Then you, of all people, should have no problem understanding why the defense might not be satisfied with assurances from the prosecution's experts that the firearm was in perfect working condition before they broke it, making it impossible for the defense's experts to verify their claim.
Alec Baldwin- Charges dropped :-@
- Thread starter Metal god
- Start date
- Status
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I understand why the defense will say they are not satisfied. As I wrote above, the fact that the FBI broke the gun saves the defense the time, effort and expense of testing it themselves, and allows them to argue that the FBI might have been wrong, but now it can't be verified. For the defense, this is like the gift that keeps on giving. It's a freebie for them. Regardless of what their public posture is, in the privacy of their office I rather imaging they were celebrating with champagne. They can now claim doubt, where additional testing (short of destructive) wouldn't have helped their case at all.JohnKSa said:
I would also point out that what matters more than what satisfies the defense, is what satisfies the court (the judge) and what each individual juror decides to make of it.
I am positive the defense would not allow a single gun owner on to the jury and certainly no one experienced the Colt SA revolver design, if they have any say in the matter, and, generally, they do.
Reality is, generally speaking neither side wants anyone with any expertise or experience relating to anything in the case on the jury.
They want the jurors to only know about, and judge solely on what is presented in court. And do be aware, that, in court, the only people under oath to tell the truth are those sworn in on the stand to give testimony.
Neither the defense lawyer(s), NOR the Prosecution, nor even the Judge is under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Be sure and factor that into your evaluation of everything you see or hear about this case (and every other criminal case you ever hear about).
I am positive the defense would not allow a single gun owner on to the jury and certainly no one experienced the Colt SA revolver design, if they have any say in the matter, and, generally, they do.
Reality is, generally speaking neither side wants anyone with any expertise or experience relating to anything in the case on the jury.
They want the jurors to only know about, and judge solely on what is presented in court. And do be aware, that, in court, the only people under oath to tell the truth are those sworn in on the stand to give testimony.
Neither the defense lawyer(s), NOR the Prosecution, nor even the Judge is under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Be sure and factor that into your evaluation of everything you see or hear about this case (and every other criminal case you ever hear about).
AB , is it unreasonable to consider the damage to the hammer and trigger sear engagement the FBI did now hides possible previous damage ? With out examination of the item before “new” damage . How can you/we be sure there was no previous damage . I think one of the important aspects to all this is the fact that the damage happened to the very components that would need to be damaged for the firearm to fail as the defendant Described . It would be one thing if they bent the barrel or broke the cylinder off or something to that effect Because they wouldn’t go to the core mechanism that would allow the hammer to drop unintentionally . However, the damage the FBI created is the very damage you would need for the gun to fail as Baldwin is claiming . Now there is no way for the defense or an independent third party to tell if there was previous damage .
Jim Watson
New member
Sequestered destructive testing of an actual piece of physical evidence does not seem wise. Once it was seen that the revolver was in normal operating condition, any abuse should have been heaped on a similar example. Either from the prop inventory or COTS.
While true, my question is "so??"
legal eagles, please correct me if I'm wrong, but does a manslaughter conviction require proof of intent?? Isn't manslaughter the charge for when you don't intend to harm or kill, but someone does get killed, anyway???
Isn't that what happened on the RUST set that day? A person, who had no intent to kill, shot and killed another person.
Why it happened, and how it happened are things to be considered, but isn't the fact that it did happen, and that the person holding, aiming, and cocking the gun is the reason it happened the way it did enough for a conviction??
My point is that even if the gun HAD been broken at the time of the fatal shooting, it was Baldwin that created the conditions that led to death and injury.
Also, consider that while the FBI has demonstrated it is not the paragon of infallibility it was once considered to be, are we expected to believe the FBI was intentionally lying about the gun's condition when they received it, and began testing??
If we assume the defense's claim that the gun was broken/defective as the reason Baldwin fired the fatal shot is true, then we must assume that the FBI is deliberately lying about the condition of the gun when they received it.
Either that, or we can assume that fairies flew into the NM evidence room (probably at night) and repaired the gun before it was sent to the FBI for testing.
Or we can assume that the FBI tester was secretly a devoted Baldwin fan, and deliberately damaged the gun so the fact that it was working properly could not be used against him in court???
