Languish.org

Somewhat interesting as I did not expect he would be criminally charged:

https://archive.ph/FjEY1

QuoteAlec Baldwin and weapons handler charged with manslaughter in deadly 'Rust' shooting

BY MEG JAMES | STAFF WRITER
JAN. 19, 2023 8 AM PT

New Mexico prosecutors have filed felony criminal charges against actor Alec Baldwin and the armorer of the low-budget western "Rust," following the fatal shooting of the film's cinematographer.

The charges represent a dramatic culmination of more than a year of speculation over who, if anyone, would be held accountable for the tragic death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, a rising star in the film industry. Hutchins was shot in the chest Oct. 21, 2021, as she rehearsed a scene with Baldwin and the film's director, Joel Souza, who was also wounded.

Baldwin was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in Hutchins' death.

Prosecutors also brought involuntary manslaughter charges against weapons handler Hannah Gutierrez Reed, who loaded the gun. The assistant director David Halls, who investigators said gave the loaded revolver to Baldwin just before a rehearsal in an old wooden church at Bonanza Creek Ranch, a popular movie location near Santa Fe, accepted a misdemeanor charge in a plea deal.

New Mexico's First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies announced the charges Thursday, nearly 15 months after Baldwin fired the live round from his prop gun, unaware that the Colt .45 revolver contained live ammunition. Actual bullets are forbidden from film sets, however, investigators later found several other lead bullets mingled with inert dummy rounds.

A cascading series of lapses on the low-budget production led to the shooting, which ignited calls in Hollywood for producers to improve safety conditions for film crew members who have felt stretched to their limits amid a boom in production.

Baldwin was one of the producers of "Rust." With Carmack-Altwies' decision, the 64-year-old Hollywood star — who achieved acclaim for performances on NBC's "Saturday Night Live," and "30 Rock," as well as such as movies as "Glengarry Glen Ross," and "The Hunt for Red October" — could face a criminal trial or accept a plea bargain.

The decision comes three months after Baldwin and the film's other producers struck a proposed settlement agreement with Hutchins' family to end the wrongful death civil lawsuit they filed early last year. The family initially blamed Hutchins' death on cost-cutting measures and reckless behavior by Baldwin and others.
Under the proposed deal, which must be approved by a judge, the movie's production would resume this year. With the settlement agreement, the family's tenor also changed. The cinematographer's widow, Matthew Hutchins, said: "Halyna's death was a terrible accident."

After news of the family's proposed settlement, Carmack-Altwies' office released a statement saying: "No one is above the law."

Baldwin has long maintained his innocence, saying in televised interviews that gun safety wasn't his responsibility and that he did not pull the trigger.

Reports prepared by FBI analysts in Virginia, however, cast doubt on that claim. While the FBI did not conclude where live ammunition came from, agents said in an August report that the pistol, a replica of a vintage Pietta Colt .45, "functioned normally when tested in the laboratory."

The FBI report also noted that, in order for the revolver to fire, the trigger would have been pulled.

"This is problematic for Baldwin because he has insisted that he did not pull the trigger," said Beverly Hills entertainment attorney Mitra Ahouraian. "Those types of inconsistencies are not helpful to his case."

Baldwin has placed blame on Gutierrez Reed and Halls, saying he was relying on expectations that they were professionals and should have done their jobs to ensure safety on the set. Entertainment industry protocols typically task the responsibility for gun safety with the armorer, property master and assistant director.

"All my career, without incident, I've relied on the safety experts [on set] to declare the gun safe and never had a problem," Baldwin said in 2022 at the Boulder International Film Festival. "And [then,] this happened."

That defense might fall short, experts said.

"Regardless of what the practice may be in the entertainment industry, and regardless of what the protocols are on Hollywood sets, that's not the law," Ahouraian said. "The gun was in his hands. And if there's any possibility that you are handling something that could harm someone, then you have an obligation to handle it safely."

Joshua Kastenberg, a law professor at the University of New Mexico, noted Carmack-Altwies approached the case by scrutinizing the actions of everyone who handled the weapon and the live ammunition.

"Everyone in that chain of custody had some responsibility," Kastenberg said. "When considering bringing criminal charges, the 'it's not my job' defense just doesn't fly. If you are holding a gun in your hand, you implicitly have a responsibility to make safety your business."

The October 2021 killing shook the film industry and renewed calls by rank-and-file film workers, including members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, and other guilds to better emphasize safety amid a rush by producers to crank out movies and TV shows following COVID-19 pandemic-related production shut-downs. Filming of "Rust," which had a $7 million production budget, was supposed to span 21 days — an ambitious timeline for a period piece, film experts have said.

Baldwin was playing a grizzled outlaw, Harland Rust, who was on the run with his grandson who accidentally shot a rancher dead in 1880s Kansas.

After lunch on that fateful day, Souza and Hutchins were lining up camera angles as Baldwin practiced a cross-draw maneuver inside the old wooden church at the Bonanza Creek Ranch, a popular location for movie productions. Cameras were not rolling at the time.

Sitting in a makeshift pew about four feet from Hutchins and Souza, Baldwin allegedly pulled the replica Colt .45 pistol from his holster, pointed it in the direction of the camera and the gun went off. Hutchins was standing next to the camera; and Souza behind her.

According to Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office documents released last year, Halls — who was the "Rust" safety officer on set — had told Baldwin the gun was "cold," meaning that it did not contain live ammunition.

The gun contained at least one live bullet and dummy rounds, which contained no gunpowder. Such bullets are inert, but look nearly identical to a real bullet when a camera peers down the barrel of a revolver.

If the rounds had been thoroughly checked, Gutierrez Reed, Halls or others should have seen that at least one lacked the small hole or indentation that differentiates so-called "dummies" from actual lead bullets.

They would have also noticed that the live round didn't make the signature rattling sound that reveals that only a BB — and no gunpowder — was contained inside.

