Alec Baldwin- Charges dropped :-@

[Wag]

Any and everytime a gun in your hands fires, YOU (the shooter) are responsible. Period. You may not be found legally liable, or at fault, but that doesn't change the fact that you are responsible. That's the way I see it.

This right here.

--Wag--

 

[LeverGunFan]

No, of course they can't vouch for that, first off, they were not there at the time of the incident, and second, no defense witness is going to intentionally say anything that could harm the defense's case.

Consider this, The gun's mechanism, was operated once after the fatal shot was fired. SOMEONE (identity as yet unknown) unloaded the gun, before the Deputies arrived on the scene. The next time the mechanism was operated was during the FBI testing.

And, here's the thing about that, I doubt the FBI just gave the gun to a kid right out of the academy, though it is possible I guess. Any way, the FBI COULD NOT get the gun to fire (hammer fall) without the trigger being pulled. They tested that and the gun would not do it. Trying to "push the hammer off" or jar it off is a standard thing. The gun didn't do that. And in fact they kept trying to get the gun to do it, and it didn't, and the gun BROKE without dropping the hammer when the trigger was not pulled.

That seems pretty conclusive, to me. Baldwin ADMITS to cocking the hammer, he ADMITS to releasing the hammer, he ADMITS to pointing the gun at the victim. He CLAIMS he didn't pull the trigger, because he doesn't REMEMBER doing it. The FBI tested the gun and could not get the cocked hammer to fall unless the trigger was pulled. They tested it until it BROKE (and I'm certain that was an "oh crap! moment), and the cocked hammer would not fall without the trigger being pulled.

IF the gun had broken, in just the right way AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING, then POSSIBLY Baldwin's claim the hammer fell without him pulling the trigger might be valid. However, the gun was operating properly when the FBI got it, and broken guns DO NOT FIX THEMSELVES, so it is reasonable to assume that when the FBI got the gun, it was not broken, in any way.

The defense is throwing all the poo they can scrape up against the wall, hoping something will stick. The informed public, and so far, the court isn't buying any of it.

Any and everytime a gun in your hands fires, YOU (the shooter) are responsible. Period. You may not be found legally liable, or at fault, but that doesn't change the fact that you are responsible. That's the way I see it.

That all may be true, but once the FBI tested the gun to the breaking point there was no going back. If the defense wasn't given the opportunity to examine the gun before the FBI tested and broke it, they have a a legitimate gripe. It seems to have been an unnecessary step by the FBI that gives the defense an opening for argument, and there is no guarantee that the jury will be composed of savvy gun people.

 

[Skans]

Criminal intent, as in "intending to kill someone" is not necessary for manslaughter. Acting with reckless regard for the safety of others is all the intent necessary to get a manslaughter conviction.

 

[44 AMP]

If the defense wasn't given the opportunity to examine the gun before the FBI tested and broke it, they have a a legitimate gripe.

I can see they have a gripe. Now, the question is, does their gripe merit dismissal of the case??, which is what they are asking for.

I don't think the FBI set out to test the gun to destruction. I think that when it broke it was a surprise to them that it broke. And do note that until it broke, and they discontinued testing, the gun never failed to operate in any improper manner.

Personally, I think the defense team watched MY COUSIN VINNY and drew the wrong conclusions...

Consider this, isn't their argument that "since we could not test the gun in the condition it was in at the time of the shooting, the case should be dismissed".

Now consider the general principles involved. Suppose that the gun had spent 6 months on the seabottom before being recovered and was rusted into a non operable mass. Would the defense have a valid claim to dismiss the case, because they couldn't test the gun in the condition it was in at the time of the shooting, to be able to evaluate it for proper function???

The entire issue of the gun breaking may be moot, as it happened AFTER the shooting, and was the result of intentional abuse, and therefore, might be ruled inadmissible, or may not even be introduced as evidence by the prosecution at the trial.

We don't know, yet. Stay for the next act...popcorn and drinks avaliable in the lobby.....

 

[fastbolt]

That all may be true, but once the FBI tested the gun to the breaking point there was no going back. If the defense wasn't given the opportunity to examine the gun before the FBI tested and broke it, they have a a legitimate gripe. It seems to have been an unnecessary step by the FBI that gives the defense an opening for argument, and there is no guarantee that the jury will be composed of savvy gun people.

It doesn't have to be composed of savvy gun people. They just have to find the testimony of the FBI lab people credible. Reasonable doubt has to be ... reasonable. Not just speculation and what if's thrown all over the room.

