NM v Alec Baldwin 7/8/2024

[Metal god]

Edit . I just want to say before anybody reads my post that I was writing it as AB posted his and it’s not a response to his post. Just something I was thinking..

I couldn’t watch but was listening to the hearing to dismiss . IMHO it’s less how exculpatory the evidence was and more how it was not disclosed . I believe the judge made up her mind when it was testified to that 1) out of all the hundreds of pieces of evidence in “this” case . This new evidence was the ONLY piece of evidence that was assigned a different case number then every other piece of evidence in the case . This made it very easy to loose track of and never disclose to the defense .2) It was also testified to that there was a meeting about what to do with this evidence. In that meeting was the lead detective , the crimes scene tech and the prosecutor.

You can’t have every major player for the state involved in making of a decision on a piece of evidence that gets hidden from the defense and there be no consequence .

Is the evidence relative or exculpatory to Alec Baldwin? ? At a glance, it doesn’t appear so but that’s irrelevant when there “appears” to be a conspiracy to hide that evidence . I believe the judge dismissed the case , Less to do about the evidence itself and more to do about the conduct of the prosecution and investigators . The defenses argument appeared to be that they would’ve prepared their case differently and asked different questions of the witnesses that have already been testifying if they had knowledge of this evidence from the beginning . I believe the judge agrees and felt there was no remedy other than dismissal . The with prejudice part actually seems a bit extreme to me, but that is what it is now.

On a sidenote, I think this shows the inexperience of the prosecutor . I believe this was her second prosecution with the Hannah trial being her first . She has been a defense, lawyer and a damn good one. I think she got a bit over the tip of her skis on this case.

 

[The Verminator]

If the evidence has no value, then turning it over to the defense wouldn't make any difference to the outcome of the case. So why hide it?

The answer to that is that the "evidence" was not relevant to the case.

Nobody hid it. They simply decided it had no valid connection to the case.

It was just a bunch of ammo that was brought in because it was made by the same provider as the Rust ammo.

NOBODY is even saying how it could be relevant.

The cops and the lawyers correctly rejected it.

It didn't even fit the definition of evidence.

 

[stagpanther]

What a %$#%&! I had a strong feeling something like this would happen once the producer part got dumped. Now Guiterrez I guess has a path open for appeal.

 

[The Verminator]

Well, maybe there will be an appeal.

Anyhow........the civil case will gut Baldwin.

 

[Metal god]

Just heard this so I have to repeat it .

It’s never a good sign when the prosecutor is the final witness in a trial ! Lol

 

[JohnKSa]

Some interesting insights here from an expert.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...to-the-prosecutors-expert-says-192022322.html

"Criminal defense lawyer Lauren Johnson-Norris told Yahoo Entertainment that she's "not surprised this case ultimately ended up as a complete embarrassment to the prosecution."

"Not only was their theory against Baldwin untenable, they withheld exculpatory evidence in an effort to convict him," she explained. "The dismissal with prejudice puts an end to this spectacle of a trial and I would expect Gutierrez-Reed to be filing a motion for a new trial Monday morning.""​

"[The prosecution] brought in evidence to try to show [Baldwin] was indifferent to what has happened. But the question is whether he was negligent at the time of firing, and the evidence does not point in that direction," Johnson-Norris continued.​

It's instructive to see how they contrast with comments by... well... non-experts.

The bottom line is the case against Baldwin was so weak that the prosecutor felt the need to cheat but got caught doing it.

In 2021, I predicted the outcome of the case although I didn't foresee the prosecution trying to cheat to win, something that may actually result in the armorer going free eventually. I'm not saying that to blow my own horn but because there are lessons to be learned.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6896209&postcount=276

Three interesting comments I made in that post.

"Unless someone specifically circumvented her commands or intentionally sabotaged the situation, the bottom line is that it's her fault. The production company may bear some responsibility if they knew or should have known that she wasn't capable/competent, but that won't lessen her responsibility in the least."​

Her defense tried to prove sabotage but was unsuccessful.

"I just don't get it. The evidence is really clear. Why is it so important to try to twist the facts to make Baldwin criminally culpable?​

I guess that's the question to ask the prosecutor today.

"This is part of what is wrong with things these days. People refuse to accept the facts and convince themselves that someone is guilty (or innocent) in spite of reality. Then when it turns out that person isn't convicted (or acquitted), they are sure there's some kind of a conspiracy or a total failure of the justice system, or some such."​

Looking at the facts and the laws provides useful insight into how the system works. None of that means anything to people who twist the facts to fit their preconceptions, or who don't bother with facts at all because they're so sure they're right that they don't feel the need.

