Alec Baldwin and his poorly aging tweets landed him in court July 2024. Mr. Baldwin has always been outspoken on X (formerly Twitter) and one of his old tweets surfaced. It read something along the lines of “how can you accidentally shoot someone.” He was referring to a case in which an officer claimed that they attempted to draw their taser but actually drew their firearm and shot a suspect.
On October 21, 2021, Alec Baldwin was on set of a movie titled “Rust” rehearsing drawing his firearm for the upcoming scene. During one of his practice runs, he drew his weapon and pulled the trigger. The gun fired and he ended up killing Halyna Hutchins and injuring Joel Souza. Let’s lay some legal foundation for this conversation. Off the top of my head I can think of two charges in relation to the death of Hutchins. The first being manslaughter, which in Texas the law reads:
(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
The second charge would be criminally negligent homicide, the law states: (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence. (b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
Manslaughter is a little more complicated than it sounds. The law assumes that you are aware of a risk or danger or that the outcome of your actions could pose a potential risk or danger and you disregard that risk or danger and in this case someone dies. Therefore, the reasonable person believes that you knew that what you were doing was dangerous but you chose to do it anyway and someone died. Such as the action of pointing a loaded gun at someone, knowing that you should check it to make sure it’s a prop, or loaded with blanks and not actual ammo, but you chose not to check it, could be considered reckless by reasonable human beings. ((c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.)
Criminally negligent is a little different because it uses a different legal term to define a culpable mental state, negligence. In this situation, the person still doesn’t check the gun, points it at the crew and pulls the trigger causing a death. However, in this situation Baldwin would claim he didn’t know he needed to check the gun, he wasn’t reckless he was ignorant to the danger. Therefore, the reasonable people in this situation would consider whether or not he should have known that what he was doing was dangerous and missing that fact was far from what ordinary people would have done or known. ((d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.)
You thought this was going to be a blog about killing someone, but it’s not because we never got the answer to whether or not Baldwin is guilty or not. On July 11, 2024, Baldwin’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice and it was granted by the court. That means the District Attorney’s office got their case thrown out and cannot refile the case due to double jeopardy. Once prejudice is attached to a case, that’s a wrap, it is the last time that case will be heard. The state can appeal the ruling to get another chance at filing the case, but without the appeal they are done. Soooooo the million-dollar question- like actually, Baldwin’s legal team is probably millionsssss - is how and why was this case thrown out?
For that you don’t need a top-notch team like Citizen Defense, you could win with a Better Call Saul corner store lawyer. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ON THIS CASE BLEW IT AND BLEW IT BAD! This seems to be an issue that plague’s a lot of district attorney’s offices around the country. Intentionally or unintentionally failing to disclose evidence or turning it over way too late are just a few of the problems. Sometimes it is a complete oversight, the DA is working the case, trying their best to follow all the rules and prove their case, and close to trial or day of trial they mention something I have never seen or heard. It’s like looking for your phone when it’s in your hand or glasses that are on your face, an honest mistake.
On the other hand, I have experienced a corrupt dirty cheating DA that will do anything to ensure they win their case. They attempt to hide evidence or wait until the last second to turn it over, this way they can still use it but the defense can’t prepare to counter it. They lie and say it just came to their attention or that they did turn it over but don’t have a record of it. This falls on the judge to sniff out the truth. There are specific cases that lead to motions that we will discuss in the future blog, Michael Mortin act and Brady v. Maryland. I will break down what each one covers and their impact. All you need to know in this case is that the defense filed a Brady motion and this was the outcome.
In Baldwin's particular case, the big red flag is live rounds on a film set. The DA’s investigator had found that a specific person, the prop supplier Seth Kenney, may have been responsible for the live ammunition being on set. The DA didn’t turn over that portion of the investigation to Baldwin’s defense team. Anyone can imagine why that is a huge issue given the charges. Would a reasonable person think they need to check the gun when a safe ammo free area had been created? Or did Baldwin disregard what reasonable people would have done in his situation when he was assured that the ammo was all blanks for the scene?
Either way the DA’s behavior turned what could have been an offensive weapon for the defense into a silver bullet. The defense claimed that as anyone should have that this information was not only crucial, it was exculpatory for Baldwin. The narrative changes from ‘was Baldwin reckless or negligent” to “the person who brought the live ammo was reckless or negligent.” However, because the DA withheld the information about the ammo delivery, Baldwin’s team could not prepare that version of the story, making the job to defend Baldwin nearly impossible. You cannot defend yourself without all of the facts. That would be like asking someone to win a fight or game but they don’t get to know what type of fight or what game until half way through the event. The judge felt the same way and dismissed the charges against Baldwin, and prevented the DA from refiling - at least not before appealing her decision and getting permission from a higher court.
There are plenty of cases in which an over eager DA makes a mistake or they just believe that they are above the law. Not everyone’s case comes with as much attention as Alec Baldwin shooting someone on set. Sometimes the evidence never comes to light or doesn’t come to light for decades. That is why you need a great legal team. No lawyer can know everything that is being hidden, but a good lawyer will pull at all the strings and leave no stone unturned.
At Citizen Defense we will work to make sure that the DA in your case will think twice before claiming they turned everything over and really consider if their career is worth cheating you at your fair day in court. If you need any legal help, contact us at DefendingCitizens.com or give us a call at 512-522-2030.
Commenti