Gutierrez Reed, who cooperated with investigators, previously had acknowledged that she had loaded the gun that day. She told sheriff's detectives that she didn't realize actual bullets were contained in a new box of ammunition that arrived on set that morning. The box contained seven live rounds mixed in with 43 dummies, according to a civil suit that Gutierrez Reed has filed.

Following the shooting, she told sheriff's detectives that although she checked Baldwin's gun that day before the unscheduled rehearsal in the wooden church, she "didn't really check it too much after lunch" because the weapon had been locked in a safe during the crew's lunch break.

Much of the camera crew had walked off the job hours before the fatal shooting after complaining to producers about alleged inattention to safety and a refusal to pay for nearby lodging for cameramen who lived 50 miles away in Albuquerque.

There also were tensions about two accidental weapons discharges less than a week before Hutchins' death, including when property master Sarah Zachry accidentally fired a weapon to be used by one of the actors, although she was not injured in the incident.

Additionally, rifts had developed within the movie's small props crew over issues of workload.

Gutierrez Reed acknowledged that she was struggling to perform two jobs — armorer and props assistant. In addition to serving as the armorer in charge of guns and gun safety, she was supposed to assist Zachry with the other props. In text message exchanges with production managers about before the fatal shooting, Gutierrez Reed protested her workload, saying she was being stretched too thin.

A production manager had scolded Gutierrez Reed for not paying sufficient attention to her props role.
"Since we've started, I've had a lot of days where my job should only be to focus on the guns and everyone's safety," Gutierrez Reed responded in an Oct. 14, 2021 email viewed by The Times. In that email, sent one week before the shooting, Gutierrez Reed noted that on gun-heavy film days, the assistant props role "has to take a back seat. Live fire arms on set is absolutely my priority."

Gutierrez Reed is the daughter of a legendary Hollywood armorer, Thell Reed. While she grew up visiting film sets, "Rust" was only her second film as head armorer.

The accident happened on the 12th day of filming for the scheduled 21-day production.

"There were multiple breaks in the chain of responsibility and if any one of these individuals who are facing criminal charges had exercised more caution, this tragedy could have been avoided," Ahouraian said.

The Times has previously revealed a struggle to find qualified crew members to work on "Rust."

A tough case?

The prosecution could be complicated by the case's notoriety — most everyone in Santa Fe is familiar with the case, increasing the challenges of finding an impartial jury. What's more, the defendants could bring a spirited defense.

"This is a huge case for a smaller population county," Kastenberg, a former prosecutor, said. "Whenever you go up against a powerful entity — like a Hollywood star who has a tremendous media reach — you want to get it right and you don't want to look like a fool."

The media spotlight adds to the pressure facing Carmack-Altwies and her office.

"The D.A. wants to show their constituency that they are not afraid to take any case, and that they will handle it ethically, and rightly," Kastenberg said. "This one might become politicized. But, as the D.A., you can only bring charges that the evidence supports."

In addition to the criminal cases, several civil negligence suits are pending.

Two film crew members inside the church when the shooting occurred — lighting technician Serge Svetnoy, who was nearly hit by the bullet, and script supervisor Mamie Mitchell — sued.

Gutierrez Reed last year sued the weapons provider, Seth Kenney of PDQ Arm & Prop, alleging that he supplied a mismarked box of ammunition containing live rounds to the set, contributing to the deadly accident. Kenney has said he did not provide live ammunition to the 'Rust' set.

Hutchins was killed just as her career was beginning to take off in a largely male-dominated field. She graduated from the American Film Institute Conservatory in 2015 and had been selected as one of American Cinematographer's Rising Stars of 2019.

The movie's producers have denied responsibility for the tragedy.

In a filing to the New Mexico Environment Department's Occupational Health and Safety Bureau, Rust Movie Productions LLC said that it was not responsible for Hutchins' death, maintaining that the producers did not serve as the on-set employers. The filing came in response to the workplace health and safety bureau's decision, last April, to impose the maximum penalty, $136,793 fine, on Rust Movie Productions.

The New Mexico agency accused production managers of "plain indifference" to employee safety and said management knew firearm safety procedures were not being followed on set. Rust Movie Productions LLC appealed the finding, saying the fine was not warranted.

Rust Movie Productions has denied wrongdoing, and the case is going through an appeals process. New Mexico's Occupational Health and Safety Review Commission has scheduled an eight-day hearing on the matter in April. Each side will have four days to present their case.

Meanwhile, producers hope to resume production of the movie "Rust" this spring near Los Angeles.

FYI: I thought about starting a thread, but I posted in the OT thread instead, so there's a discussion there.

 I will be surprised if he gets convicted. Seems like it would be easy to push all the  blame onto the armorer.

Involuntary manslaughter typically requires proof of recklessness/criminal negligence.  However, it can also be charged as "misdemeanor manslaughter" - similar to "felony murder".  If act that qualifies as a criminal misdemeanor results in someone's death, then involuntary manslaughter can be charged.

So my guess is that the play here is to contend that Baldwin is guilty of negligent use of a deadly weapon, under NM Stat 30-7-4, and that such negligent use resulted in death.  Bingo, misdemeanor manslaughter.

FYI: Teh Brain thought about starting a thread, but he posted in the OT thread instead, so there's a discussion there.

Moving it back here as don't want to de-rail Off Topic - but this from the NYT is on a wider issue but suggests Baldwin talking to the police (and perhaps a little over-confidently - suggesting next steps in the investigation) may be part of this charge:

QuoteAlec Baldwin Didn't Have to Talk to the Police. Neither Do You.
Jan. 25, 2023
By Farhad Manjoo
Opinion Columnist

Shortly after a prop gun Alec Baldwin was holding fired a bullet that killed a cinematographer and wounded a director on the set of the movie "Rust," in October 2021, he told the police in New Mexico that he'd be willing to do whatever they requested, including sitting for an interview at the station.

In an interrogation room later that afternoon, detectives began by informing Baldwin of his rights: He had the right to remain silent. Anything he said could be used against him in court. He was free to consult with an attorney; if he could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed for him. And he could stop the interrogation at any point he wished.

"My only question is, am I being charged with something?" Baldwin asked.

Not at all, the police said. Reading his rights, one detective told him, was "just a formality."

And so, without his attorney present, while the police recorded him, Baldwin talked. And talked. And talked. At that point, Baldwin knew only that the film's director, Joel Souza, and its cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, had been injured; detectives would inform him at the end of the interrogation that Hutchins had died. Still, for about an hour, Baldwin not only answered detectives' many questions about the shooting but also offered his own theories about the incident and suggested the next steps the police might pursue in their investigation.

To people unfamiliar with the American criminal justice system, Baldwin's decision sounds reasonable: Something terrible happened, and he wanted to help. But defense lawyers I talked to said Baldwin's case should serve as a reminder that if you are involved in a serious incident, it's best not talk to the police unless you have an attorney present.

Prosecutors in New Mexico announced last week that they planned to charge Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the film's armorer, who is responsible for weapons on a movie set, with involuntary manslaughter in Hutchins's death. They argue that Baldwin had a responsibility to check that the gun he was holding was safe. The prosecutor's argument has shocked many in the film industry who say that it is the crew's responsibility, not an actor's, to ensure that weapons are safe.

In that first police interview, Baldwin told interrogators that Gutierrez-Reed handed him the gun and assured him it was safe: "She said, 'Do you want to check?' — and I didn't want to insult her, we never had a problem. I said, 'I'm good.'"

Prosecutors have yet to file charges, so it is not clear what evidence they would use against Baldwin or what their legal arguments will be — but given that they've said Baldwin violated his legal responsibility to use the gun safely, his admission that he never checked the gun may itself incriminate him.

Also, in a second conversation with the police a week later, Baldwin said it was actually Dave Halls, the film's first assistant director, who handed him the gun while announcing, "cold gun." (Halls has since agreed to a plea deal with prosectors.)

"It presents a huge problem if he ever wants to actually testify," Joshua Ritter, a criminal defense lawyer and former prosecutor in Los Angeles, said of Baldwin's decision to talk to cops as well as the news media. "If he takes the stand to try to explain his side of things to the jury," he will need to explain any possible contradictions in these prior statements, Ritter said.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution allows Americans to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement. Yet despite the ritualistic incantation on the Miranda warning on every TV police procedural, silence is a right that people can find hard to accept. If you're convinced of your innocence, aren't you obligated to help the police solve the matter under investigation? Refusing to talk to the police seems like something people do only when they've got something to hide.

I have only a passing interest in Baldwin's guilt or innocence. Several years ago, though, I came upon the work of James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School in Virginia who has become a Johnny Appleseed of Fifth Amendment advocacy. A video of a lecture Duane gave a decade ago on the importance of the Fifth Amendment, "Don't Talk to the Police," has been viewed millions of times on YouTube, and Duane has since given his talk dozens of times around the country. The title of his book "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" sums up the case for silence, since the presumption of innocence and the burden prosecutors bear to prove guilt even when the accused remains silent are the bedrock of American criminal law.

Duane's work has turned me into a zealot for the right to remain silent — and when I watched Baldwin blithely sign away his rights, I winced. (His talking to several reporters about the case would be a separate concern.)

Of course, we have no idea how Baldwin's words will play in his case. But his case hints at the danger that innocent people with far less money and power than Baldwin can bring upon themselves by doing what they think is the "right thing" — talking to the police.

"The average American — even if they're a highly sophisticated college graduate or a law school student — really doesn't know an awful lot about the many different ways in which even innocent people can regret for the rest of their lives the biggest mistake of their lives, the decision to waive their Fifth Amendment right and agree to talk to the police," Duane told me.

Looking beyond the Baldwin case, Duane argues that a key danger is that in trying to defend yourself to the police, you may unwittingly admit some wrongdoing. Navigating around such dangers is made all the more difficult because courts have given the police wide leeway to lie to people being interrogated.

"They will lie to you about what crime they are actually investigating," Duane writes in his book, "whether they regard you as a suspect, whether they plan to prosecute you, what evidence they have against you, whether your answers may help you, whether your statements are off the record, and whether the other witnesses have agreed to talk to them — even about what those witnesses have or have not said."

When you talk to the police, it's unlikely that your whole story will be relayed to the jury during a trial. Duane argues that federal and state rules of evidence make it much easier for prosecutors and the police to present damaging statements from an interrogation than for defense attorneys to present exculpatory information from the same interview. Say you vehemently deny shooting a man, explain that you've never owned a gun and don't know how to shoot, and point out that you weren't anywhere near the scene of the crime — but also admit, in passing, that, "Yeah, sure, I never liked the guy, but who did?" Even if all of that is true, Duane says, the jury might hear only the worst at trial, with an officer testifying, "He admitted to me that he never liked the guy."

Duane says that while prosecutors can ask an officer who interviewed a defendant anything they want about the statement, hearsay rules can greatly limit what defense attorneys can elicit from the officer on cross-examination about other portions of the same statement.

Do these scenarios sound far-fetched? The data says otherwise. Since 1989, the Innocence Project has used DNA evidence to help exonerate 375 innocent people falsely convicted of crimes. About 29 percent of the exonerated had been convicted in part because of false confessions. Research has found that most false confessions occur after interrogations lasting a half dozen hours or more and that virtually all involve police officers lying to suspects. Many also involve implicit promises of leniency that may give suspects an impression that talking is their only way out.

The Fifth Amendment is no mere formality. It is among the best defenses against government overreach that Americans enjoy. We should guard it vigorously. Anytime you're asked to talk to the police about an incident you are involved in, there are just four words you need to say: "I want a lawyer."

I've never once heard of any attorney advising someone, by themselves, to talk to police. When the situation is one where most of the key facts are not in doubt--Hutchins was killed, Baldwin killed her, by all accounts accidentally, nothing you tell police in an interview is likely to make the situation better for you, and it can certainly make it much worse.

Yeah, he's a guy who's never had reason to believe the police aren't benignly disposed towards him... and I guess it turns out that in this case they may not be.

The author of Shelf's piece undercuts himself when he makes the leap from talking to police w/out a lawyer to signing a confession for a crime one didn't commit.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2023, 03:18:59 PMThe author of Shelf's piece undercuts himself when he makes the leap from talking to police w/out a lawyer to signing a confession for a crime one didn't commit.

You don't believe statements made to the police can (and will) be used against you unless you sign an actual confession?  :huh:

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2023, 03:50:27 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2023, 03:18:59 PMThe author of Shelf's piece undercuts himself when he makes the leap from talking to police w/out a lawyer to signing a confession for a crime one didn't commit.

You don't believe statements made to the police can (and will) be used against you unless you sign an actual confession?  :huh:

Yeah, not sure what Yi is referring to.  Everything you say to the police can (and if incriminating will) be used against you regardless of whether you sign anything.

That is why no lawyer would ever advise their client to have a chat with police.  The police told Baldwin his rights, which includes the right to remain silent.  It is always wise to exercise that right, and not speak to police without first speaking to a lawyer and having the lawyer present.

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2023, 03:50:27 PMYou don't believe statements made to the police can (and will) be used against you unless you sign an actual confession?  :huh:

:scratches head:

No, I believe talking to police without a lawyer and signing a confession for a crime you didn't commit are two separate and distinct things.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2023, 03:55:22 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2023, 03:50:27 PMYou don't believe statements made to the police can (and will) be used against you unless you sign an actual confession?  :huh:

:scratches head:


No, I believe talking to police without a lawyer and signing a confession for a crime you didn't commit are two separate and distinct things.

Scratches head even more.  If you confess a crime to police, you do not need to sign a confession - you have already confessed...

If you go to meet the cops do you still get read your Miranda rights, or is that only if you're arrested?

Also making sure you have a lawyer means you're not going to be questioned for over six hours which, according to that article, is the case in most false confessions subsequently exonerated by the Innocence Project - plus, I imagine, various other devices used by police to get people talking.

Although I agree with his point I didn't really post it for that - just the details of what Baldwin said which helped me understand a little more why he's being charged.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2023, 03:55:22 PMNo, I believe talking to police without a lawyer and signing a confession for a crime you didn't commit are two separate and distinct things.

For sure. They are. But both can get you further into legal trouble.

[deleted]

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2023, 03:54:01 PMIt is always wise to exercise that right, and not speak to police without first speaking to a lawyer and having the lawyer present.

BB will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in Canada, police have the right to question you without the presence of your attorney.

I seem to remember some critical distinction between America and Canada on that front.  But you still have the right to not answer their questions.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2023, 03:57:57 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2023, 03:55:22 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2023, 03:50:27 PMYou don't believe statements made to the police can (and will) be used against you unless you sign an actual confession?  :huh:

:scratches head:


No, I believe talking to police without a lawyer and signing a confession for a crime you didn't commit are two separate and distinct things.

Scratches head even more.  If you confess a crime to police, you do not need to sign a confession - you have already confessed...

Don't they need to formally write it down and have you sign it too?

Otherwise, if an individual walks into a police station, confesses a murder to an officer, than goes to a trial and says "oh, I never said that, he just invented it", won't that get messy for the prosecution?

Quote from: viper37 on January 25, 2023, 06:38:31 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2023, 03:54:01 PMIt is always wise to exercise that right, and not speak to police without first speaking to a lawyer and having the lawyer present.

BB will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in Canada, police have the right to question you without the presence of your attorney.

I seem to remember some critical distinction between America and Canada on that front.  But you still have the right to not answer their questions.

A poster above succinctly stated the three things police in Canada must do.  After giving those warnings, if a person decides to talk to the police, the police have no obligation to stop them from talking.  But the person does not have to say anything.

Quote from: viper37 on January 25, 2023, 06:43:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2023, 03:57:57 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2023, 03:55:22 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2023, 03:50:27 PMYou don't believe statements made to the police can (and will) be used against you unless you sign an actual confession?  :huh:

:scratches head:


No, I believe talking to police without a lawyer and signing a confession for a crime you didn't commit are two separate and distinct things.

Scratches head even more.  If you confess a crime to police, you do not need to sign a confession - you have already confessed...

Don't they need to formally write it down and have you sign it too?

Otherwise, if an individual walks into a police station, confesses a murder to an officer, than goes to a trial and says "oh, I never said that, he just invented it", won't that get messy for the prosecution?

Sure, it is better evidence if it is signed, but it is not necessary.

Quote from: viper37 on January 25, 2023, 06:43:11 PMDon't they need to formally write it down and have you sign it too?

Otherwise, if an individual walks into a police station, confesses a murder to an officer, than goes to a trial and says "oh, I never said that, he just invented it", won't that get messy for the prosecution?

Confessions are evidence like any other evidence.  The prosecution isn't going to try a person just because they walked into a police station and confessed to the crime.  High profile crimes can have numerous people confessing to them.

I have to imagine all interrogations are recorded in this day and age.

... but still

"You told the police officer [detail] when you were interviewed earlier. Is that correct?"

You probably want to answer that truthfully when under oath.

"Now you're saying [something], which conflicts with [detail]. How do you explain that?"

Not the best position to be in if someone is trying to get you convicted of manslaughter.

Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2023, 07:52:45 PM... but still

"You told the police officer [detail] when you were interviewed earlier. Is that correct?"

You probably want to answer that truthfully when under oath.

"Now you're saying [something], which conflicts with [detail]. How do you explain that?"

Not the best position to be in if someone is trying to get you convicted of manslaughter.

Agreed.  The entire reason the police conduct these repetitive interrogations is to collect little lapses of memory like that, even when, as in this case, the lapse of memory is utterly immaterial to the actual case (everyone knows full and well that Halls handed him the gun and told the set that it was "cold," and Halls himself has confessed to that act.

The jury will be unable to understand that that was maybe the fourth of fifth time that gun had been handed to Baldwin just that day, and maybe the fortieth or fiftieth time since shooting started.  Things get blurry with that much repetition.

Just reason one-billion-and-twelfth why one should not talk to cops without a lawyer after being Mirandized.

"Signed confession" is a super common trope in American police procedurals, not sure if that is why so much emphasis is being put on it. Now, that being said, signed confessions are of course real--and are of course the gold standard. But they don't have to be quite what you think.

There is an excellent video in which a detective with around 20 years experience, who is in his third year of law school, gives a speech to a class at that school about what happens when you talk to police. He notes a few important things:

1. Every police interview room is recorded for audio and video in this day and age. It will not be he-said, she-said if you confess verbally and then recant--it will be camera said vs you said, and that isn't going to work for you as the defendant.

2. Nothing says you have to put a document that says "Confession Form" in the suspect's hands. One of this guy's favorite things was to say "If you apologize for your actions, it will mean a lot to the family, and it will also help you with the judge." He then has them write detailed "apology letter" in their own words, in which they also happen to mention the illegal actions they took. Many suspects bewilderingly who would not sign something called a "confession", will sign an "apology letter." In court there is virtually no difference between those documents.

3. In the U.S. the police are also allowed to speak to you without a lawyer, I don't think that is any different in Canada vs the U.S. Many (maybe most) confessions in the American system do occur without a lawyer present. The police just need to get you to waive your right to counsel, which is achieved if you sign some paper for them disclaiming various rights and/or respond verbally in the affirmative to proceed with questioning in response to a Miranda warning. As the cop I mentioned above says, he's done around 3000 custodial interrogations over 20 years. There is functionally zero chance if you talk to him you're going to come out on top. He says the vast majority of defendants have a strong desire to "explain themselves" and a strong delusion that if they "use the right story" they can talk themselves out of trouble. These are both very bad instincts.

FWIW one of the big hitches for a case like Baldwin's is I don't think even the police believe he had mens rea, there was not any ill intent they were probably expecting to find. What they were wanting to establish was any potential evidence of negligence, I don't think they ever thought Baldwin did this on purpose. Whether they expected he would be prosecuted I'm not sure, I think given who he is and the specifics of the incident they probably assumed this would be a tough call the prosecutor would have to make.

While it is a little surprising she charged him, to me, a big red flag this was coming was when she requested specific funding be provisioned for a major prosecution--this is a very small population county with only like 3 staff attorneys and limited resources budgeted. I think their whole department's budget is like $350k/yr or something when I saw the article--she requested a $500k allotment to be approved in case it was needed for this case. I have to assume Baldwin will spend 7 figures very easily on his defense, and this local team of prosecutors will be significantly outgunned in terms of number of attorneys, frankly probably quality of attorneys, and unlike a lot of cases they are used to prosecuting Baldwin is going to have an army of his own experts--for example that gun report from the FBI they will probably have multiple experts who debunk it, the types who charge $30,000 per hour of court time and such.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2023, 07:18:21 PM

Quote from: viper37 on January 25, 2023, 06:38:31 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2023, 03:54:01 PMIt is always wise to exercise that right, and not speak to police without first speaking to a lawyer and having the lawyer present.

BB will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in Canada, police have the right to question you without the presence of your attorney.

I seem to remember some critical distinction between America and Canada on that front.  But you still have the right to not answer their questions.

A poster above succinctly stated the three things police in Canada must do.  After giving those warnings, if a person decides to talk to the police, the police have no obligation to stop them from talking.  But the person does not have to say anything.

What I mean is, I am arrested by the police, or they ask to see me to ask me some questions.

As I am a now an expert in US criminal law after viewing so many tv shows 😁, i can now ask for my lawyer to be present for the interview, wether it was voluntary or not.  The US police corps will have to stop the interview until the lawyer arrives at the station.  Uless the criminal is charged with terrorism and immediatly deported off the USA.  Then it's something else....


But in Canada, apparently, while the inspector interrogates me, I do not have the right to a lawyer.  I have the right to remain silentl though.

Eh, so the way U.S. TV presents it is fairly inaccurate in several respects because showing the real process is more tedious.

There's really two scenarios--a voluntary interview and a custodial interview. The major difference in each is what happens when you refuse to talk to police. In a voluntary interview, you can leave the police station or wherever it is that you are. In a custodial interview you are processed and put into holding and usually transferred to jail within a day or so.

In neither form of interview do police "get your lawyer", for one, almost zero people police interact with have a lawyer. Many need to secure a public defender, which doesn't happen instantly. If it's a custodial situation you go to jail and the court system will generally get a lawyer assigned to your case "at some point", but it is neither instant or as dramatic as it's portrayed on TV. It's generally less convenient to get a lawyer to help you in real life than portrayed in TV, most people in jail generally have to make a few phone calls to family and etc to get a lawyer lined up, it's not an instant process.

Also unlike in TV shows asking for a lawyer isn't like a magic muzzle on the cops. What it does mean is anything you say except for limited exceptions cannot be used against you at trial, but there are plenty of situations where the police will continue to talk to you for various reasons, not every verbal communication with police is necessarily designed to generate an incriminating statement. The police could say things to you to plant certain doubts in your mind that might affect what you do next and things of that nature.

Also worth mentioning when you make phone calls in holding or jail, if it's a discussion with a lawyer it is privileged, anyone else is not, lots of guys have been caught up admitting to crimes on jail phones.

Also the specific sequence seen on TV is often not how it plays out. Usually people go into interview rooms because they are willing to have a conversation with police. Most defendants who plan to say nothing make their desire for a lawyer known immediately upon entering custody, the overly dramatic scene of the Detective sitting you down in an interview room and you proclaiming "LAWYER" is not often mechanically how it goes down. Non-custodial situations if the person doesn't plan to speak they don't even go to the police station, they just decline the invitation and make it known they won't talk to the police without an attorney present.

Don't talk to cellmates about your case, either.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 26, 2023, 08:59:23 AMAlso the specific sequence seen on TV is often not how it plays out. Usually people go into interview rooms because they are willing to have a conversation with police. Most defendants who plan to say nothing make their desire for a lawyer known immediately upon entering custody, the overly dramatic scene of the Detective sitting you down in an interview room and you proclaiming "LAWYER" is not often mechanically how it goes down. Non-custodial situations if the person doesn't plan to speak they don't even go to the police station, they just decline the invitation and make it known they won't talk to the police without an attorney present.

One of my favourite transcripts say the police go through the Accused's rights, the Accused say "my lawyer told me not to say anything", the cop saying "that's good advice"... then me realizing the transcript went on for another 20 pages...

Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2023, 10:44:05 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 26, 2023, 08:59:23 AMAlso the specific sequence seen on TV is often not how it plays out. Usually people go into interview rooms because they are willing to have a conversation with police. Most defendants who plan to say nothing make their desire for a lawyer known immediately upon entering custody, the overly dramatic scene of the Detective sitting you down in an interview room and you proclaiming "LAWYER" is not often mechanically how it goes down. Non-custodial situations if the person doesn't plan to speak they don't even go to the police station, they just decline the invitation and make it known they won't talk to the police without an attorney present.

One of my favourite transcripts say the police go through the Accused's rights, the Accused say "my lawyer told me not to say anything", the cop saying "that's good advice"... then me realizing the transcript went on for another 20 pages...

 :lol:

Some cops like the sound of their own voice.

QuoteAlso worth mentioning when you make phone calls in holding or jail, if it's a discussion with a lawyer it is privileged, anyone else is not, lots of guys have been caught up admitting to crimes on jail phones.

Never seen that one on TV  :ph34r:

Good thing so many here have done hard time.  When my ponzi scheme finally goes tits up I will know what to do when interrogated.

Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2023, 10:44:05 AMOne of my favourite transcripts say the police go through the Accused's rights, the Accused say "my lawyer told me not to say anything", the cop saying "that's good advice"... then me realizing the transcript went on for another 20 pages...

(https://preview.redd.it/xl33j29d3p931.jpg?auto=webp&s=d7f73d930ddef937d7e5af7f56f8704de2f7674e)
:lol:

Quote from: PDH on January 26, 2023, 10:56:34 AMGood thing so many here have done hard time.  When my ponzi scheme finally goes tits up I will know what to do when interrogated.

I have been arrested but only for very minor things--it does help clarify the difference between "holding", "jail" and "prison" though.

Haven't been following it closely but read some updates today.

- District Atty. Mary Carmack-Altwies hired a woman named Andrea Reeb as the special prosecutor, with a salary of $156,000.

- Andrea Reeb, a Republican, was simultaneously running for office in the NM State Legislature--which she won, and was sworn in January 1st. Baldwin's team has filed a motion to have her removed from her special prosecutor role, as the New Mexico constitution (like most of the 50 states and the Federal constitution) do not allow someone to serve in multiple branches at once--in this case she would be in both the executive and legislative branches at the same time.

- Carmack-Altwies had previously requested $635,500 in additional funding for this prosecution, I believe the ordinary budget for entire office was only around $300,000 prior to this.

- Baldwin's legal team is undoubtedly far more expensive:

Lead Counsel is Luke Nikas - a partner at Quinn Emanuel & Sullivan, a prestigious New York based "white shoe" firm that regularly is in the top 5 of rankings on litigation teams

Alex Spiro - also a partner at Quinn Emmanuel, he has most famously represented Elon Musk in a number of matters, and advised him on his takeover of twitter

John Bash - Former U.S. Attorney (Trump appointee) in Texas, clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court (Scalia) and U.S. Court of Appeals for DC (Kavanaugh.) He spent five years as an Assistant in the Solicitor Generals office

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2023, 10:46:02 PMrepresented Elon Musk in a number of matters, and advised him on his takeover of twitter

It's the good advice that you just didn't take. :(

Probably the last data dump we'll see on the case anytime soon, but doing some reading today I am ready to conclude the Santa Fe District attorney may not be very good.

If anyone has interest in the case, there is a 40ish minute podcast by two former prosecutors (called, unorginally, "The Prosecutors") who analyze criminal cases in the news--they do a review of the Baldwin case and it's pretty interesting especially if you aren't a lawyer:

https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-prosecutors-legal-briefs/episode/33-alec-baldwin-and-involuntary-manslaughter-211253411

There's a few interesting things that came up in that podcast:

1. The DA actually announced that she planned to charge Baldwin in advance of charging him, which both said they have never personally seen in their careers.

2. They read the press release where that announcement was made, and note that it actually contains several "errors of fact" and "errors of law" concerning very basic criminal law. They both say the press release is weird and uncharacteristic of the sort of press releases they have really seen District Attorneys put out basically anywhere else. It is half justification, half "explainer", and several elements of the "explainer" part are not really well formed and contain some inaccuracies.

3. They note that there are two main charges, one which is basically Involuntary Manslaughter, and "Involuntary Manslaughter in the Condition of a Lawful Act", with a firearms enhancement. They go over both.

3a - The most serious charge is "Involuntary Manslaughter in the Condition of a Lawful Act" with the firearms enhancement--because with the firearms enhancement, it actually carries a statutory mandatory five year sentence, otherwise it carries the same sentencing range the other involuntary manslaughter charge (which is 'up to' 18 months.)

The phrasing of these laws can be a little confusing--under New Mexico law you commit manslaughter if you unintentionally kill someone while doing something that is illegal, but where the underlying crime is only a misdemeanor. You also commit manslaughter if you are doing something that is lawful, but in a manner where you basically have "reckless disregard" for safety and it results in a person dying. Without the firearms enhancement the two laws are very similar with similar punishments, but the firearms enhancement can be applied to the lawful act one, but cannot be applied to the regular involuntary manslaughter charge.