 

[roscoe]

The answer to that is that the "evidence" was not relevant to the case.

Nobody hid it. They simply decided it had no valid connection to the case.

It was just a bunch of ammo that was brought in because it was made by the same provider as the Rust ammo.

NOBODY is even saying how it could be relevant.

The cops and the lawyers correctly rejected it.

It didn't even fit the definition of evidence.

I don't mean to be rude, but this is not how it works. It was most certainly evidence and it's not up to the prosecution to determine whether it's exculpatory. That is why the standard is based on evidence being potentially exculpatory.

This is not a conspiracy. It is just a poorly handled prosecution. And the judge did exactly the right thing - look up the USSC decision Brady v. Maryland.

 

[Metal god]

To be honest the only people I see saying Baldwin was at fault are very gun friendly commenters . It seems the 4 rules are law no matter what regardless if two other people checked the gun before handing it to the actor . Just like whats happened in hundreds of movies and maybe millions of scenes . I heard one armor interviewed that said he doesn’t even let the actors touch the weapon. He plays in their holster himself. The actor only gets to touch once the Director yells Action . That sure would be pretty hard for the actor to the check the gun, wouldn’t it?

I’m not really upset with the outcome, except for the with prejudice part .

Here’s a question for the lawyers . Can he be charged as a producer?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I heard one armor interviewed that said he doesn’t even let the actors touch the weapon. He plays in their holster himself. The actor only gets to touch once the Director yells Action . That sure would be pretty hard for the actor to the check the gun, wouldn’t it?

Not hard at all.

The film industry guidelines (safety protocols) were that the gun was to be loaded by the armorer, in the presence of the safety coordinator (the first assistant director) and the actor -- and any other member of the cast or crew who wished to witness the loading. In the case of dummies, each dummy was to have a hole in the case and have BBs inside. The armorer (or other person loading the gun) was to pick up each round and shake it so that all the witnesses could hear the BBS rattle before placing the round in the gun. Everyone present would see each round go from being shaken to being placed in the gun.

With a loading protocol like that, there would be no need for the actor to ever touch the gun unless and until his/her part of the script actually required him or her to draw the gun and do something with it, yet the actor would know that the dummy rounds were really dummies.

During Gutierrez's trial, multiple witnesses were asked about whether or not they saw her shake each round. You watched the entire trial -- you should remember that line of questioning.

 

[Metal god]

Here is an interview from the co-lead or other prosecutor that resigned yesterday right before the dismissal hearing. Wow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xow2kvGQWBs

Edit : She brings up the SAG guidelines in the interview. AB of course you’re right I know that I just can’t see a jury not full of gun enthusiast convicting an actor for doing the same thing Mr. Baldwin did . At best you get a hung jury. IMHO

 

[The Verminator]

I don't mean to be rude, but this is not how it works. It was most certainly evidence and it's not up to the prosecution to determine whether it's exculpatory. That is why the standard is based on evidence being potentially exculpatory.

This is not a conspiracy. It is just a poorly handled prosecution. And the judge did exactly the right thing - look up the USSC decision Brady v. Maryland.

No. You're not rude--just wrong.

In order to qualify for a Brady ruling the evidence must be material.

That is one of three absolute requirements of Brady.

The random .45 Colt cartridges in question were obviously IMMATERIAL.

Nobody............nobody--has explained how they could be relevant.

The defense argued that they were similar to cartridges on the Rust movie set.

I suppose they were........just as ANY random .45 Colt cartridge would be similar to the .45 Colt cartridges on the Rust set.

Even if they were identical........that would prove--nothing.

So the evidence did not meet the standard required by the Brady precedent.

Period.

But the subject is arcane enough to fool those unfamiliar with guns and ammunition.

So it worked.

And there is a fascinating footnote to the story--what was the origin of this ridiculous "evidence?"

For that we look to ......... oh gosh........(should we be shocked?) Thell Reed and his friend Troy Teske........who brought it to the Hanna Reed trial in a last minute attempt to help her.

And what happened there?

It was rejected as immaterial.

So, no........Brady is not applicable.

But the "fix" is absolutely applicable as I have said all along.

The judge was both biased and stupid.

Baldwin was guilty but he had good lawyers, a sympathetic judge and big money and he evaded justice.

