Grand Jury Indicts Baldwin on Involuntary Manslaughter

66 views
Skip to first unread message

PGage

unread,
Jan 19, 2024, 3:41:45 PM1/19/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com

“SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A grand jury indicted Alec Baldwin on Friday on an involuntary manslaughter charge in a 2021 fatal shooting during a rehearsal on a movie set in New Mexico, reviving a dormant case against the actor. 

Special prosecutors brought the case before a grand jury in Santa Fe this week, months after receiving a new analysis of the gun that was used. They declined to answer questions after spending about a day and a half presenting their case to the grand jury. 

Defense attorneys for Baldwin indicated they’ll fight the charges. 

“We look forward to our day in court,” said Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro, defense attorneys for Baldwin, in an email. 

While the proceeding is shrouded in secrecy, two of the witnesses seen at the courthouse included crew members — one who was present when the fatal shot was fired and another who had walked off the set the day before due to safety concerns….”


Kevin M.

unread,
Jan 19, 2024, 6:35:11 PM1/19/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
I’m sure his lawyers will somehow weasel him out of this one, but he should be held to account for his culpability as producer.

Kevin M. (RPCV)


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYLhYQe15A9na5XBZPHXaWVA5MiUgqD15MLaan8c29vvwA%40mail.gmail.com.

PGage

unread,
Jan 19, 2024, 8:14:17 PM1/19/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
As I have said all along, it does not seem they have evidence he acted criminally in handling the gun. As you say, he may well have substantial civil responsibility as a producer.

Sent from Gmail Mobile


PGage

unread,
Jan 21, 2024, 3:25:15 PM1/21/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com

Helpful summary in the NYT of the legal issues and challenges facing NM prosecutors in the Baldwin case. Again, unless they have some surprise evidence that Baldwin either planted the live rounds himself, or knew there were live rounds and used the prop gun anyway, this seems like an instance of overcharging.


=====


“If the case reaches trial, the challenge prosecutors face will be convincing a jury that Baldwin was guilty of either the negligent use of a firearm or of acting with “total disregard or indifference for the safety of others” — even though investigators found he was told on the day of the shooting that the gun he was rehearsing with contained no live rounds, and even though the film set was not supposed to have any live ammunition at all…


The outcome of the case at trial — the State of New Mexico vs. Alexander (Alec) Rae Baldwin — would hinge on how jurors view two key questions: Should Baldwin have known of the danger involved in his actions that day? And, using a term of art in criminal law, did he act with a “willful disregard for the safety of others”?


“I think it’s an uphill battle,” said Steve Aarons, a veteran defense lawyer in New Mexico. “There is no reason for live rounds to be there. It’s a little different than other situations where you have a firearm and you assume any bullet that is there would be a live round.”…


But the prosecutors will probably take the straightforward position that anyone who agrees to handle a gun is responsible for what happens next, said Joshua Kastenberg, a criminal law professor at the University of New Mexico and a former prosecutor…


The new case, said Marc A. Grano, a lawyer and former prosecutor in New Mexico, will most likely become a back-and-forth over what is “standard practice” in the film and TV industry, a battle that may include conflicting opinions and examples.


After the original criminal case was brought against Baldwin last year, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the union representing film and TV actors, opposed the prosecutors’ contention that actors were responsible for ensuring that the guns they were handed on set were safe to handle, saying, “an actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert.”





Sent from Gmail Mobile

Steve Timko

unread,
Jan 21, 2024, 5:03:28 PM1/21/24
to TV or Not TV
In Nevada, felony stupid can bring a second degree murder conviction. Sounds like that is what the New Mexico prosecutors want to prove 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2B3KoEPFYB--kE4mSPpyB0Sz6-fYwP0wwXs38LtOye1Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

PGage

unread,
Jan 21, 2024, 5:37:57 PM1/21/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
I am not sure how they define stupid in Nevada (having spent a lot of time there over the years visiting relatives, I would guess they have a high tolerance for it) but the bar in this case is negligence, or indifference for the safety of others. The fact that the actors union states that actors are not expected to check whether guns they are given to use in scenes are loaded, and that everyone agrees everyone on set was told there were no live rounds at all on set, establishes the standard of negligence, or “stupidity” here. 

This is the main criticism of the decision to charge; they are using as the standard real life situations - if I am drinking beers with you in my basement, aim a gun at you and pull the trigger (or even cock the hammer), and it goes off and kills you, I am negligent or “stupid”, as I acted in reckless disregard for your safety. But an actor on a movie set is in a very different situation, with different expectations. Not clear how they can argue that Baldwin, as an actor, should have know there was a live round in the gun, or should have checked the gun before using it, when no other actor on that set would have been expected to do that, and the vast majority of actors on all other Union sets would not be expected to do that.

As several have pointed out, Baldwin the producer may well be liable for not hiring competent people and not enforcing adequate safety standards.

Sent from Gmail Mobile


Kevin M.

unread,
Jan 21, 2024, 7:28:03 PM1/21/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com


Kevin M. (RPCV)


On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 2:37 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not sure how they define stupid in Nevada (having spent a lot of time there over the years visiting relatives, I would guess they have a high tolerance for it) but the bar in this case is negligence, or indifference for the safety of others. The fact that the actors union states that actors are not expected to check whether guns they are given to use in scenes are loaded, and that everyone agrees everyone on set was told there were no live rounds at all on set, establishes the standard of negligence, or “stupidity” here. 

Baldwin was not merely an actor, but a producer. If they can prove that, as producer, Baldwin was aware safety procedures were not being followed (and might have been directly responsible for the unsafe conditions), then they need only prove that Baldwin, as actor, acted recklessly under those circumstances by not inspecting the weapon. Union expectations do not supersede common sense firearms handling. The law isn’t going to care about an actor’s contractual obligations, nor — I suspect — will a jury. The law will care whether a person handling a gun with the intent to fire it ignored the safe handling of the weapon before pointing it at others and pulling the trigger. Forensics disproved Baldwin’s claim that he did not pull the trigger, and I suspect that report factored heavily in the grand jury’s indictment; he lied to police about his actions, which makes anything else he said suspect in the eyes of the law. 

PGage

unread,
Jan 21, 2024, 10:02:40 PM1/21/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
You are right that the jury may not care about what a reasonable actor on a set is expected to do, which is the kind of jury nullification this prosecution is no doubt counting on. But the law does. A guilty verdict would mean the court is imposing a new criminal standard retroactively on Baldwin, and all other actors. Everyday common sense tells us we ought not to punch the guy next to us at a bar in the face, but act it’s do that all the time. I doubt many take the trouble to ask the actor they are about to punch if they have their permission to punch them (even to pretend to punch them). That’s because the rules on a film set are different than every day life, and actors reasonably rely on the producer, director and production staff.

As I wrote earlier, if the prosecution does have evidence that Baldwin knew the gun was loaded, or that there were live rounds on set, in his role as producer, then that will change everything. But without evidence of that actual knowledge, if Producer Baldwin was somehow negligent, then he would have civil liability, and perhaps some kind of criminal exposure, but not the kind of involuntary manslaughter charge actor Baldwin is facing.

Sent from Gmail Mobile


Bob Jersey

unread,
Jun 3, 2024, 2:41:44 PM6/3/24
to TVorNotTV
The trial will begin July 9th with jury selection, per ABC News (link); another documentary filmmaker making her own account of the case has been spared having to turn over footage to the prosecution... the decision came from an L.A. judge, citing California's shield law...
PGage, Jan 19th 2024:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages