Alec Baldwin’s Rust shooting charges have already been reduced
Now that prosecutors have dropped a firearm enhancement charge, Alec Baldwin's maximum prison sentence has been reduced to 18 months
Aux News Alec Baldwin
Less than a month after Alec Baldwin was formally charged with involuntary manslaughter in the 2021 fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust, his charges have already been significantly reduced.
Per IndieWire, the prosecution in Baldwin’s case has opted to drop the charge of breaking New Mexico’s firearm enhancement statute. Prosecutors filed the altered charges against Baldwin and his fellow defendant Hannah Gutierrez-Reed on Friday.
“In order to avoid further litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys, the District Attorney and the special prosecutor have removed the firearm enhancement to the involuntary manslaughter charges in the death of Halyna Hutchins on the Rust film set,” Heather Brewer, a spokesperson for the New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney, shared in a statement to The A.V. Club. “The prosecution’s priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys.”
Under New Mexico law, the firearm enhancement statute that Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed had initially faced carries a minimum sentence of five years if a defendant is convicted. Without that charge, Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed only face an involuntary manslaughter charge in Hutchins’ death, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 18 months. The two were initially charged with involuntary manslaughter on January 31.
“We applaud the decision of the District Attorney to dismiss the firearm enhancement and it was the right call, ethically, and on the merits,” Jason Bowles, an attorney for Gutierrez-Reed, shared in a statement with IndieWire.
The reduced charges also mark a success for Baldwin’s attorneys, who filed a motion to have the firearm enhancement charge dismissed earlier this month. Baldwin’s legal team alleged that the DA’s decision to charge Baldwin with breaking the statute constituted a “basic legal error.” The firearm enhancement statute the initial charges cited didn’t come into effect in New Mexico until May 2022, seven months after the shooting occurred in November 2021. Per Baldwin’s attorneys, charging him with violating the law “would be unconstitutionally retroactive, and the government has no legitimate basis.”
As Baldwin’s case carries on, production is also somehow moving forward on Rust itself, with Baldwin still in the lead role amid a variety of reported crew changes. As part of a settlement reached between Baldwin and Hutchins’ estate, the late cinematographer’s husband Matthew Hutchins is serving as executive producer, while Hutchins’ parents and her sister have filed their own suit against Baldwin.
41 Comments
I mean, the lawyer for Reed is correct. You cannot legally charge someone with a crime retroactively. Well, I mean you can… but it will be promptly overturned on appeal. I cannot believe the DA made such a fundamental mistake.
Same for Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed.
The DA’s public statements has not made it seem like they have much of a case. They claimed they brought charges after consulting with actors who said they always check the gun themselves or have someone else check the gun. Baldwin and the other on set statements have all maintained he had every reason to believe it was a cold gun.
Exactly. They are trying to go for a high profile win in a high risk case. The public statements have all maintained that. Baldwin should have just limited his public statements, but his public statements aren’t anything to charge someone on. And the DA’s overzealousness leading to such an elementary mistake leaves me unconfident in other cases.
Also, Ashley Judd proved that you can’t be charged for the same crime twice.
That armorer sure is a cutie!
Maybe she can become a hand model or something.
Unfortunately she’s already shown she has no self control.
I think there’s a fair amount of overreach with the charges in general, and they are going to have a hard time getting any sort of conviction. I’m sure the New Mexico DA is also facing pressure from the film commission in the state – rightly or wrongly – since this will likely impact productions choosing to film in the state.To prove involuntary manslaughter, it has to be proven that Baldwin acted recklessly or negligently. In the context of a film shoot, if he was told the gun was cold and safe to be fired, and was instructed to point the gun where he did and rehearse firing the gun that is not reckless or negligent on his part. The DA has said that they charged Baldwin because other actors say they “have someone check their guns” which Baldwin claims happened and which as described by the DA means those who checked the gun are at fault.I’m all for the production in general being investigated, but charging Baldwin solely because he was the one holding the gun is likely going to result in a lot of taxpayer money being wasted.
Yeah best I can tell it’s only firearm enhancement if the perpetrator is in the act of deliberately committing a felony. Probably typical DA nonsense trying to force a plea, but based on what I’ve read Baldwin will almost certainly be found not guilty.
I suspect the DA felt they had to charge and didn’t really spend enough time looking at all past on set accidents like this to realize the uphill battle it would be. She was a fairly new DA when this happened, and I suspect felt she needed to do this. I don’t think it’s going to end well for them (and it’s going to be costly). The fact that she added an enhancement that wasn’t law at the time of the shooting is not a great start.
After Walter White slipped through their fingers, this DA has something to prove to the good people of New Mexico.
Actors are not firearms experts, and shouldn’t have to be. That’s why professionally trained armorers are hired to make all weapons safe for the actors. Any firearm mishap on set falls squarely on the armorer’s lack of professionalism. The increasingly bellicose statements, and wildly aggressive overcharges, from the DA’s Office makes this seem more and more like political grandstanding rather than a search for justice.
The DA gave an interview where she said that all actors – even A list actors (her words) – indicated that either they or someone on set always checks the gun. This is all fine and dandy, but pretty much everyone on set has confirmed that someone did check the gun and Baldwin had every reason to believe it was a cold gun. Why they didn’t go after the producers or even the director (who admittedly was a victim, but also allegedly told Baldwin to do what he did) makes this seem like an even worse decision. Unfortunately, I think it will end up being embarrassing for the DA and potentially even mess up the civil case her family has brought.
Bad news – no one checked the gun.The reporting is that 3 people quit that morning or the day before specifically over lack of gun safety. Baldwin vacillated between getting the gun directly and getting the gun from someone who grabbed it from a cart – that the armorer was excluded from the set for reasons. However, sure, no one is at fault, again, when a deadly weapon on a set is used to kill someone. Purely beyond anyone’s ability to foresee, except those who quit over fear it might soon happen. Everywhere else on the planet there’s no such thing as a “cold” gun. There is a gun that the holder has checked to be certain it is completely empty until they set it down and every other case where the gun is expected to be loaded and ready to kill someone.
The director has stated that the assistant director said “Cold Gun” and handed the gun to Baldwin. If that is repeated under oath, that would clear Baldwin of negligence under the law.I agree that the set was poorly managed – But then the producers should be charged.Whatever you feel about gun safety everywhere else, there are clear regulations on sets that establish negligence. By all means, change the rules, change the laws, make all guns CGI.But based on the actual law as currently written and on set regulations and on what the DA has said, it is seeming likely that they will not meet the burden for involuntary manslaughter.As you’ll notice in my comment, the issue is that the choice of charges the DA is making is apt to be the wrong choice and there is going to be a lot of power behind Baldwin including SAG-AFTRA wanting to get this thrown out. It’s going to waste taxpayer money because the DA made the wrong choice of who to go after and why.
I was a public defender for five years to start my career. This is being reported as significant news, but this really was a basic error by the DA to add on this enhancement. It should never have even been a thing in the first place. For me, this goes beyond usual prosecutor charge stacking into ridiculous error territory.I am also surprised that a charge if involuntary manslaughter was brought against Baldwin. It doesn’t seem like a good fit to me from what I know of the circumstances. I think a not guilty verdict is coming after a lot of hype and wasted money. But I haven’t been a PD or a criminal defense attorney for fifteen years, so I could very well be wrong about that. Law practice changes all the time, and I practice a completely different kind of law now. However: The fact that the DA inserted this obviously faulty enhancement doesn’t give me much confidence that they know what they are doing………
I also hate when DAs, who have the power and weight of the state behind them, complain about billable hours and big city lawyers.
