It was a true tragedy when cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed on the set of Alec Baldwin’s Western film Rust. Whether or not it was a crime was not as immediately apparent. To determine if it was a crime, the incident was investigated by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Department, New Mexico’s First Judicial District Attorney, New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau, and the FBI. Eventually, producer and director Alec Baldwin, assistant director David Halls, and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed were charged for their roles in the incident. But while the latter were convicted, a judge recently dismissed the charges against Baldwin. Here’s what happened, as told by criminal attorney Peter M. Liss.
Nothing happens immediately in the criminal justice system, and it took nearly 2 and 1/2 years for the criminal charges related to the Rust shooting to be resolved. Here’s a timeline showing how the events transpired:
The case had problems with prosecutors from the beginning. New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies initially hired attorney Andrea Reeb as a special prosecutor, stating she would work together with Reeb on the case. However, Reeb resigned only three months in. After a judge denied Carmack-Altwies’ request to hire a new special prosecutor while still serving as co-counsel, the DA hired two new special prosecutors, Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis. Within the following month, Lewis left, and another attorney, Edlinda Johnson, was hired on as a special prosecutor.
While it’s not common for a case to go through six prosecutors within four months, that isn’t grounds for a case to be dismissed. Instead, it came down to police and prosecutorial misconduct. It all started during the trial of Gutierrez-Reed, when a family friend delivered a box of ammunition to lead investigator Alexandra Hancock. The ammunition was then intentionally filed with a different number than that used for the Hutchin’s shooting. As a result, the defense was unaware of its existence.
After only looking at a photo of some of the shell casings, prosecutors decided the ammunition was not from the set and was, therefore, irrelevant to the case and unworthy of disclosure to the defense. They never examined the shells themselves.
The only reason the defense knew about the ammunition and its wrongful filing in a different case number was Poppell’s testimony. The following day, they filed a motion to dismiss based on a Brady violation.
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer requested the ammunition be brought to her and, upon inspection, discovered that some of the casings had the same company signature used by the company that sold the ammunition used in the Rust shooting. She stated the Sheriff’s department and prosecutors also “unilaterally withheld the supplemental report [regarding the bullets]. Santa Fe County Sheriff’s officer made the decision — and apparently also with the prosecutor … that the evidence was of no evidentiary value and failed to connect the evidence to the case.”
This was a problem because the “prosecution doesn’t get to pick and choose which evidence to give to the defense,” explains Peter Liss. “If the evidence is even remotely related to the case, they should disclose it and turn over to the defense.”
At the crux of the case was the question of how live ammunition made it onto the set of the film and went unchecked before Baldwin made his fatal shot on set. The ammunition box was relevant enough that it should have been disclosed to the defense, but instead, the police and prosecution intentionally hid it.
Withholding evidence that could potentially benefit the defense is known as a Brady violation and is one of the most common types of prosecutorial misconduct.
“Because the disclosure of the evidence was so late in the trial, the defense couldn’t test the evidence or properly incorporate it into their defense,” explains Liss.
“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,” said Sommer. “There is no way for the court to right this wrong. The sanction of dismissal is the only warranted remedy.”
No, the case was dismissed with prejudice. When something is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be retried. While this is not so common with mistrials due to a hung jury, it is often the case in trials like this one that are dismissed due to severe prosecutorial misconduct.
Baldwin’s defense attorneys argued multiple times that the case suffered from prosecutorial misconduct, so her decision may have been influenced by more than one action. Either way, Sommer determined the facts of the case were so egregious that Baldwin should not be forced to go to trial again.
Her decision was both a sanction against the prosecution and Sheriff’s office for their misconduct, and a method of ensuring the actor was not subjected to a biased trial. The judge was very displeased with the prosecutor, saying their ‘”willful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate. If this conduct does not rise to the level of bad faith, it certainly comes so near to bad faith as to show signs of scorching prejudice.”
There will undoubtedly be a reckoning for the Sheriff’s Department employees and prosecutors in the case. These attorneys not only lost in trial after acting in an unacceptably prejudicial manner but also spent over $750,000 in taxpayer funds to try Balwin and Gutierrez-Reed. The prosecutors will likely face action by the New Mexico State Bar. “In San Diego,” says Liss, “it would also probably cost a prosecutor their job to commit such flagrant misconduct.”
The prosecutors’ actions could provide grounds for an appeal of Gutierrez-Reed, who may seek an acquittal or retrial of her case. While it’s difficult to predict how much this could affect her case, it is undeniable that her trial also hinged on how the live rounds ended up on set, so her attorneys will have a strong argument for their appeal. Unfortunately, her case is a more typical example of Brady violations since they are rarely uncovered before someone is convicted of a crime.
Even if both parties were acquitted though, Gutierrez-Reed and Baldwin are still facing civil lawsuits. In these cases, the family can hold the armorer and actor accountable for their role in Hutchins’ death and ask for compensation for their losses. Civil trials have a lower burden of proof than criminal trials, making it easier for individuals to be found guilty. Beyond that, there is no state prosecutor in these cases, so there is no chance of a dismissal based on prosecutorial misconduct.
The dismissal of Alec Baldwin’s charges is a prime example of how important it is to work with a defense attorney when you are accused of a crime. Procedural motions are sometimes all it takes to ensure you do not face criminal penalties, but a skilled lawyer must understand when these motions can and should be used. If you have been accused of a crime, please call (760) 643-4050 to schedule a free initial consultation.
The post The Story of Alec Baldwin’s Rust Trial appeared first on Vista DUI Lawyer and Criminal Attorney Peter M. Liss.