We can assume anything, what matters is what the court finds admissible as evidence and what the jury decides based on that.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
No one can be sure there was no previous damage. That's irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the gun was properly functional before the FBI broke it. Being the federal government's top crime lab, I'm sure the FBI documented their testing at each stage, and possibly even made videos. I don't know if the full report has been released, but it has been stated that the firearm functioned correctly (i.e. the hammer didn't fall unless/until the trigger was pulled) through multiple tests. The mallet whacking was at the end of the testing, intended to see what would actually be required to force the hammer to fall.Metal god said:
And the answer was: it took breaking the sear to make the hammer fall.
"Lack of due caution or circumspection", or proof that some non-felony law was being committed at the time of the death is required to prove manslaughter in New Mexico.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.
A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.
Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.
Obviously there's no doubt that someone is dead and that they didn't commit suicide. There's no need for a trial to determine that. The trial is going to determine if there was lack of due caution or circumspection or if Baldwin was committing some crime at the time of the death.
1. AB has already pointed out he's seen experts lie on the stand. Maybe, in this case, the expert would lie to cover up the fact that a pertinent test was left out before the destructive testing commenced. Maybe the expert would lie to cover up something they did wrong/incorrectly. Maybe the expert would lie because (like some people on this thread) they really hate Baldwin and think he deserves to suffer some misery.
2. Maybe the expert isn't lying and they inadvertently left out a test that might have provided relevant results, or did a test wrong and now that test can't be performed--in other words, they aren't infallible.
But apparently some of us just can't bring ourselves to assume anything that might relate to Baldwin being acquitted.
And no, simply assuming something isn't enough. The standard is reasonable doubt. So the assumption has to create reasonable doubt for it to be meaningful.
Exactly.
That's ONE of the questions. The defense isn't required to stick to just that one topic. They could also push the idea that it was someone else's responsibility to check the gun (a strong argument since someone else has already been convicted and sentenced for failing to carry out their responsibilities with regard to checking/managing the condition of the firearm) and so even if Baldwin did pull the trigger, he wasn't responsible or committing any crime (Your honor, my client doesn't even own a dog.) Or they may be able to come up with some other arguments to try to show he was still showing due caution and circumspection and acting in a manner consistent with the law even if he did point the gun and pull the trigger.
stagpanther
New member
If they remain hung up on the hardware itself and how Baldwin handled it--the odds go up that Baldwin will walk--too much grey zone stuff to cause reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury IMO. The case for negligence that led to the fatality is far more compelling IMO because Baldwin was essentially the property/facilities manager and was aware of what was there and what it was being used for. In that situation, it does not necessarily matter that he personally knew all the potential outcomes for the risk factors; only that the potential was there. Problems over adequate weapons control were brought to his attention and it appears he chose to either ignore them or simply did not have the necessary knowledge to deal with them properly. But mere ignorance of the range of possible outcomes will not get him off the hook IMO since he had a preponderance of concerns and warnings brought to his attention prior to the shooting.
The left wants him convicted because it sends a message that all guns are dangerous. The right wants him convicted because they don't like his political views.
Either way a conviction sends the wrong message IMO. We don't want to set a precedent where we convict people just because we disagree with them.
There is no doubt in my mind that he cocked the gun and pulled the trigger. I don't think he necessarily was pointing the gun at anyone. But actors have been using real guns and pointing them at other actors on stage and film for well over 100 years.
While rare, this isn't the 1st time a real bullet found its way into the gun. There was at least one actor who died even though a blank was in the gun.
Baldwin is an actor, not a gun expert. He was counting on others to ensure the gun was not loaded with live ammo. I'm not a mechanic. If I buy new tires and they don't properly install the lug nuts and a wheel comes off while I'm driving and kills someone, am I liable. Or the person who didn't properly install the lug nuts. (FWIW, that actually happened to me once, but no one was injured).
I will make one concession. In addition to being an actor, he was also the producer. I don't think Alex Baldwin the actor should be liable because someone loaded his gun with live ammo. But if it can be proven that Alex Baldwin the producer was responsible because he was running an unsafe workplace. I'd agree with a conviction. But I don't know how that works with the law.
Either way a conviction sends the wrong message IMO. We don't want to set a precedent where we convict people just because we disagree with them.
There is no doubt in my mind that he cocked the gun and pulled the trigger. I don't think he necessarily was pointing the gun at anyone. But actors have been using real guns and pointing them at other actors on stage and film for well over 100 years.
While rare, this isn't the 1st time a real bullet found its way into the gun. There was at least one actor who died even though a blank was in the gun.