There are statements made to police that were already released that corroborate that Baldwin was told repeatedly the gun was cold (meaning it was checked) and that those on set were aware of what he was going to do. That alone is going to make it hard to charge negligence. I honestly think they would have been better off going after the producers for the on-set issues than the actor.
Baldwin is one of the producers as well.
But he is not charged as such. His charge is solely stemming from him being the actor holding the gun according to the DA.
Honestly this makes the DAs look like chumps, but them blaming it on Baldwin’s “big-city attorneys” filing trumped-up motions is objectively hilarious. They sound like inept, two-bit hicks with holes in their shoes. “We’re shocked–SHOCKED!–that this wealthy man would attempt to defend himself.”
I think a certain back-country hyperchicken may be working in the DA’s office.
It happens all the time.Nearly 10 years back we had a case in my city of a woman who died after falling off a high-rise balcony during a date that went bad. The cops charged the guy with murder and decided to go hard on it.The Crown prosecuted that charge despite both themselves and the defence possessing a recording made on the phone* of the accused making it clear he hadn’t even been on the balcony at the time she fell.So despite having clear evidence that wouldn’t sustain a murder charge, they proceeded anyway and were deeply shocked somehow when the dude was found not guilty.If they’d gone for a lesser charge they may have been successful but murder was always going to be shooting for the moon.* He was a weirdo who had audio recorded the entire date and evening.
“They sound like inept, two-bit hicks with holes in their shoes. “We’re shocked—SHOCKED!—that this wealthy man would attempt to defend himself.””I love the way you put this.
Rookie error in charging compounded by a really dumb press release. “The prosecution’s priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys.” Translated, “we were all absent the day they covered ex post facto laws in law school.”
Yeah. Their dumb statements about this make them look so much worse.
I wonder if the charges are in any way to related to Baldwin’s portrayal of trump and his politics in general. Nah, nobody’s* that petty.*republickuns
I don’t know if criminal charges are the way to go here because of the degree of reasonable doubt. A fitting punishment would be for Baldwin and Reed to be blackballed from their respective professions. Baldwin should be barred from producer roles on any film going forward, and IATSE or the Teamsters made it clear that they would make things very unpleasant for any production that would hire Baldwin as an actor, I’d have no problem with that either.
While I agree that Ms. Reed should not ever work as an armorer anywhere at all; I’m not sure if drumming Alec Baldwin out of his career is the right thing.
I think Guiterrez-Reed will indeed be blacklisted. It was her first solo gig so it’ll be easy to do so. It would likely also be very hard for her to get insured by a production going forward.
First rule of firearms safety: NEVER point a weapon at someone unless you fully intend to kill them.Instruction from Director on Movie set: Point this gun at that guy and pull the trigger.What could possibly go wrong?
I’ve already wrote about my disagreement with charging Baldwin at all, so I’ll skip that this time around and get right to the question at hand… why are Baldwin and the armorer being charged with the same charges? She was clearly the person whose own ineptitude and admission placed her at fault.
“why are Baldwin and the armorer being charged with the same charges?”Because the DA doesn’t get elected to higher office going after small potatoes like the armorer.
So instead they act like incompetent fools on a national scale… lol
the late cinematographer’s husband Matthew Hutchins is serving as executive producerThat… sounds like an awkward set to work on
I can’t figure why he wants to. I don’t like to think about it, but if my wife died on her job, I doubt I’d be thinking “Y’know what? I need to be more involved in this!”
Maybe he figures that it may as well be finished and joining the production can ensure that at least *something* can be salvaged out of his wife’s death.
I figure the EP credit means he gets gross points as his payout. That also means he is incentivized to let the production complete.
This was already a clear case of starfucking prosecutorial overreach (in this case star-fucking-over), but the fact that the DA did not know what laws were on the books at the time of the crime is really grounds for removal from office.The “big city lawyer” press release after such a MASSIVE fuck up is just humiliating, somebody save this town from itself!
Told you morons. No way a rich white man can go to prison for murderin some poor in America, baby. Justice still working fine