Obviously the gun was functional at the time of the shooting, and it hadn't exhibited a problem in the scenes and manipulations done for all the previous scenes and inspections by the armorer. If the testimony of the other witnesses are found credible, the suspect was thumb cocking the gun a lot on-set in previous scenes, and operating the trigger, including when it ought not have been done, horsing around, etc. The bar for a manslaughter conviction is pretty low, and it's all going to come down to who the jurors find more credible, I'd think.

 

[Ricklin]

Ahhh, the old my cousin Vinny defense.
44 amp as usual nailed it nicely. The responsibility lies with the guy that aimed the weapon at someone that did not need shooting and shot them.
The testimony of the FBI expert weapons examiner is more than adequate to ascertain the weapon was functioning exactly as it was designed to function. There seems to be some perceived necessity that he pulled the trigger, he shot her, pulling the trigger is a red herring. He created the situation and had no reason to do so.

 

[44 AMP]

There are a host of things about this incident that are implausible, strung together with a cascading effect. Can't say impossible, because they did happen, but some things, are being focused on that simply are extremely unlikely, and being put forward as the cause, rather than the most likely cause, which is denied by the defendant.

Random chance could account for the idea that there was only one loaded round in the gun, and it just happened to be the one under the hammer, and the gun fired. We don't know, but I think it unlikely. When the deputies arrived and took control of the scene, the gun had been unloaded and was empty. The deputies were given a box with ammo in it, which contained dummy rounds, some actual blanks and some live rounds (or so people have said).

Unless we get testimony from who ever did that admitting they did it, we're unlikely to ever know with certainty who did what with the gun, between the time Baldwin fired it, and the police arrived. SO, there's that element of doubt.

The gun clearly worked on the set, AND also worked correctly when the FBI tested it. Any claim that the gun didn't operate as designed, (and so was broken/defective) one time (the fatal shot) but worked correctly before and after that seems rather fanciful to me. Defective/broken guns don't fix themselves. Personally, I think the fact that the gun broke during testing simply re-enforces the fact that it was working correctly.

I'd say that's the bear trap at the bottom of that particular rabbit hole.
We're expecting a ruling on this current dismissal request on Friday. My bet is the judge will order the case to proceed.

 

[Metal god]

The gun was not destroyed ,the hammer and sear engagement was broken during testing . The gun was given to the FBI for testing to see if it could be discharged without pulling the trigger . Testing showed that the gun was in full operating order and would not fire unless the trigger was pulled . They then proceeded to see what it would take to cause the hammer to fall, and/or the firearm to fire without the trigger being pulled . They struck the hammer with a mallet several times until the seer engagement broke, and the gun would discharge without pulling the trigger . That is the destruction they speak of .

That is all well documented But the problem I have is the defense never got a chance to inspect or test the firearm before it was broken . It certainly could be argued that the gun never operated correctly now that it does not operate correctly . I’ve been watching a bunch of the pretrial motions and the judge seems to really want to just leave the fact finding in the jury’s hands so my guess is she will not grant the dismissal .

I thought the defense had a great argument in my humble opinion when it came to the actual definition of negligent, manslaughter or whatever the charges are . It turns out to be guilty Baldwin had to have known that there was a likelihood that the gun was loaded with live ammunition. It turns out the prosecutors actually wrote in one of their briefs. If Baldwin had a likelihood of knowing the firearm was loaded with live ammo, they would’ve charged him with second-degree murder. By admitting that he did not have a likelihood of knowing the gun was loaded with live ammo the defense argued it’s impossible for him to be found guilty on the current charges because the armorer loaded the gun with “dummy” rounds and the assistant Director handed him the gun with “dummy” rounds and told him the gun was cold . The defense believes that’s good enough for Baldwin to have a reasonable belief the gun was not loaded with live ammunition . The judge ruled that she believed that was a decision the jury should decide and ruled against the defense .

Another pretrial motion was to force Hannah to testify by giving her immunity. I believe they called it forced immunity. It turns out Hannah is very uncooperative and does not want to testify. Because of this, the judge ruled, she will not get forced immunity, and will not be required to testify to anything that may incriminate her . I was not sure exactly where all that got left, but I believe there is still going to be another hearing to decide what specific questions can be asked of Hannah on the stand that she will be required to answer because they will not jeopardize her fifth amendment rights. It sounded like if Hannah testifies, it’s going to be very structured and very curtailed . My question to that , will that hearing be televised? If so, Hannah will have complete scripted answers ready for them because she will know exactly what questions she will be asked .

There’s all kinds of more stuff , the defenses has filed motion after motion after motion . Another one was that they wanted to have special jury instructions that pretty much said the opposite of New Mexico, jury instructions.Yeah, they didn’t get that one either. lol

 

[44 AMP]

It certainly could be argued that the gun never operated correctly now that it does not operate correctly .

While anything can be argued, I think the argument that the gun never operated correctly is literally crap. The proof is right there in the FBI testing itself. The gun operated correctly and kept doing so until it broke, as a result of trying to force it to operate incorrectly.

I don't see how that is a fact that can be disputed.

As to what Balwin knew or didn't know about the rounds in the gun, does that really matter?? Sure it makes a difference in what level of legal punishment should be applied, but as far as a manslaughter charge, isn't the basis of manslaughter the fact that something not expected to kill someone, did??

Isn't that precisely what happened on the Rust set that day?? IF not, HOW is it not??

 

[Metal god]

It can be disputed because you never were able to see it prior . Maybe your right , the government would never lie to the court or mislead the public . Steal dossier , covid ,JFK … I could go on but …

 

[JohnKSa]

The gun operated correctly and kept doing so until it broke, as a result of trying to force it to operate incorrectly.

I don't see how that is a fact that can be disputed.

The defense was entitled to have their own experts examine the gun in the condition it was at the time of the shooting. The idea that the state is the only one who gets to look at evidence and is free to destroy/damage/alter it in the process, making it impossible for the defense to do their own examination and rebuttal is pretty messed up.

What would you say if Baldwin had broken the gun before law enforcement got to examine it? It's exactly the same thing...

 

[44 AMP]

I understand the principle and do agree with the principle, but wasn't the testing done before there was any "defense" in existence??

I don't mean Baldwin's lawyers, whom he had on day one, I mean, can there BE a defense "team" before charges are even filed??

The defense is doing their job, using any and everything to create doubt, which will hopefully (for their client) avoid a conviction. I get that. What I wonder about is the validity of requesting the case be dismissed.

Is there, in law, such a thing as "too many trips to the well"??

or crying "WOLF!!!!!"

 

[JohnKSa]

So the state is free to destroy/damage/alter evidence as long as they haven't filed charges first? Or as long as the defendant hasn't picked a lawyer yet?

How could that possibly make sense?

That would be like saying that a person is free to destroy/damage/alter evidence as long as they do it before they are charged with a crime or before they are arrested.

If the state damages/destroys/alters evidence, then they would want to document things so thoroughly that it would be impossible or at least very difficult for the defense to make an issue of the fact that the evidence can no longer be examined/verified. If the defense does argue that point, if they do so convincingly enough, the jury may believe them.

As far as I know, they can ask for the case to be dismissed as often as they want, although I would imagine that the judge will shut them down if they do it over and over without presenting any new rationale.

 

[Metal god]

One of the things that came out on cross in that hearing was the lead detective gave the FBI instructions ( paraphrasing cause I don’t know the exact words ) examine this firearm to prove Baldwin’s statement that it malfunctioned wrong . I believe that was in an email or FBI notes . The detectives could have ask to simply test the firearm if it was operating correctly but that’s not what they did . At that point they were no longer the finders of the truth/facts .

Based on some of the pretrial motions and testimony. I believe this is going to be a very interesting trial .

FWIW I think he should get the full 18 months sentence but I can’t just ignore some of the things that make me go hmmm ?

 

[Jim Watson]

Right, destroying evidence under the pretext of "testing" will not look good in court, my acceptance of other evidence notwithstanding.

 

[44 AMP]

I think it ought to be considered that there is a difference between intentionally destroying evidence and something that unexpectedly breaks or fails during testing.

And, we (Or rather the lawyers involved on both sides) can split hairs down to a single atom's thickness making arguments.

So the state is free to destroy/damage/alter evidence as long as they haven't filed charges first? Or as long as the defendant hasn't picked a lawyer yet?

How could that possibly make sense?

How can it not make sense, other than as a blanket statement, inclusive of all situations? Then it doesn't make sense, to me, anyway.

It HAS to be situation specific or it simply won't work. There are common, everyday situations where testing must be done to even determine if a crime has been committed. There are standard tests used every day that destroy the material tested, in testing. Not being able to do testing (as a blanket principle) until charges are filed and there is a defense team to examine the evidence simply will not work.

But, we're talking extremes and overall principles here at the moment, and these things need to be rationally applied, and applied in different degrees, dependent on the specifics of the different situations.

I don't think that the fact that the gun is not now in the exact same condition as it was when it fired the fatal shot is valid grounds to dismiss the case.

Baldwin's lawyers seem to think so. We'll see what the judge says.

 

[Metal god]

I don’t know what’s going on with you 44 i’ve always considered you a well reasoned person but you really seem to be doubling down lately on things that are a little questionable . The gun didn’t accidentally break full stop . They found that it operated correctly during normal/standard testing . Then they did things purposely to cause it to fail . Meaning they broke it on purpose and again, that’s just what they’re claiming .

