Here
and
Now

opinions

Alec Baldwin 'Rust' shooting charges could be difficult to prove

6 Comments
By Jack Queen
FILE PHOTO: Host Alec Baldwin arrives at the 2nd Annual NFL Honors in New Orleans
Alec Baldwin Photo: REUTERS file

Prosecutors could face long odds convincing a jury that Alec Baldwin is criminally liable for the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins during the filming of the Western "Rust,” according to several legal experts.

New Mexico District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies said on Thursday that her office will file involuntary manslaughter charges against the "30 Rock" actor and the film's armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed following more than a year of investigation into the October 2021 shooting.

Baldwin, 64, has said he was told the gun did not contain live rounds when it was handed to him and that he did not pull the trigger. His attorney called the decision to criminally charge the actor a "terrible miscarriage of justice."

Legal experts said they were doubtful that a jury would convict Baldwin over the shooting, which occurred during a rehearsal on the set in October 2021, if the evidence shows the tragedy was an accident that occurred despite safety precautions in place to prevent it.

"It’s a very aggressive charging decision, and the defense has a strong case,” said personal injury attorney and former prosecutor Neama Rahmani, who is not involved in the "Rust" case.

Carmack-Altwies's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The most serious charge prosecutors are pursuing -- which carries five years in jail -- would require them to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldwin was more than just negligent.

Legal experts said this would likely require proving his behavior was reckless, or "an extreme departure from the care a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances."

In announcing the charges, Carmack-Altwies said during a CNN interview that "every person that handles a gun has a duty to make sure... that it is not going to fire a projectile and kill someone.”

But legal experts questioned whether that standard applies if on-set weapons experts told Baldwin the gun was safe.

They said that criminal charges are rare even in accidental shooting deaths that take place in non-professional settings without safety protocols.

'UPHILL BATTLE'

Criminal liability is a "stretch," unless prosecutors "can show it was absolutely reckless in terms of the level of safety on set," said defense lawyer and former New Mexico U.S. attorney John Anderson, who is not involved in the case.

"Here it sounds like they had multiple safety checks built in," Anderson said.

Experts interviewed by Reuters could not cite another instance in which criminal charges stemmed from an accidental shooting death on a film set.

When Bruce Lee's son, Brandon Lee, was fatally shot by an improperly inspected gun on the set of "The Crow" in 1993, prosecutors concluded it was an accident caused by negligence and declined to bring charges.

Andrea Reeb, the special prosecutor appointed in the "Rust" case, said in a statement Thursday that “the evidence clearly shows a pattern of criminal disregard for safety on the ‘Rust’ film set."

New Mexico's worker safety agency in April fined the film's production company $137,000 for what they described as "wilful" safety lapses. And civil suits against Baldwin that are pending have claimed systemic cost-cutting led to dangerous conditions on set, allegations Baldwin and the film's production company have denied.

But prosecutors would face a much higher burden in a criminal case and would likely need to demonstrate extraordinary safety lapses across the board, legal experts said.

Involuntary manslaughter charges are most common in fatal traffic accidents involving extreme recklessness, such as intoxication or excessive speeding, according to experts.

None of the publicly available information indicates Baldwin's state of mind was reckless enough to meet that standard, said defense attorney and former prosecutor Joshua Ritter.

“We don’t have all of the evidence, but it still feels like prosecutors face an uphill battle. It seems obvious that everyone involved thought they were just rehearsing a scene," Ritter said.

© Thomson Reuters 2023.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

6 Comments
Login to comment

They were using a single action revolver replica from the time frame of the movie.

With double action revolvers, you simply pull the trigger, the hammer cocks and the cylinder revolves to align the next round with the chamber. A fairly high pressure is needed to pull the trigger.

A single action revolver is different. You must cock the hammer with your thumb, which revolves the cylinder to the align the round with the chamber and the trigger sets to a position that requires much less pressure to fire. You must cock the hammer again with your thumb to fire again.

The actor would certainly cock the hammer to add realism and tension to the scene. It is understandable that someone could say and believe that they did not pull the trigger, since it requires very little pressure.

The armourer and assistant director were negligent. The protocol in movies is that they are the responsible parties to ensure safety. That’s their only job. One job. Blanks are easily discernible from live rounds. Neither of them looked at the rounds in the weapon. It would be impossible to not know the difference.

The fact that other crew members were firing live rounds with the weapon for “fun” is directly the fault and negligence of the armourer. She should never have allowed the weapon to be used, or even touched by anyone.

I believe she should be charged with 3rd degree murder or voluntary manslaughter as the term applies per the state definition.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Now we will let the jury decide. I doubt they will convict a handsome megastar of anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Baldwin is flat out lying when he says that he did not pull the trigger. He is guilty, guilty, guilty and deserves a long prison sentence.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The worst punishment is already there. He has to live with what happened, re-running the memory of that gun firing and his cast member dying before his eyes. Nothing a court can mete out could be worse.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As I've been mentioning in past articles, it'd be a difficult case for prosecutors to prove

Because they have to prove that he knowingly knew that it's not a fake gun

Baldwin is flat out lying when he says that he did not pull the trigger.

Does it matter since it's supposed to be a fake gun?

That's the crux of the matter - not about the trigger, but that it's supposed to be fake

Clint Eastwood pulled the triggers of many fake guns!

Fake is the key word

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now we will let the jury decide. I doubt they will convict a handsome megastar of anything.

So you think that the prosecution would allow 12 people in a jury who weren't willing to convict a "handsome megastar"?

And you really think your supposition works in the real world?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites