Police Off The Cuff/Real Crime Stories

The trial of Alec Baldwin Criminal Negligent Homicide of Halyna Hutchins.

Duration:: 1h 41m
Broadcast on:: 10 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

The trial of Alec Baldwin Criminal Negligent Homicide of Halyna Hutchins #HalynaHutchins #AlecBaldwin #CriminallyNegligentHomicide A prosecutor told jurors that Alec Baldwin “violated the cardinal rules of firearm safety” in opening statements Wednesday at his trial for involuntary manslaughter. “The evidence will show that someone who played make believe with a real gun and violated the cardinal rules of firearm safety is the defendant, Alexander Baldwin,” special prosecutor Erlinda Ocampo Johnson said. She emphasized that the set of the film “Rust,” where cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, “a vibrant 42-year-old rising star,” was shot and killed, was a workplace. “The evidence will show that like in many workplaces, there are people who act in a reckless manner and place other people in danger,” Johnson said. “That, you will hear, is the defendant.” Johnson walked the jurors through the events leading up to the Oct. 21, 2021, shooting. She said on that day, Baldwin declined multiple opportunities for standard safety checks before the rehearsal and instead “did his own thing” with the revolver at the rehearsal where Hutchins was killed. “He cocks the hammer, points it straight at Miss Hutchins, and fires that gun, sending that live bullet right into Miss Hutchins body,” Johnson said. Johnson is a relative newcomer to the case, appointed in late April by the Santa Fe district attorney’s office. The trial will delve into the confluence of gun safety, high-wattage celebrity and a low-budget Western movie on the remote ranch set. Listening sites for POTC/Real Crime Stories https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/police-off-the-cuff-real-crime-stories/id1452116115 https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/police-off-the-cuff-real-crime-stories/id1452116115?itsct=podcast_box_player&itscg=30200&ls=1&theme=auto 💯 Join our mission to uncover the truth in crime! Support Police Off the Cuff on Patreon for exclusive content and insider access. Click now and become a part of our detective squad: policeoffthecuff676.com www.patreon.com/policeoffthecuff 💬 Did you like this video? Let me know in the comments below! ✅ Subscribe to Police off the Cuff right now! Click here: https://www.policeofthecuff676.com/ https://www.youtube.com/@PoliceofftheCuff?sub_confirmation=1 Or become a YouTube Member to get access to perks here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKo80Xa1PYTc23XN_Yjp8pA/join --------------- Welcome to the Official YouTube Channel of Police off the Cuff This is where the veil of mystery on high-profile cases is lifted through the sharp insights of seasoned law enforcement professionals and where real crime meets real analysis. This is your destination for exploring the complexities of true crime stories, illuminated by the rich experience and street wisdom of those who have walked the thin blue line. At the helm is retired NYPD Sergeant Bill Cannon, a figure of authority in the crime investigation arena, with a diverse background that spans across acting, broadcasting, and academia. Bill's profound knowledge and keen analytical skills, combined with his empathetic approach, make each story not just heard but felt. Phil's extensive investigative experience, coupled with his genuine passion and characteristic Brooklyn charm, adds depth and relatability to the discussions. ➡️ Here we navigate the intricate web of the nation's most captivating crime stories, offering not just stories, but an education on the realities of criminal investigation. Their combined expertise provides a unique lens through which the stories are told, offering insights that only those with firsthand experience can provide. Join us on this journey into the heart of true crime, where every episode promises a deep dive into the minds of criminals and the tireless efforts of law enforcement to bring them to justice. --------------- 📲 Follow Police off the Cuff on social media: Instagram ▶️ https://www.instagram.com/policeoffthecuff Facebook ▶️ https://www.facebook.com/Policeoffthecuff-312794509230136/ Twitter ▶️ https://twitter.com/policeoffthecuf 🎧 Dive deep into true crime with Police Off the Cuff Podcast. Join retired NYPD expert Bill Cannon as he dissects infamous cases with insider insight: Become a Paid Subscriber: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/otcpod1/subscribe Check us out on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@PoliceofftheCuff, Police off the Cuff/Real Crime Stories. Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/otcpod1/support ☑️ Support Police Off the Cuff and help us bring you more captivating crime stories. Every contribution makes a difference! Choose your preferred way to donate: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/policeoffthecuff1gma Venmo @William-Cannon-27 https://www.buymeacoffee.com/policeoffty --------------- 📚 Disclaimer: This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifical

"My dad works in B2B marketing. "He came by my school for career day "and said he was a big row as man. "Then he told everyone how much he loved "calculating his return on ad spend. "My friends still laughing at me to this day." - Not everyone gets B2B, but with LinkedIn, you'll be able to reach people who do. Get $100 credit on your next ad campaign. Go to linkedin.com/results to claim your credit. That's linkedin.com/results. Terms and conditions apply. Linked in, the place to be, to be. (upbeat music) - Hello everyone and welcome to "Police Off the Cuffs, "Real Crime Stories." I'm your host, the tired NYPD Sergeant Bill Cannon, a 27 year veteran of the NYPD. So the Alec Baldwin trial has begun. Opening statements have been given by the prosecution, as far as I know at this point, I don't know if the defense has gotten to give their opening statements. But we're gonna talk about what the gist of this whole case is. And it's been in the news now for close, I guess three years or so. And as we know, Helena Hutchins is the person who lost her life due to criminally negligence. And this person right here on the screen, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer for this case, is now serving 18 months in a state prison haven't been convicted of criminally negligent homicide. You're gonna hear a lot of talk about this firearm there. And people incorrectly refer to it as a prop gun, but it definitely fits the definition of a firearm, which is any loaded weapon, which is capable of firing a projectile. And this certainly did that, costing Helena Hutchins her life and severely injuring Joel Souza. So there's Helena Hutchins right there. And she is the cinematographer, of course, in this case, who lost her life. And we're gonna talk about many things involving this case, but what it really all comes down to is this person who's being charged right now, Alec Baldwin, did he point the firearm at her, did he pull the trigger and did his actions cause her death in a criminally negligent way? That basically is the whole case. And we're gonna discuss that I'm gonna have, of course, with me today. My co-host, retired NYPD Sergeant Michael Geary, professor at Alberta's Magnus College, also an attorney. And he's gonna shed a lot of light on this in regards to the legal aspects of this case. Anyway, hold on to your hats, hold on to your wig, your toupee, hold on to your service dog, your family members, your friends, you're about to enter through crime from a police perspective. You're about to enter the off the cuff zone. You're entering the police off the cuff zone. (dramatic music) (car engine revving) (car engine revving) (dramatic music) (car engine revving) - They asked me some common sense. - Yes, sir, they have the car stopped in town and crashed by the driver. - We still don't know before the trigger. (dramatic music) (car engine revving) (dramatic music) (car engine revving) (dramatic music) (car engine revving) (dramatic music) (dramatic music) - Without further ado, I wanna bring a professor, Michael Geary, retired NYPD Sergeant, Attorney Michael Geary onto the show right away 'cause we don't wanna beat around the bush. We wanna get right to it. Mike, welcome to the show. - Good afternoon, Billy. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for watching the show. - Well, Mike, thank you for being available 'cause we just decided at a specific time. It said, let's do it, let's go live. So, Mike, it's somewhat simple, but I think the defense will try to make this, of course, that's their job. Make this more complex than it really is. And I think simplistically, me, of course, not being an attorney, couldn't make this boil down to, did he point the firearm at her? Did he pull the trigger? Did he fail to check the firearm, even though many movie people will say that's not his job. That's the armorer's job. The gun was handed from the armorer to the assistant director. That's a violation of rules and movie protocol and safety. But more importantly, he never checked the gun. People will say, that's not his job. I differ, I differ, I believe that is your job. Firearm safety, it's always, and I repeat it numerous times, we're taught for the firearms range before we holster our unloaded weapon. We're taught to do a visual and a physical inspection of that firearm to make sure it's loaded. Your thoughts, Mike. - Yeah, Billy, this is what Alec Baldwin's gonna do. He's gonna say Ms. Hanagutira's read was the one who owed the duty to make sure that as the onset armor, that everything was done properly, that he had many other duties that he had to attend to as a producer and as the star of the movie. And therefore, when at the moment that he pulled the trigger, he had reasonable beliefs, no reason to believe otherwise, that that gun was a cold gun, meaning it was unloaded, that it wasn't even loaded with blanks, it wasn't even loaded with some sort of explosive, you know, fake crown or something like that, that was just gonna make a flash bang, nothing like that. So he's gonna put all the blame on this Hanagutira's read who's already serving time for manslaughter. So for him, he's gonna say at the moment, I acted. I was acting not recklessly, but I was acting following the advice of the people who I hired to depend on. And so therefore, I simply did what I'd done many times in many movies, I pointed the gun, we're trying to figure out blocking the scene and how we should have the lighting and everything. And therefore, I, you know, I pulled the trigger, I didn't believe that I had pulled the trigger at the time, I was so, I was in such denial, it's ridiculous, but you know, I realize now I must have maybe touched that trigger, it's enough pressure with the gun cocked, but that should not be considered reckless because I had relied on all these other people. So he's gonna distance himself. - Well, Mike, let me interrupt you for one second. What makes you think that he would ever admit to having his finger on that trigger? Why would he ever do that? - Well, I think depending on the video that exists because they were doing the practicing, so there might be some video of him drawing the gun, holstering it, drawing it and holstering it while they were blocking the camera angles and everything. If there's existing, something like that, where you could see where he actually had his, maybe his finger on the trigger rather than his finger on the side of the trigger guard, that would