Law&Crime Sidebar - Alec Baldwin Demands 'Rust' Manslaughter Case Be Tossed: 'Violated Every Rule in The Book'

Episode Date: March 18, 2024

Actor Alec Baldwin was filming the movie “Rust” in New Mexico in 2021 when the gun he was holding fired, shooting a live round. Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed. Set armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was recently found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the shooting. Baldwin’s legal team has now filed paperwork to have the actor’s indictment thrown out. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the legal filings with criminal defense attorney Natalie Whittingham Burrell. PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: We have a special deal for our audience: Get your first visit for only five dollars at https://www.apostrophe.com/pod/SIDEBAR when you use our code: SIDEBAR. That’s a savings of fifteen dollars! This code is only available to our listeners.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY 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 and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. I'm not saying that his conduct was right. I am the person who indicted him. Alec Baldwin's conduct and his lack of gun safety inside that church on that day is something that he's going to have to answer for. Could Alec Baldwin get his criminal case dismissed the actor who is charged with involuntary manslaughter for the shooting of a cinematographer on the film set Rust has filed a motion to throw out the indictment and it raises a number of interesting legal arguments.

We break all this down with criminal defense attorney Natalie Wittingham Burrell. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Big update in the criminal case of Alec Baldwin, as we have reported extensively here on Sidebar, Baldwin has been charged with involuntary manslaughter for the shooting death of cinematographer Helena Hutchins that occurred on the movie set Rust back in 2021. This is when an 1880s era proper. gun, allegedly being handled by the actor and producer on the film, discharged during a rehearsal.

A live round somehow made its way into the firearm. That bullet struck not only Helena, but also director Joel Sousa, who was injured but survived. And recently, the armor on the set, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, was convicted of her own charge of involuntary manslaughter for the role that she played in this shooting. Her, she's set to be sentenced on April 15th. She could face up to 18 months in prison. But now, Alec Baldwin. And his trial, that trial scheduled for July, and I want to give you a little recap on how we got here, because it's important to talk about in the context of what we're about to get into.

So he was first charged with involuntary manslaughter back in January of 2023, and it also included a firearms enhancement charge, a specification that could have seen him be in prison up to five years if he was convicted. But the prosecution's firearm enhancement charge was actually based on a mis-examination. application of the law. And so that was dismissed. The special prosecutor in this case and the DA both resigned due to conflicts. A new prosecutor was appointed. The charges were dropped. But then the involuntary manslaughter charge resurfaced yet again. And it was submitted to a grand jury and Alec Baldwin was indicted in January of 2024. So a bit of a mess to say the least when it came to the prosecution of this case. But of course there is the evidence. Now, we did a previous sidebar on some of the more potentially problematic pieces of evidence for Alec Baldwin

that was presented in Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's trial, such as an expert stating that given the circumstances, the only way the gun could be fired is if Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger, which is something that Baldwin has denied doing. There was videos and testimony from the prosecution's witnesses allegedly showing that Baldwin was in charge, that he was rushing through the production, that he didn't pay attention during gun safety training sessions that he would violate onset gun protocols like firing after the director yelled cut. So some substantial arguments that could be made at his trial. But what happens if there's no trial?

I say that because Alec Baldwin has just filed a motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment. His motion reads in part, quote, The grand jury is our system's foundation for the protection of individuals' rights and a recognized method by which the public can be certain of protection against abuse of public responsibilities. The prosecutors obtain the indictment against Alec Baldwin by circumventing this fundamental protection over and over and over again. And I'm going to tell you right now that this motion raises a number of very interesting arguments that I want to go through. So let me bring in right now, a very special guest. I am joined by criminal defense attorney, Natalie Wittingham

Burrell, to talk more about this. Natalie, so good to have you. Thanks for coming on. Happy with Jesse. I'm glad to be here. Okay, so I want to start with the main argument here. And that is from Baldwin that says that the prosecutors did not present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. And before we get into the substance of what was not presented, Baldwin has raised a very interesting timing argument. It seems that Baldwin is suggesting that what the prosecution did was deliberate and almost underhanded. Baldwin has argued that the court had ordered the state to make virtually all of Baldwin's exculpatory evidence available to the grand jury. When I say exculpatory, I mean evidence that would help to prove that Baldwin is not

guilty. The motion says, quote, the court ordered the state to make nearly all of the favorable evidence and witnesses available to the grand jury, despite the court's order that the state had an obligation to act in a fair and impartial manner at all times during grand jury proceedings. Morrissey and Lewis, these are the prosecutors in the case, had a different agenda. The state intended to proceed with the grand jury on January 18th, even though the grand jury's term was set to expire on January 19th, and there was no way the state could present all the relevant evidence in that time frame. Therefore, on January 18th, Baldwin sent a letter to the special prosecutors

expressing concerns about the special prosecutor's willingness and ability to comply with their obligation. The state ignored Baldwin's letter and conducted the grand jury proceedings in expedited and unlawful manner. Baldwin asked the state to adjourn the grand jury date to ensure that this evidence could be presented, but the state ignored Baldwin's letter and jammed through its presentation in barely more than one day. So Natalie, basically what they're saying is the prosecution scheduled this in a way where it would have been impossible to present evidence that was favorable to the defense's case. What do you make of that?

I think that, you know, kind of the proof is in the pudding as far as that allegation is concerned. It's interesting. Usually a grand jury proceeding is completely secretive and totally within the hands of the prosecution and the courts don't normally get involved in them as in the judges don't normally get involved in them. But here there's a direct order from the court to provide these goals. information to the grand jury. They were obligated by the court to do that, and they proceeded in such a way that it would be impossible for them to make that complete presentation. I would think that that would be in violation of the court's order. Does that mean that the entire indictment gets dismissed? I really don't know. But that will, if there is a conviction, be an issue for appeal, because it's going to be a question between the constitutional muster of that, where the prosecution is supposed to have basically their own independence from the judge in deciding whether or not to prosecute a case. So that's something that is a constitutional rub up against the

judge's order or whether or not the judge's order was sound. And if it was that prosecution was brought or that indictment was brought contrary to the court's order, which could imperil the prosecution altogether. This part was really interesting where Alec Baldwin said that the state violated nearly every rule in the book by not explaining to the grand jury what the meaning or purpose of Baldwin's alert letter was, that letter that I mentioned before talking about, hey, are you going to even have enough time to present all of this exculpatory information? And this is who we want. This is who we want to testify and what we think the jury needs to hear.

They say that Carrie Morrissey, again, the prosecutor, just read this letter into the record verbatim, allegedly gave no context to the grand jury about what they were supposed to do with this letter. They never explained to the grand jury that they could ask for any witness or document identified in the letter. And in fact, they were required to order exculpatory evidence to be produced. And some of the ways that Baldwin highlights this is that one of the grand jurors asked, quote, when Alec Baldwin refused to look at the gun that was handed, that was allegedly cleared, and they gave it to him to re-inspected.

How would he re-inspect the gun? Would he take all the bullets out into his hand and start shaking them? Or would he just open the chamber and look at the top? sure that it was all kind of seated in the same and no inconsistencies. So Baldwin says, whoa, this question is so troubling from a grand juror, and it just shows at least three material misunderstandings here that Baldwin refused to look at the gun, that he was required to re-inspect it once it was handed to him, and that there is a protocol for actors on how to check Weckman's.

These are misunderstandings. It says this is completely not true. It's rebutted based on testimony of witnesses. And so basically what he's saying here, Natalie, and what his attorneys are saying, saying is that Morrissey did not even explain to the grand jury that they had the option and the duty to hear evidence that would show that Alec Baldwin was innocent. And that question, I guess, would tend to show that. What do you make of it? Yeah, and I think this is another example of the proof being in the putting. The result of the question shows that the prosecution did not do

what the court obligated them to do. And so I think this will not be a question of whether or not the prosecution didn't sufficiently follow the court's order. This is a question of, now that we know that the prosecution did not follow the court's order, what is the appropriate remedy? And is the appropriate remedy dismissal of the indictment? Usually not because it's in the prosecution's purview how they want to proceed with the grand jury. And many times, grand jury presentations are very slanted and favorable towards the prosecution. And that's why they say things like you can indict a ham sandwich. But here, they did have an obligation to present a mitigating case of the jury. And it's clear by the juror's confusion and belief in facts that are objectively

untrue that the prosecution failed to do that. Hey, so it's our privilege to be able to break down these very important legal stories like the Baldwin case for you here on Sidebar. And one of the reasons that we're able to continually do that is because of the incredible support that we get from our great partners. And I just want to highlight one for you right now. now, apostrophe. I really like talking about apostrophe because it is an online platform that helps you with your skin care. I mean, think about how important it is to take care of your face of all things. And in today's world, both women and men are appreciating the need to prioritize that. And look, for me, I'm on camera all the time. I get it. I get it. So whether you're

dealing with hormonal acne or breakouts of signs of aging or acne scarring, apostrophe's mission is to empower you and help you feel confident and comfortable in your own skin. Apostrophe connects you with an expert dermatology team to get customized acne treatment for your unique skin. All you got to do is simply fill out an online consultation about your skin goals and medical history. Then you snap a few selfies and a dermatology provider will create a customized treatment plan just for you.

By the way, I got to tell you, the unboxing experience, what a treat, what a treat. It included these cute little postcards and personalized stickers on the prescription bottles, just lovely. So right now, we got a special deal for our audience. Get your first visit for only $5 at apostrophe.com slash sidebar when you use our code sidebar. That's a savings of $15. This code only available to our listeners to get started. Just go to apostrophe.com slash sidebar. Click get started. Then use our code sidebar. It's sign up and you'll get your first visit for only $5. Thank you again to apostrophe for sponsoring this episode. And let's talk about the substance of what allegedly was

not presented that the defense says the grand jury should have heard. So according to the motion, quote, on November 14, 2023, 48 hours before the grand jury was scheduled to begin, Baldwin submitted, as I mentioned, an alert letter to the state that identified several key witnesses and dozens of documents that would disprove the charges against Baldwin. One of those people is Dave Halls. This is the assistant director who accepted a guilty, actually pled no contest to negligent use of a deadly weapon in this case, a sentence to six months of unsupervised parole, I believe, and a fine. And we'll get to that in a minute.

But they say that Hall's testimony would, quote, establish that responsibility for firearm safety lies with the armor and first assistant director, not with actors that Mr. Baldwin did not act negligently on set, and that Halls admitted that he was the last line of defense to protect against this accident. So, and they've noticed that a number of different witnesses that should have been called as well, but he wasn't, uh, he wasn't called. And it makes me wonder, does Baldwin have a point? Because if the jury heard that, maybe they wouldn't have indicted him. That's the interesting thing is that if the jury heard that, that doesn't

necessarily mean that they would not have indicted him. That would just mean that there is a defense to the case. But that's not the only evidence of Baldwin's ultimate responsibility. Because fortunately, unfortunately for Alibaldwin, he was also a producer in the case. And so that in the film, and that's what could potentially give him some level of liability. What was his level of responsibility as far as hiring Hannah Gutierrez-R-R-Reed, who was purely not ready for this job? What was his responsibility as far as overall ensuring the safety of everyone that is on the set? So even if they say it's not Alec Baldwin's job to check the gun at the end, what was his job at the beginning before the armorer, was even hired, I think could still give him some level of liability.

However, in Alec Baldwin's case, I do think he had the right to have his witnesses heard for at least the possibility of the grand jury finding that there was not probable cause. And he was deprived of that opportunity here. So in other words, even though the standard is lower to get back an indictment, it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's possible that they would have come back with an indictment against him nonetheless. Unless, based on what we're hearing in this filing, he did have a right to present his witnesses. But they don't even just say that because Baldwin says other than lead investigator Hancock, Alexandria Hancock, prosecutors, they didn't present any of the defense's witnesses that were identified in Baldwin's letter and that the witnesses that were called the state never elicited relevant exculpatory evidence.

For example, Baldwin argues that the state called a purported firearm at firearms expert Michael Hagg or Hague to testify, and he testified that the firearm would have not fired on the day of the incident unless Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger. But Baldwin says, quote, he omitted several essential facts regarding that testing, including that the FBI testing established that the gun did fire without a trigger pull when the firearm was fully loaded with six rounds, as it was on the day of the incident. your thoughts on that. It's a probable cause assessment, as you said, and were it not for this judge's order saying present the exculpatory information normally, that would be okay because probable cause when the state is charging is usually taken in the light most favorable to the state or

their facts are accepted as true. However, here, it's the judge's order that makes things unique and it's running afoul of that order. And so, yes, failure to produce evidence that would tend to call their own expert into question is certainly not following the court's order to present the mitigating circumstances. The judge here, I think, would have the opportunity to dismiss the entire indictment for that reason. I just don't think that most judges would take that extreme of an action. Right. Well, we still got a little bit more to go here because then there was the issue with the jury instruction. So the motion says, quote, first, Baldwin requested an instruction that the criminal negligence standard requires the prosecution to show that Mr. Baldwin had subjective

knowledge of an actual risk that the firearm placed in his hand had been loaded with live ammunition. Second, Baldwin requested instruction that proximate cause is an element of causation and that the element of proximate cause is negated where the negligence of a third party, someone other than Mr. Baldwin, was the only significant cause of death or constitutes an intervening cause that broke the foreseeable chain. Now, Baldwin appears to suggest that the prosecutor didn't do that, that they didn't read those instructions, and instead issued what he says is an improper instruction. For instance, Baldwin says the instruction read to the grand jury included that it must find

probable cause as to each of the following elements. The target discharged a firearm during the production of the movie without first verifying the firearm contained no live ammunition, and while the firearm was pointed in the direction of another, Baldwin says this instruction gave to the grand jury deviates from the uniform jury instructions and violates the court's order. It also places an affirmative duty on Mr. Baldwin to check the gun for live bullets and therefore obtain subjective knowledge about the very fit thing that Carrie Morrissey told the grand jury court has nothing to do with the ways in which the state intends to prove

Baldwin's negligence and which the state's expert at Gutierrez-Reed's trial, Mr. Carpenter, testified was not the actor's responsibility. So in other words, you didn't accept our jury instructions. You read a jury instruction that was seemingly not in line with what you told the court on how you were going to present the case. And it's also not accurate in terms of the law and the responsibility of Alec Baldwin as an actor. So not only are they saying you didn't allow us to present our evidence, the jury was instructed on the wrong standard to ultimately indict. What do you think? If it's proven to be true, that is the stronger argument, a misstatement of the law to the jury.

because I can see an appellate court saying, we understand the judge's order for a fair prosecution to present mitigating circumstances to the jury. However, grand juries are sealed and closed proceedings, non-adversarial for a reason. We want to encourage prosecutors to be able to present their case. However, the case has to be based on a true statement of the law. And we see in jury trials quite frequently that appellate courts across the country will take a misstatement of the law as a reason to overturn a conviction when it comes to a jury's decision, which they're loathe to overdo grand juries or jury trials. Courts are loath to interfere in their deliberations and proceedings. But if they were given a wrong statement of the law, that's reversible error right

there. So I think that that is their strongest argument, even though they have a judge's order saying that they should present mitigating circumstances. If they misstated the law, if they shifted the burden onto Baldwin, where it should have been their burden to prove, then that is certainly reversible error. So I think that that's their best chance for getting this indictment dismissed. I have to tell you, if this is true, I'm very curious to hear the prosecutor's response to this, because these are very, very serious accusations that you are making against the prosecutors in this case. In a case, whereas I mentioned before, the prosecution was all over the place. It was a mess. So I'm kind of, I'm open to hearing this, and I really want to know where it's going to go.

Before we end, though, I wanted to ask you real quick about this reporting on this old plea deal. So it was reported that Alec Baldwin was allegedly offered a plea deal, similar to the one that Dave Halls accepted. As I mentioned, six months on supervised probation, a fine, community service, you have to attend mandatory firearm safety class. Remember, he pled guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon. According to Variety, Baldwin was offered the same kind of deal on October 5th, 2023. He was given until October 27th to decide if he wanted to take it. But then prosecutors took it away in October 17th, said they're going to move forward with

a grand jury indictment. Not sure why that happened. Again, if this is true, this is the reporting of it, what is your take on it? You know, it's really hard to say because I still think that Alec Baldwin may be missing the fact that he's not only an actor in this movie. and he has a level of supervisory responsibility that another actor would not necessarily have. Is that enough to cross the threshold into guilty?

I don't know that yet until the evidence plays out. But is it worth the headache of this case being drawn out, your name being brought up into it, being investigated for years, charges being sought, not brought, and then brought? It's a lot. So I think if I was his attorney for a deal that sweet, I would have probably advised him to take that so that he can move on with his life. However, I can understand if he feels as though, you know, I was an actor in this moment. And the state's own testimony in Hannah's trial was that the expert said, usually the actor does not take out the rounds and shape them and see whether or not they're dummy or live rounds, right? And so I could see him maybe thinking on principle he shouldn't. be held responsible, but I just feel like there's too much of a risk with that producer title that a couple of jurors or maybe unanimously could see that as a level of responsibility above

just being an actor. Natalie Winningham Burrell, you're the best. Thank you so much for breaking this down for us. Really interesting development and we will see where it goes. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you for having me. All right, everybody. That is all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.