Alec Baldwin, Rust case, manslaughter trial, Halyna Hutchins, evidence concealment, New Mexico judge, dismissal with prejudice, live ammunition, Santa Fe, involuntary manslaughter
In a surprising development, a New Mexico judge dismissed Alec Baldwin’s manslaughter case related to the “Rust” shooting, citing withheld evidence. Discover the details behind the court’s decision and its implications.
In a stunning turn of events, a New Mexico judge dismissed Alec Baldwin’s “Rust” case on Friday, on the third day of his manslaughter trial. The judge granted the defense’s motion to dismiss the case, claiming live ammunition evidence related to the investigation into the deadly on-set shooting was “concealed” from them by local law enforcement.
Judge’s Decision and Reasoning
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer highlighted the state’s discovery violation regarding the late disclosure of a supplemental report on the ammunition evidence. She stated that this violation “injected needless delay into the proceedings,” approached “bad faith,” and was “highly prejudicial to the defendant.” Sommer declared, “There is no way for the court to right this wrong,” thus granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice, meaning Baldwin cannot be tried again on the charge.
Baldwin reacted emotionally as the judge explained her ruling, visibly hugging his wife, Hilaria Baldwin, in the courtroom. If convicted, Baldwin had faced 18 months in prison. The decision came after a day-long motion hearing amid Baldwin’s involuntary manslaughter trial over the death of “Rust” cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, who was fatally shot on the Santa Fe set of the Western in October 2021 when Baldwin’s revolver fired a live round.
Defense’s Allegations of Evidence Concealment
The defense filed an expedited motion late Thursday, arguing the case should be dismissed due to the handling of the ammunition evidence. They alleged that a “good Samaritan” handed over ammunition to the sheriff’s office in March during “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez’s trial. This ammunition reportedly ended up with Seth Kenney, who supplied the film with firearms, blanks, and dummy rounds.
During the trial, crime scene technician Marissa Poppell from the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office testified that her lieutenant instructed her to create a report documenting the individual’s handover of the ammunition. This report was filed under a case number different from the “Rust” case, leading the defense to accuse the state of burying critical evidence.
Prosecution’s Stand and Counterarguments
The special prosecutor on the case, Kari Morrissey, also called herself to testify on the matter. Morrissey argued that the ammunition evidence had no exculpatory value and was not relevant to Baldwin’s case. She stated that the state had determined based on a photograph of the ammunition provided by Teske that it was not a match to the live ammunition found on the set, and they decided not to pursue the matter further.
However, the defense charged that the evidence was “concealed” by being placed under a different case number and asserted that it was critical evidence required to be disclosed. Defense attorney Luke Nikas argued that the prosecutor does not get to determine what has evidentiary value and what doesn’t.
Testimonies and Evidence Presented
Seth Kenney testified during the hearing that he initially alerted investigators to the live ammunition from Teske during an interview in November 2021, days after the shooting. He believed that this ammunition might have been the source of the live rounds on the set but later determined it couldn’t have been based on differences in the powder and projectiles.
Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office Cpl. Alexandra Hancock, the lead detective in the “Rust” investigation, testified that Teske showed up to court during Gutierrez’s trial with live ammunition before dropping it off at the sheriff’s office. Hancock said she left a couple of messages with Teske, but he didn’t return them, so she was unable to tie the evidence to “Rust.”
Judge’s Final Remarks
In issuing her order, Judge Sommer emphasized that a dismissal with prejudice is a “very extreme sanction” and required a solid record to justify her decision. She criticized the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office and the prosecutor for failing to disclose the supplemental report to the defense and for not providing an opportunity to inspect the rounds collected into evidence that Teske gave. The suppressed evidence was potentially exculpatory, and the nondisclosure at such a late stage undermined the defendant’s preparation for trial.
Reactions and Future Steps
Morrissey expressed disappointment with the court’s decision but respected it. She stated that the importance of the evidence was misconstrued by the defense attorneys. Baldwin and his team left the courthouse without comment. The actor had been indicted by a grand jury on involuntary manslaughter in connection with Hutchins’ death earlier this year after prosecutors had previously dropped the charge. He pleaded not guilty.
Matthew Hutchins, the husband of Halyna Hutchins, expressed respect for the court’s decision through his attorney. Jason Bowles, the attorney for Gutierrez, plans to file a motion addressing the “same discovery failures by the state” in Gutierrez’s case, asserting that Gutierrez’s conviction was unfair due to the state’s failure to turn over evidence as required.
Conclusion
The dismissal of Alec Baldwin’s “Rust” case highlights significant issues in the handling of evidence and prosecutorial conduct. The case’s outcome underscores the importance of transparency and adherence to legal procedures in ensuring fair trials. As the legal battles continue for others involved, the case serves as a poignant reminder of the tragic incident that led to Halyna Hutchins’ death and the ongoing quest for justice.
Read More