208
submitted 3 months ago by UKFilmNerd@feddit.uk to c/movies@lemm.ee

The manslaughter trial against Alec Baldwin over the fatal shooting of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins has been dismissed. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer threw out the case over how police and prosecutors treated a handful of bullets, which they failed to turn over to the defence.

“The state is highly culpable for its failure to provide discovery to the defendant,” Judge Sommer said. “Dismissal with prejudice is warranted.” The dismissal came as a surprise as gasps were said to be heard in the courtroom and Baldwin was congratulated by his family and supporters.

More to come…

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AngryishHumanoid@reddthat.com 73 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Once it came out that there were live rounds found in other places that were never mentioned until now... yeah that's not a good look. And while I understand the argument that he's the producer therefore responsible for anything that happens on set they'd be setting a standard that wasn't applied in an awful lot of past on set accidents.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

Which has nothing to do with this decision. This what about due process by the police, nothing to do with actual fault.

As producer he should still hold the final culpability of anyone and anything on site. It would be like letting the owner of a company walk on a technicality, he’s still responsible in the end.

[-] Infynis@midwest.social 59 points 3 months ago

It would be like letting the owner of a company walk...

So standard practice

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

In Canada there’s laws that can hold the owner accountable for stuff like this.

Bill C45 in Canada

[-] AngryishHumanoid@reddthat.com 19 points 3 months ago

Sorry I thought I was making it clear that the dismissal was due to the negligence of the police, but even if it had gone to trial it was still an uphill battle to claim his responsibility as producer. If the armorer could be proven to have been a bad hire it could have fallen on him, maybe, but if the production could prove that they took reasonable steps to see if she was qualified but were sadly mistaken that would make it hard to prove negligence.

Personally I would rather it had gone to trial and given the full chance under the law to prove innocence or guilt, dismissal with prejudice is not the same thing as a finding of not guilty even if the result is the same.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It’s interesting seeing the law differences, in Canada this would be considered criminal and anyone up to the owner can be held accountable. I think it’s only been used and upheld a few times though.

Westray bill c45

Edit, looks like it’s been used more since I checked last.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 10 points 3 months ago

As producer he should still hold the final culpability of anyone and anything on site. It would be like letting the owner of a company walk on a technicality, he’s still responsible in the end.

What you're describing would be civil liability, not criminal. It would potentially be criminal if a supervisor knew one of their direct reports was doing something illegal and condoned it or did nothing, but that doesn't seem to be the case here

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

In Canada it would be criminal and not civil.

It comes down to who has direct authority over someone though iirc.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 2 points 3 months ago

I bet Canada's putting a ton of CEOs in jail, right?

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

The link actually includes everyone who has been charged under the bill if you read it!

[-] protist@mander.xyz 7 points 3 months ago

So no CEOs in jail, because the only penalty from a criminal conviction under this statute is a fine

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Arbiter@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

I’m glad someone has and enforces some sane laws.

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

What about the people who actually committed the crime?

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 64 points 3 months ago

The bullets were turned over by retired Arizona police officer Troy Teske, who is said to be a close friend of Thell Reed, the father of Rust armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. Crime scene technician Marissa Poppell accepted the bullets, but they were not inventoried with the Rust case. Some of the rounds Teske handed over were Starline brass casings with nickel primers which matched the ones that killed Hutchins

Withholding that kind of evidence is unconscionable. It tainted the entire investigation. They basically forced the judge to dismiss the case.

[-] Deebster@programming.dev 21 points 3 months ago

A bunch of people got away with the Panama Papers stuff because of chain of custody shenanigans.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Do you think that was intentional? Like was the prosecution paid off?

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

It looks like the armorer was a local and her dad’s cop buddies hid evidence to try to help her. At least one prosecutor signed off on it, because she testified that she didn’t turn over the evidence because she thought it was irrelevant.

There is no universe where live ammunition recovered from the scene is irrelevant.

[-] dtaylor84@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

Uh, they weren't recovered from the scene.

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

The official law enforcement reports were falsified. We don’t know where the bullets they lied about came from. If the police deliberately lied on an official report once, why would you trust the rest of the “official” report?

Courts give law enforcement a lot of blind trust. If you can prove that this trust has been violated, everything they’ve done under that umbrella of trust comes into question.

If it’s this egregious and the prosecutor (s) were okay with it, we don’t even get to have a trial. Why would a fake investigation result in a trial?

The tragedy for the victims is that they’ll never truly know what happened, because the people entrusted with handling the investigation cared more about protecting their own and prosecuting a “Hollywood liberal” than finding out what really happened.

[-] koberulz@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

You think prosecutors need to be paid off to hide evidence and generally ignore the rights of defendants?

[-] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

I'm sorry, there were other live rounds kicking about on the set? How many live rounds does one workplace require? I know how many that one did.

[-] Drusas@kbin.run 21 points 3 months ago

And the armorer is the one who owned the live ammunition. Makes sense she's in prison, but she was so young that I thought, if Alec Baldwin had any liability, it should probably be related to hiring someone who's barely a step past being a child as armorer on a set with real guns.

[-] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 11 points 3 months ago

Lol cops are such dipshits

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

His main crime was imitating Trump so it makes sense.

[-] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
208 points (97.7% liked)

movies

1697 readers
88 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS