Alec Baldwin formally charged with involuntary manslaughter [UPDATED]
Charges were finally brought today against Alec Baldwin over the 2021 fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of the Western Rust
Aux News Alec Baldwin![Alec Baldwin formally charged with involuntary manslaughter [UPDATED]](https://img.pastemagazine.com/wp-content/avuploads/2023/01/15001635/b80003c798c3fdb00325df0218e59cd3.jpg)
Update [1/31/21 5:43 pm]: In a statement, special prosecutor Robert Shilling provided insight into how prosecutors plan to charge Alec Baldwin. In addition to lacking sufficient training, Baldwin “putting his finger on the trigger of a real firearm when a replica or rubber gun should have been used,” per The New York Times. The statement continues, “This reckless deviation from known standards and practice and protocol directly caused the fatal shooting.”
Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was also accused of “not checking the rounds she was loading into the firearms,” “allowing live rounds on scene” and “allowing ammunition to not be secured,” per the Times. The prosecution also added that she “took an armorer position she was not qualified to accept.”
Original story: Alec Baldwin and Rust set armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed have been formally charged with involuntary manslaughter, the Santa Fe District Attorney announced today, per The Los Angeles Times. Baldwin was also charged with “an enhancement for the use of a firearm”—if he’s found guilty, the charge comes with a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.
Each charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter, Baldwin and Gutierez-Reed face a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine if found guilty. “The District Attorney and the special prosecutor are fully focused on securing justice for Halyna Hutchins,” a spokesperson for First Judicial D.A. Mary Carmack-Altwies shared yesterday, per Deadline.
After a lengthy and wide-ranging investigation, the Rust actor and crew member were met with charges in mid-January over the October 2021 shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. While filming the indie Western in New Mexico, Baldwin discharged a prop weapon (that he has maintained misfired) that contained a live round, fatally striking Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.
Since the tragedy, Baldwin has consistently maintained his innocence while settling lawsuits and soldiering forward with Rust production, which now has its sights set on moving to California from New Mexico after firing the original production team. As part of a settlement for a wrongful death lawsuit from Hutchins’ estate, Hutchins’ husband Matt Hutchins has since joined the project as an executive producer.
Earlier this month, The A.V. Club consulted legal experts on what Baldwin can expect following an official manslaughter charge. Ultimately, they generally shared a conclusion: Baldwin is unlikely to enter a guilty plea, and he’s also unlikely to serve any prison time.
“I don’t see Mr. Baldwin pleading guilty to this,” James J. Brosnahan, Senior Of Counsel at the law firm of Morrison Foerster, opines. “Look at it from the defendant’s standpoint; he is a famous man and a movie actor of considerable talent and has been for years. Let’s assume that he would like to have more, more roles and things. The nature of the crime is that there’s no bank robbery here. The atmosphere of the case, and if his lawyer marshals the mood of the case, is this a terrible accident.”
45 Comments
About time
I am a bit surprised Baldwin is getting charged. The most I can see is that because he was a producer and this was more or less his film, he hired some real worthless people on the cheap who had a history of not doing this safely. Set safety was so poor that the union staged a walk out during production. He also pulled the trigger when the script did not ask for that, experts seem to think he is either misremembering or lying when he says it just went off. He’ll probably get off scot free with a damaged rep like John Landis.Now the armorer? She’s just plain fucked. Was haphazard on several sets with guns, inexperienced, probably got the job because her dad is a famous armorer so nepotism. Was in charge of firearm safety, might have been using the guns to plunk cans on the day of the incident. She’s not super wealthy and powerful. The assistant director I would have guessed would also have been in legal jeopardy since he was also directly involved in the incident and is overall in charge of set safety. But he apparently already cut a bargin so make of that what you will.I’m no expert, I’m just a paralegal in training plus read a decent amount on the case.
Making the case that his role as a producer contributed to the harm of the death sounds more like a civil suit thing. As a criminal charge is he not just being charged as the man who pulled the trigger?
I think there’s a chance Baldwin will be found guilty on the producer part alone, regardless of whether you believe that the gun just went off. But if so, I don’t see him getting as much jail time as the armorer, and probably not any. If they believe he actually pulled the trigger he’s in bigger trouble, I think.
I think he stands a chance of being found guilty, but agree it will probably be some kind of probation and/or fine. And perhaps he may be barred from sets in any kind of leadership role.I’d be fascinated to see what the repercussions could be in the industry. Could he be blackballed by IATSE or one of the unions, by their refusal to work on a set for which he is a part as cast, or producer? Could he have his membership revoked from one or more guilds to which he belongs? I think that would be fitting. Bar him from any continued participation in the film industry.
That would probably be more of a deterrent to others than whatever the court would mete out.
The producer part yes. But also to answer an above question, I would expect this to be a civil trial thing. He was being sued by the family.
Based on our own investigatory findings, not a chance.
Very good to know!
His inability to shut the fuck up about the accident and how it was totally, super, not at all, even a little bit his fault, you guys, and in a real way, he was the true victim etc. gave them no choice but to charge him.What a putz.
Fully agree. He very well may have talked himself in to being charged
It turns out that the strategies for protecting yourself from legal liability and for getting ahead of bad PR are not the same.
Not only did he reportedly talk his ear off to the cops without a lawyer present, he even suggested possible avenues of investigation to them. Because if there’s one thing everyone “loves”, ESPECIALLY cops, is to be told by a layman how to do their job. Baldwin is a narcissistic idiot.
I have three close friends who are longtime assistant directors on movies and TV, and what they say is pretty much straight down the line with what you said.
Killing someone unintentionally/by accident will get you a involuntary manslaughter no matter which way you slice it, and he held the gun and pulled the trigger that killed her, so this is not surprising. I don’t think a jury will actually convict him though for all the circumstances behind jt.
Most of the time, the actor would not be faulted since it is not their duty to be the weapons expert, but I find it interesting in this case the prosecutors cited Baldwin’s past experience with firearms on numerous films, and his familiarity with procedure. I’m glad they called this out. Baldwin should never have even accepted into his hand a weapon that 1) did not come from the armorer (it was given to him by the AD) and 2) had not been visually cleared with him. As actor and producer, what he should have done, could have done, was say, ‘Hold it, I’m not touching that gun, you didn’t show me it’s cold, and you’re not the armorer.” Instead, he took it on faith and the word of the AD that the weapon was safe. This is a huge lapse in judgment.
That is a very interesting point. He did have a long history of using firearms in films. I cannot recall off the top of my head if he ever used a revolver before in a film but I’m going to assume yes.
It’s a good question, if they would distinguish types of firearm training. But in general, the procedure should be the same. The armorer (and only the armorer) handles the weapon from secure lock and key to the set. Armorer shows the actor, with a flashlight, that the barrel is clear, that there are no rounds chambered, and only when both parties conclude the gun is “cold” is the weapon handed off. Then the procedure is repeated when the actor gives the weapon back to the armorer, who then returns it to lock and key. An unbroken chain of custody.
Yeah that feels pretty clean cut.
As a former prosecutor who has prosecuted more “the gun just went off” cases than you could shake a stick at, I will tell you that that defense… doesn’t really work in most cases. We hire experts that testify as to how many pounds of pressure are necessary for a trigger pull, and in most cases have at least a couple of people who know a thing or two about guns in the venire so that doesn’t get very far. Having said that, I bet in 40+ years in Hollywood Baldwin will most likely be able to truthfully testify that not once had anyone ever handed him a gun with live rounds in it, that it is literally someone’s job to make sure that those things are safe and that job wasn’t his. The other thing is that “the gun just went off” doesn’t work in most cases, but “most” ≠ “all”. That kind of shit works when a jury WANTS to acquit someone, and looks for any reason no matter how ridiculous to do so. Can’t say I know all of the minutiae, but this looks like a tragic accident and also pretty tough sledding for the prosecution. I would love to defend this case.
It’s politically motivated. It’s outspoken criticism of right-wingers makes them want to find something to nail him for.
Honestly, the entire thing reads like a mid-90s Law and Order episode. You can practically hear McCoy arguing to Schiff that just while his actions may have mirrored Hollywood best practices, they still meet the standard for involuntary manslaughter. “It’s black letter law, Adam!”
So, for every random extra in all of film history who didn’t check their prop gun for bullets before firing—should they all now get charged with reckless endangerment? Because seems to me that Baldwin didn’t do anything that basically everyone else has done.
No? Because first of all the statutes of limitation have probably already run. Second, how would they go back and prove all this? Third, were all of them also producers on the film and at least somewhat responsible for safety on the set? Also another commenter says his script didn’t call for pulling the trigger, so there’s that wrinkle as well.
1 and 2: You’re taking my rhetorical question more literally than I intended haha3. Maybe fair, but having your name on the movie as a producer definitely does not necessarily mean you own even partial responsibility over any safety incidents that arise, unless you were clearly, personally negligent on something. That’s why they have people (i.e. the armorer, likely others here) whose job is to manage that sort of thing. Plus, the fact that he’s the only producer charged makes me think it’s solely because he was the one who fired the gun4. Should not be a factor at all in my opinion. A gun that makes its way onto a set should not be loaded regardless of whether a shooting is scripted/scheduled to happen or not. He was handed a gun, was explicitly told it wasn’t loaded; nothing after that point is his responsibility as far as I’m concernedP.S. I’m not a lawyer and know nothing
“Maybe fair, but having your name on the movie as a producer definitely does not necessarily mean you own even partial responsibility over any safety incidents that arise”That certainly could be true! But how much control he had/was supposed to have had is a question of fact for the jury (or judge if bench trial), so if it’s the case that he didn’t have that responsibility, or if a producer generally doesn’t have that much responsibility, then it will come out. Some producers are more hands on than others, I assume, so they’ll just have to see which one he was. Definitely the fact that he actually fired the gun is also a major factor.“4. Should not be a factor at all in my opinion.”It’s a factor for the specific scenario you posed, of any other person who fired a gun without checking it. If they fired it according to the script, they were doing their job and should be able to rely on the armorer’s assurances that it was safe. If they were not told to fire it, they should have handled it as you handle any gun, which is don’t fire at anything you don’t want dead. At least it’s a very reasonable argument. Baldwin’s case was the latter, and I would be willing to listen an argument that since it was not in the script to fire, and since he wasn’t told to fire it, he should have treated the gun as one that was not made safe to fire.“P.S. I’m not a lawyer and know nothing”I am a lawyer and I know a few things. lol
I would be willing to listen an argument that since it was not in the
script to fire, and since he wasn’t told to fire it, he should have
treated the gun as one that was not made safe to fire.Since the shooting took place during a rehearsal, training for a scene of Baldwin drawing a gun – presumably to point at a character located off-screen, behind the camera – it would be reasonable for him to practice doing so with his finger on the trigger, thus increasing the chances of an accidental trigger-pull, and possibly even fire the gun.
This seems like an unrealistic standard to have on a film set. Thousands of scenes per year depend on actors pointing guns at each other in ways that would be incredible dangerous and absolutely not OK were the guns to be treated as unsafe. Think of every scene of an actor waving a gun around, every actor pointing a gun at someone’s head etc. The whole point is that the safety protocols are there so that the actors don’t need to treat the guns as unsafe.I made this point in another thread as well, but also – Hollywood actually has a really, really good track record for gun safety when compared with the general population. 3 incidents in 50+ years is probably dwarfed by the amount of gun accidents you get per week/per month in the US. And at least 2 of those incidents were because of a failure to follow established protocols, not because of the protocols failing. Diluting those protocols by making the actors ultimately responsible is absolutely the wrong response to this. Surely, the ultimate liability should be with a trained and qualified armorer whose one and only job is to secure the guns, rather than an actor who may or may not know their shit and has to violate normal gun safety protocols just to do their job?
“it would be reasonable for him to practice doing so with his finger on the trigger, thus increasing the chances of an accidental trigger-pull, and possibly even fire the gun.”Maybe! I truly wouldn’t know, but what is “reasonable” is the classic question of fact for a jury, so at this point they haven’t proven anything, and you don’t have to prove it for an indictment. We’ll just have to see how it all shakes out. I was raised around guns, so I personally wouldn’t find it reasonable to ever have your finger on the trigger of a gun you don’t intend to fire, but again, that’s the kind of thing you’d check for in jury selection as well. Plus I can see how if your entire world is fake Hollywood stuff, you might lose that perspective even if you used to know better.“Surely, the ultimate liability should be with a trained and qualified armorer whose one and only job is to secure the guns, rather than an actor who may or may not know their shit and has to violate normal gun safety protocols just to do their job?”I guess we’ll find out! I know very little (next to nothing… honestly, probably literally nothing) about how all this works on a movie set, so I couldn’t possibly have an opinion on whether he is criminally liable. All I mean to point out is that this is all a question of fact for the jury, and I will learn a lot as it all shakes out, and I don’t think these particular facts necessarily translate to every actor who has ever fired a prop gun without checking the rounds, as was proposed in the original comment.
Yeah, this seems like the most reasonable take here.
Yeah who knows, maybe more will come out about his role as a producer and it’ll look bad. But still, seems like *either* he should be charged as a producer, or as the actor who shot the gun; for him to be the only producer charged purely because *he* personally pulled the trigger seems silly to me. (Speaking from a moral perspective, not legally.)And the thing about being unscripted—imagine if the gun *wasn’t* loaded. And say someone reported that Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger on a prop gun in an unscripted rehearsal without personally checking it first, after being told by the person giving it to him that it was empty, and with a dedicated armorer on set to also check. Would anyone in the world care about that? I’m almost positive it would be a non-story, and that that sort of thing is extremely typical on film sets.
Yes, if it’s a responsibility issue I would have brought in all the other producers as well, so yeah that’s interesting. I don’t know if you saw the update to the article but it looks like it’s resting on the fact that he put his finger on the trigger of a real firearm. As I said above to someone else I think, that is a pretty egregious deviation from the standard of how anyone who is familiar with guns would treat a real firearm, but I don’t know what regular people know about guns so I can’t make any evaluations of the likelihood of success of that claim. It’ll be an interesting question for the jury, though! If they find that a normal reasonable person wouldn’t know not to put their finger on the trigger of a real firearm, then it’ll probably all fall on the armorer. It also mentions a protocol that maybe is common for these things. idk. I’ll be following!
It really all depends on what he was told to do. If the scene required his finger to be on the trigger, then on the trigger is where it’ll be. If he was raising the gun to shoot it in the shot (which would seem likely) then of course his finger would be there, and he’d probably rehearse it that way. As for the ‘could have used a rubber or prop gun’, that’s not Alec Baldwin’s decision, that’s the director’s (which could be overruled due to safety by the 1st AD, or Safety Supervisor, but obviously wasn’t).IMHO, they’re charging him either a) because they really don’t understand the film making process, b) they do understand it and want to make a point about it/drive change in the industry, or c) they think if they don’t charge him, they’ll face severe blowback by people who don’t understand the issue, so better to charge him and let a judge let him go later.
Alternative is that he’s Alec Baldwin and they want to try and nail a liberal Hollywood guy and it’s being pushed by people who fall into the a) category.
That is always a possibility.
Yes, because all of those random extras were also producers. Your logic is extraordinary.
I don’t get why he’d be the only producer charged though, is the thing. Like if he cut corners as producer, which is possible, then fine, charge him for that, but it seems like they’re instead targeting him because he *personally* pulled the trigger. Seems like two separate things
“Each charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter”I’m confused why the two counts if only one person was killed?
First off – because apparently people still aren’t getting this: being a producer =/= being responsible for on-set safety, hiring, schedules and logistics. If you work as a supermarket checkout assistant on till number 1 and the guy working on till number 15 steals money from the register, they don’t charge both of you because you’re both Checkout Assistants. People can have identical job titles without having identical duties.
That said, these articles have more info (you’re welcome AV Club) which suggests that Baldwin’s being charged as both a producer and as the trigger man: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64475627https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/19/us/santa-fe-alec-baldwin-rust-charged/index.htmlSome key points:He appears to have had his finger inside the trigger guard and the FBI found the gun could not have been fired without pulling the trigger.Prosecutor: “Mr Baldwin was “distracted” talking to family members on his mobile phone during training on how to operate the prop gun,”Also prosecutor: “If Mr Baldwin had performed mandatory safety checks with armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and not pointed the gun at Hutchins, the “tragedy would not have occurred”“Santa Fe’s District Attorney’s Office accused the actor of “many instances of extremely reckless acts”.”From the CNN article: “The prosecutor said investigators discovered “there were people complaining about safety on set.” Baldwin, she added, “should have been aware that safety was an issue … And then, as an actor that day, he should have checked that gun, checked those projectiles.””Two points made by Gutierrez-Reed stand out:Ms Gutierrez-Reed has said she had checked that the rounds she loaded in the prop gun were dummies before it was handed to the film’s assistant director Dave Halls, who then handed it to Mr Baldwin and told him it was an unloaded gun. Ms Gutierrez-Reed also told New Mexico’s workplace safety agency after the shooting that the incident could have been prevented had she had more time to train Mr Baldwin to handle the prop gun.My analysis:
This is still too vaguely-worded to determine what, exactly, the grounds for prosecuting him actually are, but it seems like a vague hodgepodge of ‘he was a producer therefore responsible’ and ‘he probably pulled the trigger’ as well as ‘as the person holding the gun he should’ve checked it himself.’ However, none of the prosecutor’s statements seem to take into consideration what the actual on-set safety protocols dictate, nor the SOP for movies involving firearms. They seem to think that every actor needs to personally check the weapon themselves – which is just a bullshit standard for so many reasons.
