec Baldwin’s Hands Turned the ‘Rust’ Set Deadly

I disagree that an actor "must" point a real gun at someone when filming.

I watched a Tom Selleck Jesse Stone movie last night. In one scene Tom Selleck shoots a bad guy. You never see TS point the gun at the camera, they used a side angle. You see TS fire the gun and then the view switches to seeing only the bad guy getting shot in the chest. Looked totally realistic to me.

If a view of someone from the rear pointing a gun at someone is desired just use a non-firing replica. Totally safe that way.

AB didn't need to remove the "dummies" from the gun to see if it was safe. Since this was only a rehearsal it should have been empty. He doesn't have to be a gun expert to check for that, a child could do it. JMO.

 

[deugirtni]

Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins' parents, sister sue Alec Baldwin over 'Rust' shooting

The parents and sister of Halyna Hutchins, the cinematographer killed in the "Rust" on-set shooting, have filed a new lawsuit against Alec Baldwin and the film's producers, according to the family's attorney. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges negligence...

www.yahoo.com

Halyna Hutchins‘ Parents and Sister Sue Alec Baldwin and ‘Rust’ Producers

The parents and sister of Halyna Hutchins have sued Alec Baldwin for his part in her death on the set of "Rust" in October 2021.

variety.com

Feb 9, 2023 12:14pm PT

The Ukrainian parents and sister of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins filed a lawsuit on Thursday against Alec Baldwin and the producers of “Rust” in connection with her death in October 2021.

Attorney Gloria Allred announced the lawsuit at a press conference at her office on Thursday morning.

From the yahoo article linked above:

... The lawsuit alleges battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and loss of consortium for her mom, dad and sister.

Attorney Gloria Allred told reporters in a press conference Thursday that Baldwin never contacted Halyna's parents after her death.

"...there has been no out-reach to them by Mr. Baldwin to even say he was sorry...," said Allred.
...
Later, the lawyer added about whether any of the various other defendants named in their case have tried reaching out, "We haven't asked them who they've heard from. But we haven't heard from Alec Baldwin, the man with the gun — the loaded gun that ended the life of their daughter."

 

[deugirtni]

I disagree that an actor "must" point a real gun at someone when filming.

I watched a Tom Selleck Jesse Stone movie last night. In one scene Tom Selleck shoots a bad guy. You never see TS point the gun at the camera, they used a side angle. You see TS fire the gun and then the view switches to seeing only the bad guy getting shot in the chest. Looked totally realistic to me.

If a view of someone from the rear pointing a gun at someone is desired just use a non-firing replica. Totally safe that way.

AB didn't need to remove the "dummies" from the gun to see if it was safe. Since this was only a rehearsal it should have been empty. He doesn't have to be a gun expert to check for that, a child could do it. JMO.

I didn't say an actor must point a 'real' gun at someone, but it seems (to me) the industry does what they do and generally it's been pretty safe, considering all the movies made with guns over time? And I'm sure you're right, they (as in the industry as a whole) could probably do things differently when it comes to guns on sets and photography and etc.... and in fact, my guess is that changes will be made as a result of this tragedy.

But criminal charges have been pressed, one of which purportedly includes a mandatory five year jail term on top of the regular sentence if found guilty - at least the district attorney is trying to pull that off, even though that law wasn't in effect at the time of the event. It seems that HH's husband, and at least some of the people present on the set at the time believe this was a tragic accident, as well as the coroner has ruled it an accidental death, IIRC. I think the argument is over whether it was criminal and if so, who was criminally at fault (imo). And that is where there is some disagreement. I just happen to believe that AB wasn't criminally negligent, and HGR should never work with arms again in her lifetime, and many disagree with my POV.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I didn't say an actor must point a 'real' gun at someone, but it seems (to me) the industry does what they do and generally it's been pretty safe, considering all the movies made with guns over time? And I'm sure you're right, they (as in the industry as a whole) could probably do things differently when it comes to guns on sets and photography and etc.... and in fact, my guess is that changes will be made as a result of this tragedy.

But criminal charges have been pressed, one of which purportedly includes a mandatory five year jail term on top of the regular sentence if found guilty - at least the district attorney is trying to pull that off, even though that law wasn't in effect at the time of the event. It seems that HH's husband, and at least some of the people present on the set at the time believe this was a tragic accident, as well as the coroner has ruled it an accidental death, IIRC. I think the argument is over whether it was criminal and if so, who was criminally at fault (imo). And that is where there is some disagreement. I just happen to believe that AB wasn't criminally negligent, and HGR should never work with arms again in her lifetime, and many disagree with my POV.

I feel that both AB and HGR should be found guilty of the crimes that they have been charged with and should spend some time behind bars for it. JMO.

 

[SteveS]

I think the defense would argue that saying AB was negligent, is testimony regarding an opinion on the key element of the crime, and thus is the same as testifying that AB is guilty. And that would normally not be admissible under the rules of evidence.

I would expect the prosecution to seek to elicit far more damaging testimony than an idle opinion.

I see them getting Halls and others on the stand who can testify to the behavioral norms on a movie set with guns and ammo (including the ones put in place for this one) to ensure the safety of Hutchins and others. Then, from one point to another in meticulous style, have the witnesses relate how the safeguards were this and this and this, whereas AB and HGR did that, that, and that, and completely disregarded safeguard 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and so on.

We have already heard both AB and HGR make statements to demonstrate they KNEW those safeguards and their importance. Either they violated them (and from what I have read, did so over and over) or they did not.

I don't think this case will be that hard to win IF the prosecution has the mindset and testimony to do that. I also think that it's a foolish (and perhaps significant) mistake for AB and HGR to take this to trial, because frankly, there's a dead woman who shouldn't be dead, and I don't think the jury will set a high bar for prosecution to leap by asking the people who did it to bear some personal culpability.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

One thing to remember is that the attorney's statements are not evidence for the jury to consider in determining the guilt of the defendants. Sample jury instruction below.

Questions, statements, objections, and arguments by the lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. Although you must consider a lawyer’s questions to understand the answers of a witness, the lawyer’s questions are not evidence. Similarly, what the lawyers have said in their opening statements, [will say in their] closing arguments, and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers state them, your memory of them controls.

3.7 What Is Not Evidence | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov