Lawyers seek new trial, release for Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed
Gutierrez-Reed was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins earlier this month
Aux News Reed
The long, upsetting saga of 26-year-old Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed may be getting another chapter. After 10 frustrating days of back-and-forth testimony in court, Gutierrez-Reed was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter earlier this month. After two hours of deliberation, the New Mexico jury determined the armorer’s “willful disregard” for safety procedures on set was what led to the 2021 death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, who was struck by a live bullet discharged from Alec Baldwin’s gun. Gutierrez-Reed is currently being held in a Santa Fe detention facility while she awaits her April 15 sentencing. She faces up to 18 months in prison.
Now, however, Gutierrez-Reed’s attorneys believe that her conviction will “almost certainly” be overturned, and they have requested that she be granted a new trial and be released from jail while the appeal is considered (per Variety). This new-found hope for Gutierrez-Reed rests on the fact that the jury was asked to consider whether the armorer had loaded Baldwin’s gun with live ammunition “and/or” that she failed to properly check the ammunition. Her lawyers, Jason Bowles and Monnica Barreras, are contending the phrase “and/or” allowed a conviction to be passed down even if the jury wasn’t unanimous on either act.
The strength of Bowles and Barreras’ appeal lies in a recent New Mexico Supreme Court verdict. They overturned the conviction of two daycare workers for child endangerment on similar grounds this past Thursday, after finding that the term “and/or” created “confusion and misdirection” for the jury, who were asked to judge four separate acts.
Separately, Baldwin’s lawyers are also seeking to get his upcoming manslaughter case thrown out of court by accusing prosecutors of “violating nearly every rule in the book.” If it does go forward, Baldwin’s trial is currently scheduled to begin in July.
9 Comments
I thought we were blaming this on the famous cis white dude?
That “and/or” thing is a tough one. If I were being tried for criminal charges, I’d certainly want the prosecution to have to be specific in the charges they brought. This makes it sound like the prosecution is saying that her guilt is a foregone conclusion regardless of the specifics. It makes sense from a laymen’s perspective, but under the law, I think they need to pick a lane. The defense might use that to say the prosecution doesn’t have enough evidence to convict without unfairly broadening the criteria for guilt. If I were prosecuting, I’d probably lean toward failure to properly check the ammunition. I don’t think anyone is saying she intentionally caused harm; she didn’t have proper control over the set and it had grave consequences. Save the “and/or” for civil proceedings where you only need to prove she (or really, the production) was negligent in managing on-set firearms safety, and move for a financial award.The job of the prosecution is to attempt to remove all reasonable doubt that she violated the laws under which she is being charged. That requires clarity and the defense did a good job appealing. Although I don’t think she has a great chance of escaping judgment here, even if they’re buying her some time for now.
I guess the concept is that either of those actions would be enough to convict, and of course both is a possibility as well. Not being an attorney in New Mexico, I have no idea if the jury has to find her guilty for precisely the same reasons.
‘”Although I don’t think she has a great chance of escaping judgment here, even if they’re buying her some time for now.”’Time is all that she’ll have spent under the current ruling. They’re not giving her the death penalty. She will be out once she’s served her time. Who knows maybe it’ll be shortened for good behavior.
I agree. And while I wouldn’t want to spend 18 minutes in prison, 18 months is not as long as I expected.
Do you think she’ll have a shot at early parole?
‘”Do you think she’ll have a shot at early parole?”‘https://www.google.com/search?q=when+is+early+parole+awarded+to+an+inmate
WHOOSH!
She did load it with live ammunition and she failed to check properly that it was only dummy rounds. Not sure why the prosecution didn’t present these as clearly inseparable events. On the basis case: “Those instructions used the word “or” instead of “and.”” which apparently referred to a conviction that either act by itself was insufficient to have caused harm, which is in direct contrast to this case where failure to check ammunition allows live ammunition to be loaded and live ammunition can be loaded where there is a failure to check. The question for the court is if there is any confusion of the relation between the two such that the jury would have made a different finding as opposed to seeing that either alone would not allow the event that did happen to happen.