It also seems as though Gutierrez-Reed is doing everything she possibly can to spread the blame. Like, in that first point there, she’s alleging that she checked the gun and all the bullets were dummies, BUT THEN SOMEHOW a live round found its way into the gun in the time it took to get into Baldwin’s hand – the only explanation for which would be that either Halls or Baldwin decided to put actual live rounds into it themselves, which would be astonishing.Additionally, if it were possible that Halls/Baldwin could’ve somehow loaded live ammo into the gun, then that would explicitly contradict the idea that actors should check guns themselves – and is, in fact, the precise reason why the armorer/AD should be the final failsafe and legally liable for what happens.
The source for Baldwin being ‘distracted’ on the phone isn’t mentioned, but if it’s Gutierrez-Reed then at this point I wouldn’t buy it. As it is, it’s also too vague – how long was he on the phone for? And when? If all he did was pause the class to take a phone call then who cares?It’s obvious that safety protocols on set weren’t being followed – but there’s still no mention of who was responsible for enforcing them and why they weren’t doing so. Without further info, it seems like there was a generally lax culture on set for which one or more producers is responsible, and for which Gutierrez-Reed is certainly at fault in this case. But based on Baldwin’s call with union workers in which he expressed support for their strike, and their apparent acceptance of said support, I doubt it was him. Which makes this whole thing somewhat ludicrous.
Hannah Gutierrez Reed has been throwing everything she can since the day this happened. She at one point floated a conspiracy theory that someone planted the bullet. The only thing I’m certain of, is that she’s going down pretty badly.
This is beyond stupid and comes across as performative by the police department, the DA and Robert Shilling. how prosecutors plan to charge Alec Baldwin. In addition to lacking sufficient training, Baldwin “putting his finger on the trigger of a real firearm when a replica or rubber gun should have been used,” “This reckless deviation from known standards and practice and protocol directly caused the fatal shooting.” Apparently, someone doesn’t know how movies are made if he truly believes what he’s said here. This is a common practice on movie sets, and there is nothing “reckless” about it, assuming proper safety procedures are followed. What’s reckless is using the weapon to fire real ammunition during downtime. Movies utilizing real firearms as props is another question altogether.This will set the wrong precedence moving forward, as Baldwins producer credit is believed to be honorary. He had no role in the hiring process or on-set safety based on all the reports I’ve read. Blaming him for pulling the trigger is also obviously wrong, as the weapon would have been fired regardless during filming. The blame solely falls on the armorer for failing to do the one job she was hired for, and the AD for calling out a cold gun.There’s already a precedence we should be following, one that was already set by other on-set accidents like this in the years prior.
In addition to lacking sufficient training, Baldwin “putting his finger on the trigger of a real firearm when a replica or rubber gun should have been used,” per The New York Times.That is not a complete sentence.
I doubt he’ll get jail time. Back in the late 80’s, my neighbor accidentally shot and killed her boyfriend while playing Russian Roulette with his police issued .38. She was charged with 2nd degree manslaughter, then reduced to involuntary manslaughter. She got a ton of community service and probation for a few years.
The guy was an asshole who joined the force so he “could shoot people legally.” No one liked him. They were both alcoholics and played Russian Roulette a lot. This time, he pointed the gun at her and said, “Bang!” He handed her the gun, took her hand, and put it to his head. He told her to pull the trigger.
She immediately got her life together and has a family now. She is one of my favorite people from the old neighborhood.
he is a famous man and a movie actor of considerable talent and has been
for years. Let’s assume that he would like to have more, more roles and
things.
If this is really what AV Club’s ‘legal experts’ are concluding, then I’m going to root for jail time just on principle alone.
“Robert Shilling provided insight into how prosecutors plan to charge Alec Baldwin. In addition to lacking sufficient training, Baldwin “putting his finger on the trigger of a real firearm when a replica or rubber gun should have been used…” ”It’s a rare event that a prosecutor chooses to follow, much less publicly announce, a legal theory that *exonerates* the accused, but that’s how flimsy and political a charge this is.
Yeah, first thing I thought too. This reeks of “well, we had to charge somebody famous.”