Rust armorer guilty
-
I watched most of the trial.
The state prosecutor was really good in her closing argument. She laid out all the facts in a clear way that the jury just "got."
The defense was inept, IMO. They presented a lot of "feely-touchy" stuff that did little to bolster their case.
For example, on Tuesday, they had two expert witnesses from NM OSHA who testified that the workplace was unsafe, and that the ultimate responsibility for safety on set rests on the production company. It's their job to ensure training, staffing, etc are in place. Sounds like Hannah didn't have the resources, right?
Then THE NEXT DAY, they called another witness (a director/writer) who testified that many of the camera crew walked off the set because it was too dangerous. Then, when asked who can stop filming, he said, "Traditionally, only the director can yell 'Cut!' Then he goes on to say, but if there's anything dangerous about to happen, anyone, especially the armorer, can stop shooting a scene. And she didn't.
The defense claimed that Gutierrez-Reed didn't know how the live round got into Baldwin's pistol. Well, of course she didn't know - but it was her job to ensure that the weapon was safe.
The entire production was low-budget, sloppy and careless.
Most of the lawyers I've seen who commented on the verdict are saying that Baldwin has reason to be nervous.
Oh, speaking of the prosecutor, though she was good in closing, her style of questioning was...curious.
Traditionally, under direct examination the attorney lays out a narrative by asking questions about the event. The witness is allowed to expand and explain. During cross-examination, no questions are permitted that do not relate to the direct examination. Then, on re-direct, the questions can only be related to points raised in cross.
In this case, the state had extensive re-direct which did not follow those guidelines. If I had been defense counsel, I would have objected to that. "Goes beyond the scope..."
Finally, the dolly grip gave outstanding testimony about the "culture" on the set, but he was asked about all kinds of things that he did not witness. He was asked about other sets he worked on, and how things are usually done. Again, this is improper. If he's called as a "witness" to the event, he can only be questioned about what he actually...witnessed. When it comes to how things are elsewhere, what the "standard" is, he should be designated as an expert witness.
Speaking of experts, the expert armorer that the state produced as a witness was outstanding. He explained in a very clear way how things should be done, and then, watching videos of on-set stuff, he pointed out all the dangerous things that happened.
Bottom line, it was Hannah's job to make sure the gun was safe, and she failed. She was just careless, young,
coked-upand stupid. -
Another couple of interesting legal points.
1 - Suppose Jack shoots someone in the leg, and the wound is not mortal. The victim is transported to the hospital to take care of the wound and he's in a lot of pain. The medical personnel in the ambulance treat the pain, but in a remarkable piece of negligence, rather than giving 10 mg of morphine, they give 10 GRAMS. The victim dies of the overdose. Jack can be held responsible for the death, because he is the proximate cause.
2 - Supposedly this armorer worked on a movie with Nicholas Cage. I guess protocol is that whenever a gun is fired on set, people are to be warned to have hearing protection (plugs, whatever) in place beforehand. She did not do this during one scene, causing Cage to suffer some hearing loss -permanent? I dunno. Nevertheless, Cage is furious and vowed to never have her work in Hollywood again. He still carries the grudge.
-
#1 is interesting. I know that in teh US, people can be charged with murder even if they were not directly involved. (For example, a get away driver)
-
G George K referenced this topic on
