Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #6

Status
Not open for further replies.
The overarching question to me is this: Why is 'show business' the only place where safe gun handling can be delegated? The first rule of firearms is always assume it's loaded and the second never point at something you don't intend to shoot / kill. I just fail to understand how show business is exempt.
 
Lawsuit filed by HG-R:

"[H]er lawsuit appeared to cast some blame on the actor, saying he failed to attend training and pointing to his handling of the weapon. The lawsuit says Gutierrez-Reed asked Baldwin to schedule the training on October 15, less than a week before the fatal shooting but she never heard back from the actor....

The lawsuit says no one called Gutierrez-Reed back into the church when Baldwin began rehearsing the scene, which involved a cross draw, even though her presence was required for any gun-related filming or rehearsing.

"Hannah did not see the weapon, nor did she have custody of it for approximately 15 minutes," the lawsuit says."


They are both clearly at fault but she may have some wiggle room depending on how the script schedule was laid out and the possible dual role position.
 
They are both clearly at fault but she may have some wiggle room depending on how the script schedule was laid out and the possible dual role position.

And -- consider that during AB's trial, HGR is likely to be called to testify. In HGR's trial, AB is likely to be called to testify.

Consider the public behavior & deportment of each since this event.

Consider the potential willingness of each to comply with their attorney's advice, particularly during any testimony or cross-examination, hypothetically.

Juror sympathy, where do you think this might alight?

Just musing, here....
 
And -- consider that during AB's trial, HGR is likely to be called to testify. In HGR's trial, AB is likely to be called to testify.

Consider the public behavior & deportment of each since this event.

Consider the potential willingness of each to comply with their attorney's advice, particularly during any testimony or cross-examination, hypothetically.

Juror sympathy, where do you think this might alight?

Just musing, here....
They can invoke the 5th and a jury won't know that they did so.
 
The overarching question to me is this: Why is 'show business' the only place where safe gun handling can be delegated? The first rule of firearms is always assume it's loaded and the second never point at something you don't intend to shoot / kill. I just fail to understand how show business is exempt.
I agree. Some lawyers I know and respect think this charging is prosecutorial overreach but I have a hard time feeling too sorry since if a regular Joe was pointing a loaded gun at his wife in his house and he shot and killed her, he’d be charged with homicide for sure. It would be up to the defense at trial to prove he didn’t mean to, the gun accidentally discharged, etc.

Guns are deadly weapons, full stop. If you are going to use and handle them you have a responsibility under the law to handle them safely.
 
So, what would the "perfect" demographic for AB's jury? I really don't know here.
Men or women? Maybe women?
Age range? Younger, I think.
Race? Probably more white.
Higher SES, because I don't see him getting much sympathy from lower SES.

AB has probably never served on a jury, and would have probably done everything to get out of it if he had received a summons. Because he is "so important". Great irony that he will be hoping he gets people who won't be able to get out of jury duty.

I wonder if he can request a bench trial, would that be better for him?
No one from NM, given that State's history with firearms and how many people know about then and their safe and responsible use!
 
So are we going to go back to seeing obviously rubber/plastic guns in movies now because actors are going to refuse to touch real ones for liability reasons?
Rubber/Plastic guns are used very commonly these days.

See the recent "Westworld" series on that score. Browning BAR/Colt Monitor, being a case in point.
 
I agree. Some lawyers I know and respect think this charging is prosecutorial overreach but I have a hard time feeling too sorry since if a regular Joe was pointing a loaded gun at his wife in his house and he shot and killed her, he’d be charged with homicide for sure. It would be up to the defense at trial to prove he didn’t mean to, the gun accidentally discharged, etc.

Guns are deadly weapons, full stop. If you are going to use and handle them you have a responsibility under the law to handle them safely.
Absolutely!

It's utterly staggering to me that many people seem to be suggesting that the very basic safety rules should apply differently, or not at all, to one particular class of workplace (or any) user!
 
Interesting.
I wouldn't be surprised that AB unknowingly pulled the trigger back when he grabbed the gun out of the holster. When he pulled the hammer all of the way back and let go of it, the hammer fell because he was still pulling back on the trigger.

Intent is not necessary to convict in this case. JMO.

Involuntary manslaughter 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.
 
The overarching question to me is this: Why is 'show business' the only place where safe gun handling can be delegated? The first rule of firearms is always assume it's loaded and the second never point at something you don't intend to shoot / kill. I just fail to understand how show business is exempt.

It should be 101 gun protocol universally, no matter where, what..no matter who. A gun is a gun whether it’s in a house, store or on a set, the potential danger for a novice or a know-it-all rebel exist.
 
I wouldn't be surprised that AB unknowingly pulled the trigger back when he grabbed the gun out of the holster. When he pulled the hammer all of the way back and let go of it, the hammer fell because he was still pulling back on the trigger.

Intent is not necessary to convict in this case. JMO.


Yes. His take on the armorer not being present may be a very important point in trial. JMO.
 
Has anyone considered the possibility that he shot her intentionally?


What would be the motive?

Early news reports said that they did not know each other well at all.

This happened in front of multiple witnesses. Why would a very rich and very famous actor, with everything to lose, intentionally murder a woman whom he barely knew? In a public setting?

IMO <modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one from NM, given that State's history with firearms and how many people know about then and their safe and responsible use!
Santa Fe County appears to be a fairly liberal/democratic county. Difficult to say how that will play out. I still think AB would be well advised to waive a jury trial and proceed with a bench trial.
 
Santa Fe County appears to be a fairly liberal/democratic county. Difficult to say how that will play out. I still think AB would be well advised to waive a jury trial and proceed with a bench trial.
It appears to me that AB could ask for a bench trial but the court and the state would have to agree to it.
A.Trial by jury; waiver. Criminal cases required to be tried by jury shall be so tried unless the defendant waives a jury trial with the approval of the court and the consent of the state.” Rule 5-605 - Jury trial, N.M. R. Crim. P. Dist. Ct. 5-605

The state seems to be confident in their case against AB. Would they agree to a bench trial?
 
Her husband Matt will also remain executive producer - and Joel Souza, who was injured in the incident, is returning as director.

[..]

… the project will include safety supervisors, and will bar any use of working weapons - and live ammunition is, and always was, prohibited on set.

 
It appears to me that AB could ask for a bench trial but the court and the state would have to agree to it.


The state seems to be confident in their case against AB. Would they agree to a bench trial?
Very interesting. I've never heard of the state having the right to deny a defendant's request for a bench trial before.
 
Very interesting. I've never heard of the state having the right to deny a defendant's request for a bench trial before.
As far as I can tell there is a constitutional right to a trial by a jury but not a bench trial.

Does a Defendant Have a Right to a Bench Trial?​

No. While a constitutional right to a jury trial exists in most criminal cases, the same isn't true with a bench trial. A defendant may waive (give up) their right to a jury trial, but if the prosecutor objects or the judge rejects the defendant's waiver, the trial will go before a jury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
230
Guests online
3,970
Total visitors
4,200

Forum statistics

Threads
591,699
Messages
17,957,746
Members
228,588
Latest member
cariboucampfire73
Back
Top