"The Prosecutors" point out a very obvious problem with this charge--the statute requires they prove Baldwin committed, essentially criminal negligence, which is a higher level of reckless disregard for safety than civil negligence. Looking at existing case law, the types of firearm behaviors that rise to this recklessness standard are really egregiously crazy bad behavior, and the likelihood of meeting this standard for Baldwin is close to zero. Without that, there is no real way to sustain this charge, and they think this charge has basically no chance of being met.

3b - The other involuntary manslaughter charge on the face of it, seems like it could be met. A simple reading of the Statute, and a 1970s New Mexico appellate court case, clarify that to meet the definition of "an unlawful act", simple negligence suffices. This means essentially civil negligence, so really if they can demonstrate Baldwin had negligence to the much lighter standard, and it lead to the death, he would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. While still not an automatic slam dunk, they think there's at least a reasonable chance you could win that. Additionally, the press release mentions the phrase "created a culture of disregard for safety", that alludes to Baldwin's quasi-managerial role as a named producer (which we've already discussed but neither here nor there.) For simple civil negligence, that can hold water.

However, big red flag--they found another case in the 2000s from the New Mexico Supreme Court that basically overrules the 1970s case, and actually says that for negligence to sustain a conviction for a crime, it has to be to the standard of criminal negligence, which is essentially a "reckless disregard", and also has to be direct negligence by the person, or if indirect they had to be very closely involved. Simply saying "well he was the boss", would not be enough.

The Podcasters openly wonder if the prosecutor is unaware of this case, and they even say that while "misakes like this do happen", they want to assume a New Mexico prosecutor would be aware if she was relying on overturned law from the 1970s before charging on it. If not, this could be embarrassing. They also say they haven't done an extremely comprehensive study of the matter, but could not find any obvious later case that overruled the Supreme Court case from the 2000s.

Now there's some additional details that I think are important to bring it all together--that's all the things the podcasters covered.

It has come out today, that the "Firearms Enhancement" stipulation in the more serious charge, was written into New Mexico law in 2022--after Hutchins was killed. This means the prosecutors have actually charged Baldwin with a criminal act that was not on the books at the time the alleged crime occurred. That's essentially a constitutional no no in the United States. The fact that the prosecution did that, makes me wonder if they are in fact, incompetent enough to also be unaware the meat of their other involuntary manslaughter charge rests on a 1970s appellate court view of involuntary manslaughter law in New Mexico that hasn't been valid law for about 20 years because it was overturned.

Worse still, another crime podcaster is the one who broke this news--and reported it to the DA. They responded "we'll have to look into it and are researching the matter." That does...not sound promising, in terms of whether or not this prosecutor is very good at their job.

This all comes together to make me think this local District Attorney is not particularly competent, and may have "poor intentions." It was immediately noted when this all started, she is an elected Democrat. Many would assume that would mean she wouldn't abuse her office to "go after" a prominent political liberal. However, the woman she chose for Special Prosecutor was running for the State legislature at the time she was hired, as a Republican.

Looking into Reeb's background, she has 25 years working as a prosecutor, and I don't see any immediate signs from her very limited campaign literature that she's an outright crazy wing of the party member. She has a lot of boilerplate right wing positions on her campaign website, but most are presented in their "more reasonable" form. I also couldn't find any prominent cases of her saying or doing crazy things in social media or the local news. None of this is to say she isn't a crazy Trumper, but if she is, she isn't loud about it--and most of that sort who run for office are loud about it. It would seem she was probably hired because she is a competent and experience prosecutor. But it raises the question again, of the competence of the District Attorney to hire someone last year, whom she knew could win her campaign (and did), and not realize that it's a legal problem to have a Special Prosecutor who is also in the State legislature. Maybe I just overestimate the degree of familiarity a District Attorney has with the basics of their State constitution.

I don't know if Carmack-Altwies's intentions are political, but it doesn't seem like they are grounded in prudence as a prosecutor or a civil servant.

Interesting. Thanks for the write up.

Agree that that was a good write, so thanks, OvB, for that.

I am still waiting for someone to explain what they thought Baldwin should have done to avoid "being negligent."  The Prosecutors podcast mention some silly stuff in passing, like pointing the gun at the ground and pulling the trigger (not as something they recommend, just as something they herd), but that's obviously total bullshit as it is as likely to cycle the live gun into firing position as to fire the live round, and firing the gun indoors like that creates the situation where he is negligent because he risked causing a dangerous ricochet.

Should he have opened the gun and looked at the rounds to see if they were dummies?  That does no good because the dummies, by design, look like real rounds.

Should he have unloaded the gun and shaken each round to hear if there is a BB in it?  How is he going to hear a BB on a noisy set?  And then he could not replace the dummy rounds because the armorer must do that.

Baldwin simply was not qualified to determine whether the gun contained a live round, and the people who were qualified to do that assured him that the gun was not loaded with anything that could go off.

Yeah, I agree 100%. Something the podcast mentioned that I found helpful was when the male podcaster mentioned that typically for a criminal negligence claim where you have to show "reckless disregard", it also has to be in the context of the situation that person is in. He points out that the way NASCAR drivers drive, for example, would not only meet this standard if you did on the highway--but probably would meet standards of even more serious crimes. But on the speedway? There is no criminal negligence. It is an auto race, a constructed, controlled, artificial environment where the participants are all aware they are part of something with a different set of rules than the general public might be familiar with out and about.

That does not mean a NASCAR driver would be indemnified against any possible liability for any action--there are things they could do on the track that could result in criminal charges or civil liability, but it isn't going to be the same exact things as you'd see for an "ordinary" driver. This is again, because various road safety laws are not in effect on a NASCAR track, and there are probably additionally various State regulations on operating racecar tracks which apply, these are going to be different than "driving rules" me or you follow.

