Look like there is still some pretrial motions. Trial set to start tomorrow Tuesday July 9th 2024
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fW7kvJLiUJE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fW7kvJLiUJE
NM v Alec Baldwin 7/8/2024
- Thread starter Metal god
- Start date
- Status
The Verminator
Moderator
Thanks for starting a new thread.
HUGE ruling just came down . State can NOT introduce Baldwins role as a producer as it relates to safety on set . Not sure what that will mean to some of the videos the state wants to introduce.
The court seems to be drawing a hard line between Baldwin the actor and Baldwin the producer. Claiming as producer he did not have sole and full powers over the movie . Stating there were several other producers as well as the company named in the production that Baldwin needed to consult before any of his producer actions were Ok’d
The court seems to be drawing a hard line between Baldwin the actor and Baldwin the producer. Claiming as producer he did not have sole and full powers over the movie . Stating there were several other producers as well as the company named in the production that Baldwin needed to consult before any of his producer actions were Ok’d
Last edited:
stagpanther
New member
That's baffling to me! Especially in light of a string of events and warnings of lapses in safety standards which he deliberately did not act upon. I guess they are going to try to convict just on the act of shooting.
Baldwin would be the most senior representative of the company in a position to see what was happening and therefore being in a position to do something--just because others outside the set were not consulted doesn't get him off the hook IMO. The only way I could see him getting off the hook would be if the other decision makers had been informed and they said no the way I see it. Then they would be complicit in negligence.
Last edited:
Interesting development in the hearing as it relates to producers . The defense wants to admit an OSHA investigation/finding report . The long and short of it is in that report OSHA blames the production company for its failure to comply with safety standards . The judge ruled if the defense introduces the OSHA report then Alex Baldwin as a producer on set is free game .
That’s interesting in itself, but what I find more interesting is that the judge ruled the OSHA report can be admitted into evidence . Does that mean the prosecution can admit it and once admitted use the producer aspect of their argument or can only the defense admit it because they’re the ones asking for the admittance ?
That’s interesting in itself, but what I find more interesting is that the judge ruled the OSHA report can be admitted into evidence . Does that mean the prosecution can admit it and once admitted use the producer aspect of their argument or can only the defense admit it because they’re the ones asking for the admittance ?
Last edited:
double standard, perhaps???
does the ruling mean the "the captain of the ship" is now no longer responsible for what happens on, or with the ship??
Doesn't that fly in the face of literally centuries of established law???
They found Hazelwood responsible for the grounding of the Exxon Valdez, even though, at the time of the accident, he was asleep in his cabin and the 3rd mate was steering the ship.
There is, perhaps, another possibility, if they separate Baldwin the actor (who was holding the gun when it fired) from Baldwin the producer, (who allowed safety rules to be violated) might that allow for a separate set of charges and (hopefully) a trial to be brought if he is not convicted in this trial?
Would that be double jeopardy in the legal sense?? Certainly his defense would argue it would be, but would a court see it that way??
We already have a conviction of the armorer (who shot no one) for negligence, how can the producer not be held to account for their negligence and role in the events??
does the ruling mean the "the captain of the ship" is now no longer responsible for what happens on, or with the ship??
Doesn't that fly in the face of literally centuries of established law???
They found Hazelwood responsible for the grounding of the Exxon Valdez, even though, at the time of the accident, he was asleep in his cabin and the 3rd mate was steering the ship.
There is, perhaps, another possibility, if they separate Baldwin the actor (who was holding the gun when it fired) from Baldwin the producer, (who allowed safety rules to be violated) might that allow for a separate set of charges and (hopefully) a trial to be brought if he is not convicted in this trial?
Would that be double jeopardy in the legal sense?? Certainly his defense would argue it would be, but would a court see it that way??
We already have a conviction of the armorer (who shot no one) for negligence, how can the producer not be held to account for their negligence and role in the events??
Maritime law and rules often differ then if you’re on land . One incredibly interesting aspect to that is When the dolly hit that bridge in Baltimore . Guess who is partially liable for paying for all of the cost? ……… Wait for it ……..
The entities that had cargo on the ship :-@ wait what ????? Yep , I guess this goes back a couple hundred years of Maritime law . The theory is the ship would not have been where it was. Had you not had your shipping containers on the ship? .
Just an interesting factoid, I thought might be relevant , Not to this, but Maritime law, and maybe captains are more responsible, even though they were asleep or sometimes not even on the ship .
The entities that had cargo on the ship :-@ wait what ????? Yep , I guess this goes back a couple hundred years of Maritime law . The theory is the ship would not have been where it was. Had you not had your shipping containers on the ship? .
Just an interesting factoid, I thought might be relevant , Not to this, but Maritime law, and maybe captains are more responsible, even though they were asleep or sometimes not even on the ship .
Maritime law and other laws vary in detail, but there are some principle's that hold true across the board (or should I say 
)
Someone is always responsible. The designated responsible parties might not be the ones at fault, personally, but they are the ones responsible.
Usually, this is done at the lowest level practical, but that level varies from case to case.
On a ship, generally, it is the Captain. In the military, it is the commanding officer (at what ever level is deemed responsible).
On a rigging lift, its the crane operator.
But responsibility is not always a single point thing. Responsibility can and should be shared by all involved parties, to a degree, though that degree can be taken to barking stupid extremes, just as legal liability can be (and often is).
As I see it, the person who hires an untrained, under trained or trained but incompetent person and puts them in a position where their actions of lack of actions have an effect on personal and workplace safety IS responsible for that.
They aren't the ONLY ones responsible, but that doesn't change or eliminate their responsibility. EVER.
"I was only following orders" and "I didn't know it was loaded" are explanations, NOT excuses.
)Someone is always responsible. The designated responsible parties might not be the ones at fault, personally, but they are the ones responsible.
Usually, this is done at the lowest level practical, but that level varies from case to case.
On a ship, generally, it is the Captain. In the military, it is the commanding officer (at what ever level is deemed responsible).
On a rigging lift, its the crane operator.
But responsibility is not always a single point thing. Responsibility can and should be shared by all involved parties, to a degree, though that degree can be taken to barking stupid extremes, just as legal liability can be (and often is).
As I see it, the person who hires an untrained, under trained or trained but incompetent person and puts them in a position where their actions of lack of actions have an effect on personal and workplace safety IS responsible for that.
They aren't the ONLY ones responsible, but that doesn't change or eliminate their responsibility. EVER.
"I was only following orders" and "I didn't know it was loaded" are explanations, NOT excuses.
It's not terribly uncommon for the one side or the other to be prevented from broaching a topic while the opposite side can if they choose to. However, there are often consequences for choosing to do so, as in this case.
The judge is saying to the prosecution: "You can't go there first, but if the defense chooses to open the door, then you can walk through it too and present your arguments."
1. It appears that part of the issue is that he is not "THE captain", and therefore shares the responsibility.
2. There are different types of responsibility, and not all types result in criminal punishment.
3. It appears that the judge believes the nature of the charges relate exclusively to Baldwin's actions as the person holding the gun.
Maybe some kind of civil trial.
stagpanther
New member
I wonder if opening the possibility of a negligence on the part of producers also would open the door for Guiterrez to challenge/appeal her conviction. This just doesn't pass the smell test to me. I don't know New Mexico law, but I'm beginning to suspect that their definitions for shooting resulting in death may differ from other states; and that perhaps despite all the ambiguities of of actors playing with potentially lethal toys entrusted to others to manage--that if you pull the trigger and it kills--you've committed homicide, willingly or not. By taking producer negligence out of the equation it seems to me that reduces the responsibility for the fatality to either Baldwin or Guiterrez; I don't see how it can be both at the same time. I think looming in the background is that the entire film-making industry is also on trial, in a sense.
Last edited:
Baldwin says he didn't pull the trigger. The woman is still dead.
