Nearly three years after the tragic death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the Western film "Rust" in New Mexico, the involuntary manslaughter case against its star, Alec Baldwin, has been dismissed. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer ruled that the case could not be filed again, following a motion by Baldwin's defense team accusing the prosecution of concealing ammunition evidence.

 

The courtroom saw an extraordinary day as the special prosecutor took the unusual step of calling herself as a witness. The dramatic turn of events culminated in Baldwin breaking down in tears and hugging his lawyers as Judge Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case, citing misconduct by police and prosecutors. Baldwin, 66, had consistently denied the charge of involuntary manslaughter over the fatal shooting, maintaining that he did not pull the gun's trigger and that others on set were responsible for the weapon's safety checks. If convicted, he could have faced up to 18 months in prison.

 

The prosecution had argued that Baldwin behaved recklessly during a scene rehearsal on the set near Santa Fe, New Mexico, accusing him of playing "make believe with a real gun" and violating "the cardinal rules of firearm safety." However, Baldwin's defense team countered these claims, arguing that he was merely "an actor, acting" and had committed no crime.

 

With the case now dismissed, Judge Marlowe Sommer has stated it cannot be filed again. Baldwin's wife, Hilaria, who had been supporting him in court alongside his actor brother Stephen, also cried as the judge delivered her ruling. Baldwin left the courthouse immediately, without speaking to reporters.

 

Judge Marlowe Sommer explained, "The late discovery of this evidence during trial has impeded the effective use of evidence in such a way that it has impacted the fundamental fairness of the proceedings."

 

The case's collapse began after the second day of evidence presentation, when Baldwin's defense team learned that the Santa Fe sheriff's office had taken possession of live rounds as potential evidence earlier this year, coinciding with the conviction of the film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, for involuntary manslaughter in connection with Hutchins' death. These live rounds were not listed in the Rust investigation file or disclosed to defense lawyers. Prosecutors argued that the ammunition was not connected to the case and was not hidden.

 

In response, Baldwin's legal team filed a request to dismiss the case overnight. The court heard arguments on the motion from both parties without jurors present. Judge Marlowe Sommer decided she needed more evidence and testimony from additional witnesses to make a decision on the motion. She called the jury in only to dismiss them immediately afterward.

 

The court heard testimony from witnesses, including prop store owner Seth Kenney, who supplied blanks and dummy rounds to the "Rust" set. Kenney denied providing live ammunition to the production and has not been charged in the case. Corporal Alexandria Hancock and Lieutenant Ryan Randall from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office also testified. Amid repeated suggestions from defense lawyer Alex Spiro that evidence had been concealed, special prosecutor Kari Morrissey took the witness stand in an unusual move, despite the judge indicating she was not required to do so.

 

Morrissey denied that evidence had been hidden and maintained it was not relevant. However, Judge Marlowe Sommer found the conduct of the police and prosecutors "highly prejudicial" to Baldwin, stating, "There is no way for the court to right this wrong."

 

During questioning, Spiro asked Morrissey if she simply did not "like Mr. Baldwin very much." Morrissey responded, "That is absolutely untrue. I actually really appreciate Mr. Baldwin's movies. I really appreciated the acting that he did on Saturday Night Live, and I really appreciate his politics." Spiro then claimed that Morrissey had referred to Baldwin as a "c*********" and an "arrogant p****" to witnesses, which Morrissey said she did not recall.

 

Following the judge's ruling, Gutierrez's lawyer, Jason Bowles, commented that the judge had done "the right thing to preserve the integrity of our system." Gutierrez, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison, is currently appealing her conviction. Bowles indicated they would be filing a "similar motion" in her case.

 

Credit: Sky News 2024-07-13

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Good it was a horrible incident and the one directly responsible for the gun has been held accountable my condolences to the Hutchins family 

Once again money rules!

In about 5 years when things cool off you notice Baldwin will be doing an unusual ad or having a very strong, perhaps out of place, opinion on a political topic… and youll know why, and start to understand how the world really works

Edited July 13, 20241 yr by Robert Paulson

10 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

In about 5 years when things cool off you notice Baldwin will be doing an unusual ad or having a very strong, perhaps out of place, opinion on a political topic… and youll know why, and start to understand how the world really works

 

 

Why must we wait five years to "understand how the world really works"?

 

Can't you just enlighten us now?

 

 

Just now, bamnutsak said:

 

 

Why must we wait five years to "understand how the world really works"?

 

Can't you just enlighten us now?

 

 

Because that’s exactly how things work. They can’t just shell out book deals or speaking or plush jobs deals right away. They wait until the dust settles. Biden was an iraq war supporter for example. Baldwin was given a favor, and he’ll need to return the favor in the coming years. I know you still won’t get it but that’s really ok. It won’t matter even if you do. 

4 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

Because that’s exactly how things work.

 

Thank you for this thoughtful and nuanced response.

 

 

Correct result.

But the lady in charge of guns on the set, should have got 10 years for what she did not do .

 

9 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

Because that’s exactly how things work. They can’t just shell out book deals or speaking or plush jobs deals right away. They wait until the dust settles. Biden was an iraq war supporter for example. Baldwin was given a favor, and he’ll need to return the favor in the coming years. I know you still won’t get it but that’s really ok. It won’t matter even if you do. 

 

Oops, even more.

Still it's a mystery how a real gun got on the set with real bullets in it where all weapons and ammo show be of a prop tryps?...

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Good it was a horrible incident and the one directly responsible for the gun has been held accountable my condolences to the Hutchins family 

 

Well, the armourer was obviously culpable through negligence; but so was Baldwin, he had a duty of care to make sure the gun was not loaded with live ammunition before pulling the trigger. However, very few people that understand how things work in the US, thought that he would ever be convicted ….. $$$$$$

 

 

2 hours ago, Robert Paulson said:

Because that’s exactly how things work. They can’t just shell out book deals or speaking or plush jobs deals right away. They wait until the dust settles. Biden was an iraq war supporter for example. Baldwin was given a favor, and he’ll need to return the favor in the coming years. I know you still won’t get it but that’s really ok. It won’t matter even if you do. 

More nonsense from you. The judge in the case repeatedly ruled against Baldwin's lawyers efforts to dismiss the case.. It was only when this extraordinary piece of prosecutorial misconduct was brought to light that she dismissed the case. 

The victims family should sue the prosecutor and the Sheriff for incompetence. I am not a lawyer but the prosection has a duty to "disclose" this to the defense.   You learn this in the first months on the job.  Pure incompetence.  Now Baldwin can revive his faltering career as an "inocent man who was the victim of a police consipracy". I see a Netflix limited series in the works.  Great acting jobs by Baldwin and Hilaria while they were in court.

Edited July 13, 20241 yr by sqwakvfr

It would appear that the only negligence involved in this case was on the part of the prosecutor, so perhaps they should go to jail. It's always fun to see a negligent lawyer locked up, though it rarely happens. 

 

This case had a very fishy smell even from the beginning. 

4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Well, the armourer was obviously culpable through negligence; but so was Baldwin, he had a duty of care to make sure the gun was not loaded with live ammunition before pulling the trigger. However, very few people that understand how things work in the US, thought that he would ever be convicted ….. $$$$$$

 

 

Baldwin is equally as culpable as the armourer considering he knew that real weapons were being used on the set. Baldwin broke the 'first rule' of weapons handling, that is to physically check that the weapon is not loaded as soon as he picks it up or has it handed to him - in the case of the person handing him the weapon, that person is also responsible to show him that the safety catch is on and the weapon is unloaded - as for his BS comment that he didn't physically pull the trigger... he pulled the trigger!  

5 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Once again money rules!

He was not guilty. The film hired a gun expert. She is guilty. Just because you are a star does not mean anything that goes wrong is your fault. This case should have never been brought by the prosecutors. I believe the prosecutors brought this case to bolster their name recognition and career and this case had nothing to do with justice. 

9 minutes ago, HK MacPhooey said:

Baldwin is equally as culpable as the armourer considering he knew that real weapons were being used on the set. Baldwin broke the 'first rule' of weapons handling, that is to physically check that the weapon is not loaded as soon as he picks it up or has it handed to him - in the case of the person handing him the weapon, that person is also responsible to show him that the safety catch is on and the weapon is unloaded - as for his BS comment that he didn't physically pull the trigger... he pulled the trigger!  

Completely wrong. You are allowed to rely on an armory expert who verifies the safety of the gun. He is 100 percent not guilt and was simply a target because he is rich and famous. 
 

You think John Wayne checked his gun every time. No way. Real bullets are not suppose to be on any movie set. And the armory expert is there for safety reasons to make sure nothing like this happens. 
 

While it may sound good to you that every actor must check a weapon before acting. That is not the law.  

this ruling should not affect any future Civil Action one hopes!

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

Judge Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case, citing misconduct by police and prosecutors.

Oh that has to a classic in the annals of American jurisprudence.

 

It's not often that justice is so dramatically served..

 

As for the case itself, I assume it was one of those cases by which a prosecutor wanted to make a name for themselves by prosecuting a famous person. If so they certainly have, but not in the way intended.

This was obvious the minute the judge ruled the fact that he was a producer of the movie was not relevant.

 

Left wing celebs above the law. 

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

This was obvious the minute the judge ruled the fact that he was a producer of the movie was not relevant.

 

Left wing celebs above the law. 

BS

 

Who brought ammo to the set? 

Who loaded the gun? 

 

It is as easy as that

31 minutes ago, Wake Up1 said:

Completely wrong. You are allowed to rely on an armory expert who verifies the safety of the gun. He is 100 percent not guilt and was simply a target because he is rich and famous

 

Nonsense, would you point a handgun at someone, or your own head, and pull the trigger simply on the assumption that logically it should not contain a live round ? …. he unquestionably has some  culpability for negligent use of a firearm.

 

 

46 minutes ago, HK MacPhooey said:

Baldwin is equally as culpable as the armourer considering he knew that real weapons were being used on the set.

 

I don't recall ever hearing that he was involved with, or even aware of staff members target shooting on the property with real ammo.  I'm not saying that's false, and I quit following a week or 2 after it happened.  But during the time I did follow it, I was looking for a definitive statement.  Do you have a link?  Not doubting you.  Just curious.

 

3 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Nonsense, would you point a handgun at someone, or your own head, and pull the trigger simply on the assumption that logically it should not contain a live round ? …. he unquestionably has some  culpability for negligent use of a firearm.

 

 

First thing I do when handed a gun, is to make sure it is not loaded, and I would never point a gun at someone, because I have been trained with weapons since I was 12. 

 

Still I asume the gun as a movie prop was supposed to be pointed at someone for a take? 

8 minutes ago, Hummin said:

BS

 

Who brought ammo to the set? 

Who loaded the gun? 

 

It is as easy as that

 

Who pointed the gun at the help and pulled the trigger without checking it? 

 

Who hired the person who loaded the gun?

 

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

First thing I do when handed a gun, is to make sure it is not loaded, and I would never point a gun at someone, because I have been trained with weapons since I was 12. 

 

Still I asume the gun as a movie prop was supposed to be pointed at someone for a take? 

 

I have received the same training although at a later age.

 

However, the gun was not a prop, it was a real firearm and everyone on set knew that; and I don’t think it was a take, I believe it was just a look at lighting and camera angles; no need to point it at anyone, and certainly no need to pull the trigger.

 

 

I could accept him being found not guilty by a jury.

 

I would disagree but after OJ I wouldn't be shocked.

 

But case dismissed by the judge? Wow.

 

The serf got 18 months to protect the elite. Blame the low hanging fruit. Americans should refrain from criticising Thai courts from now on. Same same. Banana republics. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Who pointed the gun at the help and pulled the trigger without checking it? 

 

Who hired the person who loaded the gun?

 

As I understand the case was dismissed because of witheld of evidence 

 

Im done, nothing more to add, than no matter what, there where people who had responsibillity of the gun, and the gun was not supposed to be loaded with live ammo. 

5 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

I have received the same training although at a later age.

 

However, the gun was not a prop, it was a real firearm and everyone on set knew that; and I don’t think it was a take, I believe it was just a look at lighting and camera angles; no need to point it at anyone, and certainly no need to pull the trigger.

 

 

Every detail have to be checked even reflections from the gun in the correct light and angles when making a a movie. Other people was responsible for the ammo and the gun was loaded. My last comment. 

3 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

I have received the same training although at a later age.

 

However, the gun was not a prop, it was a real firearm and everyone on set knew that; and I don’t think it was a take, I believe it was just a look at lighting and camera angles; no need to point it at anyone, and certainly no need to pull the trigger.

 

 

 

Exactly. It wasn't a take. The girl shot wasn't even an actress on the movie.

 

He picked up the gun from the person he hired without checking it, aimed it and fired it at the help. She died.

 

Case dismissed by the judge. 

 

Democrat supporter and donor. 

 

Deeply indebted Banana Republic ruled by a cadaver.