Baldwin is an actor, not a gun expert. He was counting on others to ensure the gun was not loaded with live ammo. I'm not a mechanic. If I buy new tires and they don't properly install the lug nuts and a wheel comes off while I'm driving and kills someone, am I liable. Or the person who didn't properly install the lug nuts. (FWIW, that actually happened to me once, but no one was injured).
I will make one concession. In addition to being an actor, he was also the producer. I don't think Alex Baldwin the actor should be liable because someone loaded his gun with live ammo. But if it can be proven that Alex Baldwin the producer was responsible because he was running an unsafe workplace. I'd agree with a conviction. But I don't know how that works with the law.
Interesting development. The armorer's defense team is claiming that there were findings in the FBI's testing results that were withheld from them, preventing the issue from being raised at her trial.
https://www.tmz.com/2024/06/27/rust...-claims-prosecutors-hid-exculpatory-evidence/
"In the docs, Hannah's attorney, Jason Bowles, claims prosecutors buried a report showing the gun had “unexplained” alterations to the trigger that were unlikely the result of the FBI's trigger testing, and did not appear to be original manufacturing marks."
https://www.tmz.com/2024/06/27/rust...-claims-prosecutors-hid-exculpatory-evidence/
"In the docs, Hannah's attorney, Jason Bowles, claims prosecutors buried a report showing the gun had “unexplained” alterations to the trigger that were unlikely the result of the FBI's trigger testing, and did not appear to be original manufacturing marks."
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I'm having difficulty figuring out just how this could possibly help her. First, as the armorer, it was her responsibility to ensure that all the firearms were in proper functional condition. Second, I think what caused the jury to convict her was the basic fact that a live round was on the set and found its way into the gun Baldwin was using. Trigger malfunction or not, if there hadn't been a live round in the chamber, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today.JohnKSa said:
That said ... if the prosecution withheld ANYTHING from the defense, it's inexcusable.
I do believe that 44amp hit the nail on the head with regard to how the Pietta single action fired. Baldwins very poor trigger discipline is the primary reason. The single action revolver did exactly what the machine was designed to do, given the method in which Mr. Baldwin chose. Finger in the trigger guard pressing the trigger back far enough, and a hammer falling from "almost" full cock combined to kill Ms. Hutchins. No concious trigger pull was required, the trigger was depressed far enough when the hammer fell to ignite the primer..
Saw some video of Baldwin drawing the gun on the set. Several different times (all done before the day of the accident)
EVERY TIME, his finger was in the triggerguard and was mashing the trigger ALL THE WAY BACK. Hammer was down, when he drew, so there was no issue in him doing that, directly.
The way the mechanism works is that if you mash the trigger back (and are holding it there) you MUST release the trigger when you cock the hammer, OR the hammer will not stay cocked when you release it.
The problem is that if it your habit to have the trigger held all the way back when you draw, (whether you realize it, or not), you could easily "forget" to release the trigger when cocking the hammer, and THAT will cause the gun to fire when there is a live round under the hammer.
At one time, it was popular with some people to make the SA into a "slip gun", by taping the trigger back, and just using the hammer, holding it in the cocked position, and then letting it "slip" when they wanted the gun to fire.
I think Baldwin was telling the truth when he said he did not pull the trigger. I think he was already holding the trigger back, without realizing it, (so no separate trigger pull was needed) and in the videos of him drawing the gun, he is holding it in EXACTLY that way.
EVERY TIME, his finger was in the triggerguard and was mashing the trigger ALL THE WAY BACK. Hammer was down, when he drew, so there was no issue in him doing that, directly.
The way the mechanism works is that if you mash the trigger back (and are holding it there) you MUST release the trigger when you cock the hammer, OR the hammer will not stay cocked when you release it.
The problem is that if it your habit to have the trigger held all the way back when you draw, (whether you realize it, or not), you could easily "forget" to release the trigger when cocking the hammer, and THAT will cause the gun to fire when there is a live round under the hammer.
At one time, it was popular with some people to make the SA into a "slip gun", by taping the trigger back, and just using the hammer, holding it in the cocked position, and then letting it "slip" when they wanted the gun to fire.
I think Baldwin was telling the truth when he said he did not pull the trigger. I think he was already holding the trigger back, without realizing it, (so no separate trigger pull was needed) and in the videos of him drawing the gun, he is holding it in EXACTLY that way.
Thanks , I wonder if we’ll get any last-minute pre-trial requests from either side . if not, I assume they’re going to go straight into jury selection which ought to be A long process . I think I read or heard somewhere that the judge only gave a full day for that , that’s just a vague recollection. I really don’t know how much time they expect that to take .
- Status