 

[44 AMP]

The gun didn’t accidentally break full stop . They found that it operated correctly during normal/standard testing . Then they did things purposely to cause it to fail . Meaning they broke it on purpose and again, that’s just what they’re claiming .

Much as I dislike being in the position of defending the FBI, I think in this case that assumptions are being made without facts in evidence. First off, we won't know the specific details of what the FBI did until their report becomes public. (entered into evidence in court would do that).

Next point is about "testing" and the way it is often done. A level of abuse in testing is normal. It is intentional, because it needs to be known IF the gun can fail, and at what level that can happen. I am not saying testing should go to destruction/damage levels, as a matter of course, but that testing can reach those levels before the techs doing the testing are expecting it, and that I what I think happened with Baldwin's gun.

Jarring the gun, dropping the gun, even smacking the cocked hammer with a mallet to see if it can be made to go off, are not unusual or uncomon tests. The claim was made that the gun failed to operate properly during normal use. The FBI could not get the gun to fail during normal use. Then they went beyond normal use testing to see if the gun would fail under abuse, and what level of abuse it took. In this case, parts of the gun broke but did not fail until broken.

Consider a slightly different, situation, but also similar in some aspects.

Suppose a cocked gun was dropped, (and so fired without the trigger being pulled). The claim is made that the gun is defective. The gun is tested, dropped from a height of 5 feet and fails to go off. Tested repeatedly and fails to go off. The question gets raised, will the gun go off if dropped under any conditions?? So they drop test at ever increasing heights, until the gun does go off, or breaks, or the heights reach patently unrealistic levels.

"Its all there in the report, we tested and the gun would not go off when dropped 6 feet. It did not go off when dropped 10 feet, but DID go off when dropped 30 feet, IF it landed muzzle down on a hard surface." This may seem like an absurd example, but this kind of thing has been done.

I am not claiming the FBI did everything right in this case. All I am saying is that we should not assume they did everything (or anything ) wrong, until we have the actual facts of what they did available. "Leaks" and hearsay are not valid reliable sources.

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't think that the fact that the gun is not now in the exact same condition as it was when it fired the fatal shot is valid grounds to dismiss the case.

Since the condition of the gun (in terms of function) is important to the case, it should be pretty easy to understand why the defense would try make a point of the fact that the gun's condition at the time of the incident can no longer be verified due to damage done to it by the state.

How can it not make sense...

So you think it's ok for the state to alter evidence that could result in convicting someone as long as they don't charge the person until afterwards?

How is it EVER ok to alter evidence? The evidence is suppose to tell the true story, it's never supposed to be a case of someone setting up the evidence to achieve an agenda.

There are standard tests used every day that destroy the material tested, in testing.

In cases like that, that needs to be explained to the jury so that it is clearly understood and there also needs to be extreme care taken during the process to document everything that is done so that if questions arise, they can be answered to everyone's satisfaction--especially the jury's. A defense attorney would be a fool if they didn't make a point of the fact that they can't look at the evidence because it no longer exists or because it was altered by the actions of the prosecution, and a jury might find that point convincing. Maybe the FBI documented things carefully enough to put any concerns to rest maybe they didn't. We'll see what the jury thinks--that's what matters.

All I am saying is that we should not assume they did everything (or anything ) wrong, until we have the actual facts of what they did available. "Leaks" and hearsay are not valid reliable sources.

The FBI isn't on trial. Frankly, whether what they did was "right" or "wrong" is not especially relevant.

The point is that if the defense argues that the gun was defective at the time of the incident but that the FBI testing (which they admit intentionally altered the gun's function) concealed that issue by damaging the gun, they may be able to introduce a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. And that's all that is required for an acquittal.

Of course, the issue of the gun's function may not even be an important issue if the defense chooses to focus on the fact that another person has already been found to be criminally responsible and that their actions are the real reason for the tragedy.

Or they might argue both points at once. Like Racehorse Haynes said:

"Let’s say you sue my client because you claim that his dog bit you. Well, my first line of defense would be that my client’s dog doesn’t bite. My next line of defense would be that my client always keeps his dog locked up. Third, we don’t think you really got bit anyway. And my fourth line of defense would be “Your honor, my client doesn’t even have a dog.”"

 

[Metal god]

“Your honor, my client doesn’t even have a dog.”"

Haha now that cracked me up !

FWIW the FBI test was introduced in the first trial . The technician that actually did the testing testified. All this was brought up in that trial. It wasn’t particularly relevant in Hanna’s trial because she wasn’t the one pulling the trigger. I believe it will have much more relevancy in this trial.