The actual text of the NM law was posted (at least once) in the previous thread on this topic. It is, essentially in line with the rest of the country regarding manslaughter, in that, if you do something that is not expected to kill someone, and someone dies, it is manslaughter.
And, by definition, manslaughter is homicide.
Murder is also homicide, but has a separate legal definition, and is not applicable to the current case under discussion.
The information is online, I found it, there is a very comprehensive listing of deaths on movie sets since the early 1900s. IIRC only about 4 of them were due to someone accidently being shot with a bullet. Many, many times that number of people have been killed in falls, accidents with horses, other animals, motor vehicle accidents, special effects, and stunts gone wrong.
I suppose separating Baldwins actions on the set that day, and his role in creating the overall safety culture of the production might have been done to give the jury a simpler and more clear subject to focus on, so that a solid verdict would be more likely to obtain.
I feel Baldwin has a personal responsibility in both areas, but isn't the only responsible party.
Electrod47
New member
Our eye's told us what we needed to see...and logic dictates he killed a woman point blank for reasons that could have been prevented. He should be punished for taking that life.
But, Logic plays NO role here I'm afraid. This issue and that issue will be ground to dust in front of the jury and they will likely be left with some bag of manure to vote on.....hung jury that will never be retried. The Court of Public Opinion is the only justice that gal will get.
But, Logic plays NO role here I'm afraid. This issue and that issue will be ground to dust in front of the jury and they will likely be left with some bag of manure to vote on.....hung jury that will never be retried. The Court of Public Opinion is the only justice that gal will get.
The Verminator
Moderator
If Baldwin gets 18 months it will be a slap on the wrist compared to what he really should get.
They should have sat the jury today and opening statements start tomorrow. I’m assuming first thing so if I can, I’ll try to get a link going , if anybody else before me finds one go ahead and post it.
I didn’t even notice yesterday but Mr Baldwin was in the courtroom during those last pretrial motions. I don’t think he was at the other ones but maybe. I’ll have to go back and look.
I didn’t even notice yesterday but Mr Baldwin was in the courtroom during those last pretrial motions. I don’t think he was at the other ones but maybe. I’ll have to go back and look.
There are two flavors. Baldwin is accused of the second version.
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.unlawful
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.
To convict him under the law he is charged with, the state will have to show to the jury's satisfaction that he was committing an unlawful act that was not a felony and/or that he was acting without due caution and circumspection.
Since violating the gun safety rules or the SAG guidelines isn't a crime, they will have to focus on the latter--they will have to show that he was acting without due caution and circumspection. Furthermore, this source suggests that simply showing he was merely being careless may not be sufficient to convict. They will have to show that he was criminally negligent or actually reckless.
https://newmexicocriminallaw.com/involuntary-manslaughter-in-new-mexico-comprehensive-legal-guide/
"To prove involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must prove the accused acted recklessly or with criminal negligence. A person acts recklessly when they are aware of the risk they are creating with their actions, like when a drunk driver gets behind the wheel of a car.
A person is criminally negligent when they are unaware of an obvious risk they are creating with their actions, but a reasonable person would have been."
That's the maximum sentence if he is convicted of the statute he is accused of violating.
stagpanther
New member
That's why I think the odds are high he'll walk. "A reasonable person" is not necessarily one who is familiar with and/or trained with proper firearms usage. "A reasonable person" upon being informed that a weapon was "cold" and that someone else had controlled the firearm to ensure its safe condition might reasonably assume that it was "impossible" for them to fire a live round. If Baldwin had formerly been trained on proper firearms use professionally (i.e. he knew the golden rule "never point a firearm at anything you don't intend to destroy") then there might be a chance they get him on that; but it would still have to outweigh how "a reasonable person" would have acted in the same situation.
BTW--I think you do an excellent job in keeping legal discussions "in the lane."
If Baldwin the actor is found not guilty, could the prosecutor refile chargers against Baldwin the producer without it being double jeopardy? Personally I can not see how the recklessness of Baldwin the producer is not part of the case. The judge really handcuffed the state in this one.
- Status