First case involving Halyna Hutchins's death goes to trial .

I don’t see how you can separate the two in the filming context. Yes I know we should but it is the armorer’s responsibility to give the actor a safe gun .

Also some say Baldwin was trying to blame Ms Hutchins by saying , she was telling me where to hold the gun for the camera to capture it correctly. I see his point , if where the gun needs to be held for the camera is a specific place and that results in a unsafe pointing of the firearm . Then the crew needs to move not the actor . How do you know if it will be unsafe ? Running that blocking test . That test not only determines where the actors will be, but where the crew and equipment needs to be as well . That’s another reason why the replica should’ve been used during the test

Civil liability yes for sure but criminal I don’t know . Baldwin at least had a reason to believe the gun was cold , the armorer not so much . To be clear, I’m not looking at this as a firearms enthusiast that knows what Alec Baldwin did was totally wrong . I’m looking at this as a random person of a jury . I can totally see random people from the public finding him not criminally liable due to the armorer, putting a live round in the gun and telling him it was safe .

The separation is the difference between civil liable and criminally liable and that’s something the lawyers will make sure the jury understands are separate
 
Last edited:
The guilty party

Baldwin. He is the man that is responsible.
Not only did he shoot the woman for no reason whatsoever, he created the environment in which many long time industry pros walked off the job over safety issues. He hired one part time inexperienced armorer, when he was advised a minimum of two were needed based on 30 guns on set.
Cheap has consequences. As does complacency with firearms. Those two factors combined caused the death of Halyna.
Greed, it is a terrible thing.
 
Why the gun went off--for whatever reason--it has already been established that Guiterrez is responsible for the live round getting in the gun. I think it's going to be a waste of time to argue "yeah, but only if Baldwin had done this or that while holding the gun it wouldn't have mattered." They might, though, so I think it will be at least mentioned.

I think the prosecutor made it clear the door was still open for some kind of contributory negligence on Baldwin's part. She does not strike me as having any kind of favorable disposition towards Baldwin--and while I suspect she'll have to bring her A+ game to have any hope against what will likely be a formidable defense; I see the issue of over-all safe management of the production aspect for Baldwin as making him vulnerable. Connecting the dots such that it proves Guiterrez is not solely responsible for the live ammo discharging might be hard--but I think the case for contributory negligence is certainly a possibility.
 
Do we know if the same prosecutor will be prosecuting Baldwin? You would think so since she is intimately familiar with this case But who knows . If it’s a different prosecutor, I would think that would be an indication that the fix is in to acquit Baldwin .
 
Fine in theory, but when Baldwin is on trial you can bet the defense will not allow the jury to separate the two things.
Click to expand...
They most certainly will separate them.

One issue is the responsibility/culpability of the production company/owner (Baldwin will be in this mix somehow) for the situation on the set. Underqualified armorer, lax safety practices, ignoring previous incidents, possibly browbeating a young armorer, etc. This will probably be a civil case, but it might be treated as a criminal situation, I don't know.

A separate issue is the culpability of the actor (Baldwin) holding the gun when the incident occurred.

Assuming Baldwin (the actor) is prosecuted, that will be a different trial from Baldwin (the production company/owner) just as the armorer had a separate trial.

There's always more than enough blame to go around even after it's all split up fairly. So it's possible that Baldwin (the actor) might be convicted, but I do think it's true that finding the armorer was negligent weakens the case against Baldwin (the actor).
 
I see her conviction also severely impeding any conviction of Baldwin, who will show up with a serious legal team that continually reminds the jury that Guitierrez was been found to be responsible for this young lady's death by a jury.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they will try that tactic, but it may not work, because one of the things about the law and courts is the way "legal hairs" get split. DID the jury find Reed guilty of causing the death of Hutchins?? OR did they find her guilty of the negligence that led to the conditions that resulted in her death?

That small matter of language can be a big deal in court.
 
Involuntary manslaughter is the crime.

From a legal website:

Involuntary manslaughter (New Mexico) is the unintentional killing of a person while committing a misdemeanor criminal offense. Involuntary manslaughter can also occur if a person is engaging in a lawful act but unintentionally kills someone by being negligent or not exercising due care. ​

And another legal website:

Two types of killings may qualify as involuntary manslaughter (New Mexico): killing someone while committing a misdemeanor and killing someone through criminal negligence.


...

Criminal negligence is conduct that is reckless, wanton, or willful—another phrase that requires explanation. You are criminally negligent if you ignore or disregard obvious risks of harm to the life or safety of others. If your criminal negligence kills someone, you can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

You need not have anticipated killing someone. It is enough that your behavior showed sufficient disregard for the safety of others.​
 
A car wreck can occur while one person is playing with their phone and another is trying to eat a cheeseburger while driving.

Both were distracted. Often if either was paying attention the accident may have been avoided.

I don't notice much argument claiming Hannah is guilt free and the jury found her guilty.

There is nothing about her verdict that clears Baldwin of his negligence.

He needs to (if found guilty) be held accountable.
 
I don't see that going anywhere. What can she testify to?? That she was negligent allowing (at least one) live round to go into the gun, her conviction makes that a matter of record now.

She didn't hand the gun to Baldwin, she wasn't on the set at the time of the shooting, so she can't testify to any of that.

IF she tried to offer her testimony I think it would be turned down, as unnecessary. But the legal system has surprised me before, so I suppose they might accept the deal.
 
She can testify Of the toxic environment, and how she was unable to do her job Correctly by being refused additional help and or Baldwin and the production company, cutting corners, etc. Don’t know if it’d be credible it was just a thought

I’m assuming the state is saving the camera crew that walked off and other employees of the production To testify in Baldwin’s case . Although I did watch a video of Andrew Branca going over the states witness list for the Baldwin case and a very closely mirrored this cases list . Not sure if they are saving some as a surprise just before trial or what .