I imagine that New Mexico has run out of money to prosecute, so I don't see an appeal of the dismissal to a higher court as likely.

However, Baldwin will still be gutted in a civil suit.

And Hannah Reed may now have more ammunition (pun intended) for an appeal of her case.

So it goes.

 

[stagpanther]

The random .45 Colt cartridges in question were obviously IMMATERIAL

Said who (in the actual trial)? The judge not only threw out the charge based on this--but did so with prejudice--meaning (IIRC) Baldwin can't even be retried on the same charge. However, I'm not so sure that necessarily precludes opening another charge on the producer negligence thing; which may be why the judge ruled that Baldwin couldn't be tried on that at the same time personal actor negligence charge.

 

[roscoe]

No. You're not rude--just wrong.

In order to qualify for a Brady ruling the evidence must be material.

That is one of three absolute requirements of Brady.

The random .45 Colt cartridges in question were obviously IMMATERIAL.

Nobody............nobody--has explained how they could be relevant.

The defense argued that they were similar to cartridges on the Rust movie set.

I suppose they were........just as ANY random .45 Colt cartridge would be similar to the .45 Colt cartridges on the Rust set.

Even if they were identical........that would prove--nothing.

So the evidence did not meet the standard required by the Brady precedent.

Period.

But the subject is arcane enough to fool those unfamiliar with guns and ammunition.

So it worked.

And there is a fascinating footnote to the story--what was the origin of this ridiculous "evidence?"

For that we look to ......... oh gosh........(should we be shocked?) Thell Reed and his friend Troy Teske........who brought it to the Hanna Reed trial in a last minute attempt to help her.

And what happened there?

It was rejected as immaterial.

So, no........Brady is not applicable.

But the "fix" is absolutely applicable as I have said all along.

The judge was both biased and stupid.

Baldwin was guilty but he had good lawyers, a sympathetic judge and big money and he evaded justice.

I imagine that New Mexico has run out of money to prosecute, so I don't see an appeal of the dismissal to a higher court as likely.

However, Baldwin will still be gutted in a civil suit.

And Hannah Reed may now have more ammunition (pun intended) for an appeal of her case.

So it goes.

The prosecution does not get to determine materiality. If they are arguing that evidence is immaterial, they have to argue that. In this case, the question of .45 rounds from the set was central and there could not really be a justification for withholding them.

 

[The Verminator]

In this case, the question of .45 rounds from the set was central...

Can you say how? Expand on that?

Because I've not yet heard anyone say how they are material or related in any way--they're just some random cartridges from a supplier to the movie.

What do they prove, if anything?

The prosecution was not arguing that they were immaterial evidence, they were, correctly, I think, arguing that they were not evidence.

And they were already rejected in the Reed trial.

 

[The Verminator]

Although there was some entertainment value in watching that ignorant judge painstakingly studying the cartridges with gloves on and finally determining that some random .45 Colt cartridges from the supplier were indeed similar to the .45 Colt cartridges used on the "Rust" set.

Well........duh. Of course they would be..........similar.

But even if they were identical.........what could it prove?

That's the big question that nobody has answered.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Here is an interview from the co-lead or other prosecutor that resigned yesterday right before the dismissal hearing. Wow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xow2kvGQWBs

WOW! Imagine that -- a prosecutor who has ethics, and understands that the prosecution actually has a duty to the defendant to conduct a fair trial. I'm impressed.

Edit : She brings up the SAG guidelines in the interview. AB of course you’re right I know that I just can’t see a jury not full of gun enthusiast convicting an actor for doing the same thing Mr. Baldwin did . At best you get a hung jury. IMHO

You don't have to be a gun enthusiast to comprehend that the SAG safety protocols were created expressly to prevent an incident such as this, and to understand that Baldwin should (according to the SAG guidelines) have personally watched the gun being loaded. He didn't. Those guidelines have been in the industry since the death on set of Brandon Lee, which was in 1993 -- almost 30 years before the Rust incident. In other words, for virtually the entire period of Baldwin's career.

Baldwin wasn't on trial for murder, he was on trial for negligent manslaughter. All the prosecution had to show was that he was not as careful as he should have been. His failure to follow the SAG guidelines would have been all they needed to demonstrate that to a jury. Might there have been some jurors who wouldn't be convinced? Possibly -- you never know how jurors will react. My point is that you don't have to be a "gun guy" to understand that Baldwin didn't do what his own industry's safety protocols required him to do, and that ignoring those long-established safety protocols is negligence.

 

[The Verminator]

WOW! Imagine that -- a prosecutor who has ethics, and understands that the prosecution actually has a duty to the defendant to conduct a fair trial. I'm impressed.

I read her as being well-intentioned and credible........and maybe a little idealistic.

But she did gloss over the Brady requirement that the evidence MUST be material......it's not MIGHT be relevant......it's MUST be relevant.

The cartridges in question had nothing to do with the case.

They were a last minute, desperate, hail Mary attempt by Thell Reed and his friend Troy Teske to help Reed's daughter.

And they were rejected in that case as having no evidential validity.

If it's not relevant it's not evidence........just as the prosecutor correctly concluded.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In this case, the question of .45 rounds from the set was central...

Can you say how? Expand on that?

Because I've not yet heard anyone say how they are material or related in any way--they're just some random cartridges from a supplier to the movie.

What do they prove, if anything?

The prosecution was not arguing that they were immaterial evidence, they were, correctly, I think, arguing that they were not evidence.

And they were already rejected in the Reed trial.

They were not rejected in the Reed trial. They were not introduced in the Reed trial, because the prosecution in the Reed trial had put them under a different case number -- apparently in a deliberate attempt to avoid having to turn them over to Gutierrez's defense team.

The fact that they were "random" cartridges from the supplier is precisely why they could be relevant. Most of the cases had dimpled primers, indicating that they were dummy rounds loaded in previously fired cases. Some of the primers were not dimpled, which would mean that at least the primers were live (which they should not be in dummy rounds), and that the rounds were very possibly live rounds. The value to the defense was that if the supplier had boxes of dummy rounds that included some live rounds on the shelf at his place of business, it's not unreasonable to accept that he might have sent similar boxes of dummies with a few live rounds to the movie set.

The defense doesn't have to prove that this happened. All they have to do is to tell the jury that it might have happened, and that introduces reasonable doubt.

The job of the prosecution would then be to explain to the jury why that didn't make any difference. And the argument would be the failure to follow the SAG safety protocols. Even if the box of "dummies" was half full of live rounds, if THREE people (at least) are present when each and every round is picked up and shaken to listen for the rattling BBs, those live rounds would never make it into the gun.

As this prosecutor said in her interview, she thought they had a strong case, based on the SAG guidelines. I agree. The decision to hide this evidence from TWO defense teams was unprofessional and inexcusable. I fully expect that this will now result in the Gutierrez verdict being overturned, and under the circumstances I would have to view that as proper. Is that fair to Ms. Hutchins? No, it's not. She died because people were careless, and this means that if Gutierrez is overturned, nobody will be held accountable. That will be (IMHO) entirely due to prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[44 AMP]

Because I've not yet heard anyone say how they are material or related in any way--they're just some random cartridges from a supplier to the movie.

What do they prove, if anything?

They don't prove anything, they didn't get a chance to prove anything, or disprove anything, because they were not admitted in court as evidence.

Legal experts, please correct me if I am mistaken, but my understanding i that the prosecution must disclose to the defense all the evidence they plan to use in court. And that they are not allowed to introduce evidence without the defense being aware of it, in advance so they can examine it and prepare a defense.

Now, what happens when the prosecution has something that they do not believe to be evidence, and therefore are not going to introduce it in court? Are they required to disclose what the deem isn't evidence, to the defense?

This, to me is a different matter than "hiding" evidence. Yes, evidence can be "hidden" by declaring it is not evidence, and that's not right, but if its hidden, it can't be used by the prosecution, in court, right??

Seems the defense claim was "it could be evidence, but we can't know, because you HID IT from us"

And the prosecution says "we didn't hide it, its not evidence" , to which the defense responds, "we don't know that, you hid it from us".

So it seems to become a matter of "he said, she said" and the judge decides which side is valid, and in this case, ruled for the defense.

I consider this a case of justice served, but not justice done.

 

[The Verminator]

They were not rejected in the Reed trial. They were not introduced in the Reed trial, because the prosecution in the Reed trial had put them under a different case number -- apparently in a deliberate attempt to avoid having to turn them over to Gutierrez's defense team.

Ok, gimme a link to that.

I understand that this was done in the Baldwin trial.

But both trials? The same thing? Seems unlikely.

What I've seen said that this evidence was rejected in the Reed trial. Actually, IIRC, it was actually rejected by the DEFENSE. But we see so many stories on this.......so I know it's not always accurate.

So enlighten me with a link that verifies it happened in both trials, please.