Likewise, so many pundits on this case are retreating into the world of law enforcement, military, or hobbyist gun training which focuses on the standard NRA-promulgated rules of gun safety. Some of those rules are very important for not only private hobbyist use, but basic gun safety training in the police and military. But those are also rules that assume primarily live ammunition and the use of a firearm for sporting or defense purposes.

This is a world that makes use of guns as props, never as real weapons. There is no self defense or sporting use of guns in Hollywood, they are part of a movie production. In that world, they use things like dummy bullets that look real for the camera, but are filled with BBs and are inert. In theory yes, you can shake them to know they're dummy rounds. But so much of the commentary is "Baldwin should have checked his gun." Checked it for what? Again, this isn't the gun range, if he checked the gun he would see loaded gun, loaded with bullets that to a non-expert eye look exactly like live ammunition, that check has no meaningful purpose. This isn't checking a gun at the range to make sure it's empty before you mess with it. I also think they conflate different situations in Hollywood. This was a framing shot where he was not intended to fire the prop, he was intended to be filmed holding the loaded gun. The expectation, and this is what the experts on set told him, is the gun was loaded with inert dummy rounds. If he was doing a scene where he was firing a blank (a round with powder, but paper/wax wadding in stead of a bullet), checking the gun makes more sense--blanks can became fatal if there are obstructions in the barrel, so in theory it can be useful to check the gun before firing a blank. This wasn't that. Checking the gun in this situation, adds no meaningful safety and would not have prevented the tragedy. Baldwin would have seen six realistic looking bullets. As a non-arms expert he would have no way of recognizing that one of them was real and the other 5 were dummy rounds.

I remember running a dangerous driving causing death trial in Carmacks, Yukon.  Flat, level piece of road, vehicle goes into the ditch, rear passenger is killed.

I rely on a BC Court of Appeal case with nearly identical facts.  In that case it was a flat, level piece of road where the vehicle crosses the centre line.  Accused convicted of dangerous causing death.

Anyways at trial my judge refuses to convict, refuses to follow the BCCA decision.  We appeal.

Six months later the Supreme Court overturns the BC Court of Appeal decision.  Says that you need a marked departure from the norm in order to make out the charge of dangerous causing death.

Typically, in order to make out the marked departure, you either need a series of negligent acts, or a single act that is so grotesquely beyond the pale that it can not be called a mere mistake.

(the case was R v Beatty [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49 if curious)

The prosecution has dropped the firearms enhancement (which was, again, almost certainly an unconstitutional ex post facto charge), and made a snide remark while doing it:

QuoteIn a statement, Heather Brewer, a spokeswoman for the district attorney, said the prosecution had dropped the firearm enhancement to "avoid further litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys."

"The prosecution's priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys," Ms. Brewer said on Monday.

Note this enhancement is what carried a potential 5 year mandatory sentence, the remaining charges would be most likely 18 months (or fewer) if they obtained a conviction, major defeat for the prosecution.

God forbid a defendant defends themselves <_< Seems like they're very much going to run with the "I may be a simple country chicken" strategy.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 20, 2023, 02:44:52 PMGod forbid a defendant defends themselves <_< Seems like they're very much going to run with the "I may be a simple country chicken" strategy.

First sign someone is guilty is when they try to defend themselves :P

The DA commentary is very odd in a criminal case; it's the sort of rhetoric that lawyers in civil cases sometimes throw around, but DAs are supposed to be above that.

If you take it at face value, the DA is saying that they are making charging decisions based on the billing rates of defense counsel.  Of course, I don't take it at face value, but given the reality the DA would have best advised to say nothing at all.

Amateur hour

Are DAs elected? Is it a re-election positioning thing?

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/rpt/2003-R-0231.htm

New Mexico elects.

Yeah. As that chart shows virtually all DAs in the United States are elected politicians.

Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2023, 08:00:01 PMYeah. As that chart shows virtually all DAs in the United States are elected politicians.

Of all the weird political quirks the US has, this has to be the most nonsensical.

Quote from: HVC on February 20, 2023, 08:01:27 PMOf all the weird political quirks the US has, this has to be the most nonsensical.

I'm not sure this one sort of makes sense.

Elected judges on the other hand :bleeding:

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 20, 2023, 08:03:33 PM

Quote from: HVC on February 20, 2023, 08:01:27 PMOf all the weird political quirks the US has, this has to be the most nonsensical.

I'm not sure this one sort of makes sense.

Elected judges on the other hand :bleeding:

I'm lumping all the elected judicial stuff together :D

Judges are weirder than DAs to me.

Sheriff's are pretty weird.  They have no boss.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 20, 2023, 02:34:28 PMThe prosecution has dropped the firearms enhancement (which was, again, almost certainly an unconstitutional ex post facto charge), and made a snide remark while doing it:

QuoteIn a statement, Heather Brewer, a spokeswoman for the district attorney, said the prosecution had dropped the firearm enhancement to "avoid further litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys."

"The prosecution's priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys," Ms. Brewer said on Monday.

Note this enhancement is what carried a potential 5 year mandatory sentence, the remaining charges would be most likely 18 months (or fewer) if they obtained a conviction, major defeat for the prosecution.

If the firearms enhancement was indeed a later statute, I'm surprised the prosecutor brought it up to begin with.
I thought criminal statutes not being retroactive unless they favor the culprit was a pretty consolidated doctrine everywhere in the West (you say it would too be unconstitutional in the US).

There has been a prohibition on ex post facto laws in the main text of the constitution (not an amendment) since ratification in 1788/89. My guess is the initial charging decisions involved someone at the DA's office pulling up New Mexico code on a web browser and finding anything they thought could stick to Baldwin. This process probably did not include figuring out when these specific statutes were enacted as laws, and whomever did this just made the assumption it was good law for this case.

The enhancement was changed specifically in response to the Rust episode.  How does a New Mexico prosecutor "forget" that?