On a side note, do we know if there has been any preliminary hearings in the Baldwin case and if they are video or audio taped?
 
Last edited:
Not sure if they are saving some as a surprise just before trial or what .
Click to expand...

As I understand it, per court procedure, neither side is allowed to "surprise" the other. But what they can do (and often do, do) is keep things from the press and the public so when it shows up in court it is a surprise to us.
 
As I understand it, per court procedure, neither side is allowed to "surprise" the other.
Click to expand...

That would be correct... generally. Not calling a witness, or removing one from the witness list, is generally OK. Adding new witnesses at the last moment as an intentional surprise is frowned upon, and could well be denied. If the witness is not intended as a surprise, but is intended to clean up a specific matter of evidence or law that arose during trial prep, it well may be allowed. Or maybe not, depending on if the defense consents or if the judge allows it (absent consent). A lot of this hinges on counsels reputation and professional relationship with the judge. And judges tend to be a tad more lenient with defense (especially when adding witnesses last minute, maybe less so for other trial issues).

There's always more than enough blame to go around even after it's all split up fairly. So it's possible that Baldwin (the actor) might be convicted, but I do think it's true that finding the armorer was negligent weakens the case against Baldwin (the actor).
Click to expand...

For sure it's possible that Baldwin is convicted as both can have contributed criminal negligence. As you say, and my point was, Guitierrez's conviction is public... and you best bet Baldwins defense team is going to try and infer that her conviction absolves Baldwin to the jury. There are steps that prosecution can take to mitigate this, but I would be shocked if his defense didn't lean heavy on this tactic. A tactic that may well prove effective.


Then again, I completely called it wrong on Guitierrez's trial. I thought there was no way she would be convicted without a rock solid chain of custody for the gun from the time she loaded it until the time it was fired, with multiple witnesses ensuring it wasn't tampered with. Although a chain of custody seemed to be established, I don't think the defense made much hay about the possibility that someone else COULD HAVE tampered with it.
 
Last edited:
I had a thought , maybe Hanna testifies against Baldwin to get a lesser sentence consideration
Click to expand...

I assumed the plan all along was for Guitierrez to testify at Baldwins trial, which is why her trial was set first. While she could technically be called as a witness at Baldwins trial if he went first, she could literally say "5th amendment rights" to almost all questions while she is under indictment for the same event. It's likely her sentencing will be scheduled after Baldwins trial, and she may get credit for substantial assistance.
 
I thought there was no way she would be convicted without a rock solid chain of custody for the gun from the time she loaded it until the time it was fired, with multiple witnesses ensuring it wasn't tampered with.
Click to expand...
There was adequate evidence that she wasn't doing the job with ordinary care. The bottom line is that if she had taken ordinary care there's no way an actor would have ended up on set with a live round in the gun.

At least that's true absent any reasonable claim that someone intentionally brought that round and surreptitiously/deliberately loaded them into the gun to cause an incident.

Even then, if she had been on top of things, the issue would have almost certainly been caught before the gun was handed to the actor.
 
There was adequate evidence that she wasn't doing the job with ordinary care.
Click to expand...

This is a key point most people (and especially those who write the click bait headlines) don't seem to get. It involves proper definitions and what some would call splitting hairs.

The jury didn't find her guilty of killing Hutchins. They found her guilty of negligence to the level that allowed the death to happen, and because there was an unintentional death involved, it met the legal standard for manslaughter.

The fact that there isn't a clear rock solid verifiable chain of custody accounting for every second between when Reed loaded it and Baldwin got it might be useful for creating doubt had she been directly charged with causing the death, but it works against her when the charge is negligence, because it is evidence she did not do her job properly.
 
There I something I am curious about.

The work being done on that day was about creativity, not production. It was about matters not pre-defined by the script. Camera angles ,etc. .
So there was no cylinder loading sequence known. (Full wheel? Three blanks and two dummies?) So why would a preparatory loading be done?
For that matter,SAG rules would require BB shaking and loading on the set by the armorer while witnessed by all parties concerned. Then it would go in Baldwin's holster.
Supposedly it was done before lunch. Then locked up. Thats not OK.
The chain of custody to Baldwin's hand is a little murky. To my knowledge anyway.
IMO, once chain of custody is broken, the last handler is responsible.
The Actor should refuse any gun he did not witness the Armorer load.

The Actor should know and abide by at least that much of the SAG Code.

Who made the call to jump the steps? IMO, accepting the gun implies "I witnessed SAG Code being followed"

If not, THAT GUN IS LOADED . There is no slack for "Actors". Sure enough,the "unloaded guns" kill people.

One more question : No clip of film from that day was ever going to be viewed in a theatre .Attention to "Realism details" ???? Why?

What reason on Earth could there be to have any form of ammo component in the cylinder? Discussions about live ammo ,blanks and dummies become moot ,don't they?

Who called for anything in the cylinder?

Its just not that hard.

Between Baldwin, the Safety Director , and Hannah those questions need answers,

And Yes,Hannah should have said "No,we don't do it that way"

There are multiple workable safety systems. They cannot work if people do not follow the procedure,whatever it is.

And when someone is not following the safety procedure, the "Workplace Culture " needs to call them out.

I worked a career as a machinist. Walk into the shop without safety glasses,probably within 30 seconds someone will hand you a pair.

No one person can keep a jobsite safe. If thats the culture,that person is there to get thrown under the bus.

And yes,Hannah screwed up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top