Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Judge Shuts Down Alec Baldwin's Effort To Toss Case Over Destroyed Gun

Episode Date: July 1, 2024

Alec Baldwin’s latest motion to dismiss his involuntary manslaughter case in the fatal shooting on the set of “Rust” has failed. Baldwin argued he was unfairly prejudiced when FBI testing on the gun destroyed it. Baldwin faces an involuntary manslaughter charge in the October 2021 death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the movie set. Law&Crime’s Angenette Levy breaks down the judge’s decision and what it means for Baldwin’s case with former prosecutor Josh Ritter in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Get 50% off of confidential background reports at https://www.truthfinder.com/lccrimefix and access information about almost anyone!Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Josh Ritter / https://www.youtube.com/@CRConfidentialCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@LawandCrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law & Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. It wasn't in the script for the trigger to be pulled. Well, the trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger. Alec Baldwin says he never pulled the trigger on the gun that fired and killed cinematographer Helena Hutchins and Wounded director Joel Sousa. Now, after trying to get the case dismissed, Baldwin is headed to trial. Thanks for joining me for Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy.

Alec Baldwin has filed several motions asking the judge in his case to dismiss the involuntary manslaughter charges that he faces in New Mexico for the death of Helena Hutchins and the shooting of Joel Souza. The latest motion that Baldwin argued was that he had been prejudiced because the Colt 45 Baldwin was holding that day was destroyed during FBI accidental discharge testing. The Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office asked for that testing after Alec Baldwin said this. It wasn't in the script for the trigger to be pulled. Well, the trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger. So you never pulled the trigger? No, no, no, no, no. I would

never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them, never. FBI firearms examiner Bryce Ziegler testified about the testing that he conducted. And how many times did you test fire this revolver? I test fired this particular one 12 times. And during each one of those 12 times, did you observe any of these issues that you just mentioned that would cause you concern that maybe this gun could malfunction? No, there was nothing odd or abnormal about this during the initial test firing. And when you did the test firing, did you check the different hammer cocking positions? Yes, I did.

Okay. And at any point during each one of those 12 test fires, did the gun discharge by itself without a pull of the trigger? No. Now, there was testimony at a recent hearing that the FBI and the sheriff's Office were aware that the accidental discharge testing could destroy the weapon, but they didn't notify the defense. Ziegler testified about the testing that he conducted. And how did you conduct this trigger pull test? So essentially, if you picture a wire coat hanger, so I have a long wire with a hook on the top. And I would orient the firearm vertically so the muzzle will be pointing straight up at the ceiling. I would hook this, essentially the coat hanger portion of the hook inside the trigger guard resting on the trigger.

And then I can add static weights to the bottom of that wire. And so I can continue to add weights until I reach the point where it's starting to pull the trigger as I pick up on the firearm. So the amount of weight that's added, that's going to be the amount of force that's required to pull the trigger. And what amount of force was required to pull the trigger for this evidence revolver? So in my note-taking and during my exam, I measured that amount of force to be between two and two and a half pounds. And what does that mean? Can you elaborate?

Well, does it mean that it would take two to two and a half pounds of force to pull that trigger? Somewhere in between those values, yes. Would that be considered what people call a hair trigger? I personally would not consider that to be a hair trigger. When I think of a hair trigger, I think of either very high performance hunting rifles, things of that nature where the amount of force on the trigger, I don't have a specific number for you, but it's extremely light where you just barely have to touch the trigger to fire the firearm. It's typically you see them in hunting

rifles. Now, Ziegler testified that he actually struck the gun on six planes with a rawhide mallet. He was cross-examined by Alec Baldwin's defense attorney. Is it possible to know just by physically looking at a gun whether or not it's capable of malfunctioning? I would say no. And even if you've test fired in your laboratory in the little water bucket a bunch of times in that sort of stabilized environment just because that works and there's not a catastrophic explosion of the gun or something like that that doesn't mean that it's impossible that there's a malfunction doesn't that's correct i can only tell you that it functioned normally during my testing

and you didn't at that point before you went into the accidental testing that led to the destruction of the firearm, you didn't disassemble and look at the inside of the gun, did you? No, at that point, there was no reason for me to do so. Well, nobody asked you to. That's correct, but I also did not see anything that would give me cause to do so. And not only did you not disassemble it, but you obviously didn't disassemble it and take photographs or video of the inside, true? Prior to the accidental discharge testing? Right. That's correct. I did not do that. A firearms expert for the state had testified at a recent hearing about his thoughts on whether that accidental discharge testing

was actually necessary. Mr. Haig, just to orient the court, you agree that the testing that the FBI and Mr. Ziegler did, the destructive accidental testing, was unnecessary in light of the circumstances of this case, correct? I would view it as unnecessary given the context of the case. Now, the prosecution contends there was really no prejudice to Alec Baldwin in part because the gun appeared to be in fine working order before the testing occurred. Her testimony from Officer Hancock, or excuse me, Corporal Hancock, who said this gun appeared perfectly fine.

There seemed to be nothing wrong with it. You heard from Mr. Ziegler. When he received it at the FBI, the gun fired 12 times, just as designed. There was nothing apparently wrong with this gun. So the defense now comes and argues that this accidental discharge testing that led to the damage of some of these components deprived the defendant of this exculpatory evidence. Well, that's not the way the test works. The mere possibility that this destroyed evidence could have been tested, could have exculpated the defendant, is not sufficient to satisfy the first prong of Trombetta. The defense summed up its argument about why they believed Baldwin

had been prejudiced. They had no ability to examine the gun before it was destroyed. So no one's accusing anybody of ethical misconduct on this one. That's at least not necessary for the legal test. What it means is that they had an awareness that this was potentially exculpatory. And instead of stopping and saying, well, what do we need to do here? Do we need to document this? Do we need to preserve this? They just went ahead and destroyed it. Judge Mary Marlowe-Summer denied Baldwin's latest motion to dismiss, where he argued he was prejudiced because the revolver was destroyed during testing to see whether the gun could accidentally fire on its own. In the end, Judge Marl Summer said it would be up to the jury to decide what weight to give the gun being destroyed. She wrote, given the court's above assessment of materiality and

prejudice, the court concludes that the state must fully disclose the destructive nature of firearm testing, the resulting loss and its relevance and import to the jury. The state must examine appropriate witnesses in such a manner as to achieve this disclosure. In addition, defendant remains entitled to cross-examination of the state's witnesses to further accomplish this remedy. Alec Baldwin was holding that Colt 45 revolver on October 21, 2021 at the Bonanza Creek Ranch. Baldwin was practicing drawing the gun as cinematographer Helena Hutchins and director Joel Souza set up for filming a scene. I want to take a quick second to tell

you about the sponsor of this episode of Crime Fix. It's called truthfinder.com. I've covered crime for a really long time, so I can tell you that truthfinder.com is a great platform to research the people that you meet each day so you and your family can stay as safe as you can. I have a family, so I use Truthfinder for unlimited searches on people my family members interact with each day, especially my young son. I've covered way too many stories about sex offenders and other criminals to know that you can never be too careful. And Truthfinder will show you all of the sex offenders who live near you,

which is really helpful. I use Truthfinder all of the time for work and in my personal life. I've even run a background check on myself, family, and neighbors just to see what's out there. The information that's available is actually pretty shocking. So right now, you can get 50% off of confidential background reports. Just log on to www.truthfinder.com slash lccrimefix. Log on and start accessing information about almost anyone. I want to bring in Josh Ritter. He is a former prosecutor, currently a defense attorney and host of Courtroom Confidential on YouTube. Josh, your thoughts on the judge denying Alec Baldwin's latest motion to dismiss in his case? I'm not really shocked. I mean, I know it's frustrating to the defense and it was probably one of the strongest arguments they were going to make. But to get a mist or to get a dismissal out of this, I think is nearly impossible.

Essentially, the argument that they're making is the prosecution are the stewards of the evidence. They're the ones who are in charge of custody and control of that evidence and preserving that evidence for the defense if they want to test it. Here, in testing it, they destroyed it. And so the defense is saying, this is an important piece of evidence, probably the most important piece of evidence, and you destroyed it so that we can't argue it ourselves. However, the judge felt, well, the problem is that the way that the evidence was before it was allegedly destroyed was not helpful to the defense. So its exculpatory value didn't exist before it being altered. And they're going to let the defense just kind of cross-examine on all of this. So end of the day, it did not carry

the day with the judge. What I do find interesting, though, about this, Josh, is the fact that the sheriff's office was notified by the FBI that this testing could potentially destroy the weapon. And they said, go ahead and do it anyway. Bryce Ziegler, the firearms examiner who did the accidental discharge testing from the FBI, he said that he fired the gun. He examined it before he did this. And he said it was functioning properly. It does sound pretty wild, though. He's going around and he's banging

this thing with a rubber mallet or a rawhide mallet, pardon me, in six different places to see if it will discharge. And he did get it to discharge twice by hammering it in two different locations. But it sounds like that is not something that would have happened had it been in Alec Baldwin's hands. So I guess from the defense perspective, it would have been nice to maybe have your own representative present while that was going on, or to be able to examine it yourself with an expert present or your own expert present in the presence of the FBI. I mean, what about something like that? That's an excellent idea. And probably in hindsight, what they should have done is allow, and that's common, allow a defense expert to be

present during the testing, maybe not participate in it, but at least be present so that they could give their evaluation later on and how they felt that test was conducted and whatnot. But you're right. They went into this kind of with the idea that they knew they would likely destroy it or alter it in the testing. But the central issue in this case as to whether or not that gun could go off without pulling the trigger. And the only way they could do that was to, like you said, whack it with a hammer before it actually went off. And in doing so, they damaged the weapon. And Bryce Ziegler said it takes two and a half pounds of pressure to pull that trigger. So, I mean, we're talking about, I mean, I've fired guns before. It's not something I do often, but I have done it. I've fired revolvers.

I fired semi-automatic pistols. And you do have to mean even on a semi-automatic, you do have to kind of give it a pull. So at least on the firearms I've I've fired, it's not like I'm, you know, Annie Oakley over here. But I mean, I do think that this is going to be a key point of contention there. We've also you know, I've spoken to many people, armorers, things like that. Many armorers who say, you know, guns don't just go off. They don't just do they don't do that, you know, without you pulling the trigger. In your experience, you've been a prosecutor.

You're a defense attorney. Have you ever seen a case where a gun just malfunctions in somebody's hands like that? No. And in fact, the things you see in the movies where the gun is dropped and it fires, it just doesn't happen. The way that these guns are manufactured, there's all sorts of safety measures. Now, this was a replica gun. So it wasn't just an old-fashioned gun that you might think, oh, that could have problems with it. It was a replica gun that had safety features built in, and they tested it. There was no way this thing was going off without that trigger being pulled. And you make a really good point about the pounds of pressure, because the prosecution is going to argue that's a conscious decision being made. That is not an

accidental amount of pressure you're going to put on that trigger. That is somebody actually thinking to themselves, I'm pulling the trigger here. I'm conscientiously pulling the trigger, which plays into their entire theory of the case of this being an involuntary manslaughter with some sort of negligence being attached in his intent. You have Alec Baldwin giving a police interview. He spoke to law enforcement. He then gives a very lengthy interview to George Stephanopoulos from ABC News. You know, he said very clearly, look, I'm not the victim here and I'm not trying to say that I am. He says he didn't pull the trigger. I mean, what what is that, though? I mean, he's saying he didn't pull the trigger and everybody

else is saying, yeah, you did. so does he have to get up there and testify and say does he have to tell this story because i assume i would assume maybe i'm wrong i would assume the state is going to play in their case in chief his police interview and possibly clips from the george stephanopoulos interview yeah yeah he it was really an unforced error. His, his attorneys, I imagine were pulling their hair out with the fact that he went ahead and did that interview. And they, I'm guessing that they tried to stop him because, you know, he came, he made statements on like, we've been discussing a central issue in this entire case and to just without any reason for it, but his own kind of PR, to give that statement saying

I never pulled the trigger, now he's entirely pigeonholed. If he does testify, he can't change that. He can't say, well, now I can't remember. I'm not quite sure. I think maybe the gun somehow jostled in my hand. He's got none of that because he's already pinned himself in to the idea that he didn't pull the trigger. And if the prosecution is able to play those statements and then put on their expert to say there's no way that gun goes off without pulling the trigger, now not only do they have him as a possible committing involuntary manslaughter, they also have him lying essentially to the jurors. I don't think that, I mean, I wasn't surprised the judge denied this motion. I just think she I had a feeling she was just going to leave this up to the jury. You know, let the jury answer the question. Did the FBI testing, you know, prejudice Alec Baldwin? Let the defense

go after this guy during trial on cross-examination Bryce Ziegler. So I kind of felt like this was coming and the defense had to know she was likely going to deny their motion. Yeah, I think it was a long shot. I think they knew that going in, you know, because to grant it, it ends the entire case. So I don't think a judge was going to end this just based upon. And, you know, I think an important point being is she didn't believe that the destruction or altering of that weapon was done with bad intent or on purpose by the prosecution. So it happened. It was a it was a consequence of the testing. The gun wasn't exculpatory beforehand. All of that put together. She's just going to you know, they're going to cross examine on it and she'll allow them to do that for whatever value it has. But you're right. It's something that should

proceed to a jury. And it will be up to the jury. It'll be interesting to see how all of this kind of unfolds at trial. This is going to be a different trial from Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer's trial. She's currently serving an 18-month sentence for her role in this. She's appealing that conviction. So we will be there, too, next week. I will be there covering this. So, Josh Ritter, thank you so much for coming on. I appreciate it. Thank you so much for having me. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me.

I'll see you back here next time.