show that, you know, in his mind, he didn't realize that he had, he was, no, he's not experienced with firearms, he's not going to the outdoor range several times a year, he's not, you know, that sort of, he doesn't have that familiarity with firearms, he might've thought his finger was actually touching the trigger guard. So therefore, you know, he's gonna say, I had my finger against what I thought maybe was a trigger guard, I didn't realize that I pulled a trigger 'cause I never thought of my wildest imagination because there was no need to pull the trigger, you know, I was figuring how I was gonna pull the gun out slowly, the gun, you know, maybe the scene called me to cock the firearm in a threatening manner, you know, that sort of thing and, you know, and not being a person who is really familiar with firearms, I'm in total shock, I guess I could never possibly believe that I touched that trigger, I could never possibly believe it, you know, I think he's gonna have to concede that he was totally wrong and he's gonna, it's gonna be like a little bit of pleased to the jury, understand, yeah. And when I said those things to jurist up inopolis, I was in total shock, I could not. - Oh my, what makes you think he's gonna testify? I mean, they'll never find these things out unless he testifies. - I think they're gonna see the video can be shown because that's absolutely part of the prosecution's case. But I think he likes to be on stage. I think he likes to be the center of attention. And if you actually do think you are innocent, I think the natural urge is to get up in front of the jury and say, I am totally innocent. I should not have been charged. It's a terrible, terrible thing that happened. But, you know, I'm not guilty of a criminal act whatsoever. I wanna tell my story. I think there's that natural urge and he is a little bit of a narcissist. He was a bit of a self-centered person. I think he's gonna wanna do it. And I think that's where I'm guessing. I think he's gonna want to be center stage. - Mike, I think any lawyer worth his fee or any lawyer worth his diploma is gonna advise him not to testify. - Oh yeah, absolutely. - If he pushes to testify, I think that's a huge, huge mistake. The other thing, I just wanna get back to the main things that A, the FBI did the ballistics tests on this gun. They have said that he undoubtedly pulled the trigger. So science now is telling us that he pulled the trigger. As you previously stated, there is video of him practicing before the gun actually was fired, drawing the gun and his finger was on the trigger. You could clearly see that in the video. So denying it, deny, deny, deny, I don't think is gonna help him in this case. So establishing the criminal negligence and is it criminally negligent? Is that criminal? Is it a felony? Yeah, it is a felony. And as we saw in the case of Hannah Gatera's read, you can get real prison time, which she was sentenced to 18 months in prison, which is the same sentence if Alec Baldwin gets convicted that he is eligible for. Now, there are many, many arguments the defense can have. And of course now, because of all the tests the FBI did on this firearm, the gun was rendered inoperable. 'Cause they were beating it with a mallet, 'cause they wanted to show that no matter what happened, the gun would not go off when it was cocked. So if you hit it, you dropped it. It would not go off. So the only way it would go off is if the person holding it pulled the trigger. So the defense now can argue, wait a minute, we can't even test that gun. We can't have our own experts testified to this. So we have to believe you. So that's a big argument for them. But I don't know if the judge will allow it or the jury will buy it. What do you think? - I think Billy, the fact that the FBI rendered the gun inoperable in some ways laughable in some ways is tragic because even though the Baldwin's defense team lost their motion to throw out the indictment based on the fact that the firearm, the quintessential thing, the most important thing here has been rendered inoperable. The judge said, nope, nope, nope. It's gonna, all the tests are gonna be admissible. And it's up to you to do the best you can. You can always appeal this later on, but whatever happens, you're gonna have a fair run at that expert, that FBI expert and do whatever you have to do to try to make them look bad. That's your cure. Now, it's, as you and I know, and Phil knows, if you have a double action revolver, and you use a single action, you pull back the hammer, it doesn't take much pressure to release that hammer onto the primer. However, it does take some pressure. It might be two pounds of pressure, compared to, I mean, six pounds of pressure if you're shooting double action. I think in this case, with that kind of gun, I think that's a replica pieta, which is supposed to look like a cult. And it's a, I think it's designed to be single action. I think it actually is. So you cock the firearm and you have to shoot, I think every bullet is you have to fire single action, like a real old time Western gun. And I think that just a little bit of pressure. Now, we were told in the NYPD, you could, you could cock a firearm and drop it from like, you know, a second floor window and it won't go off. You've got to have the direct pressure on that trigger. And so therefore, he's gonna make a lot hay over what the FBI did. It may hurt them in front of the eyes of the jury, but you know, you're dealing in New Mexico and people probably have a lot more familiarity with firearms than say, if you were up in, in say Manhattan here or, you know, in Long Island. So therefore, it may, you know, they're gonna have their run and they're gonna score a few points. But the inoperability of that gun now, it's kind of sad. You know, I understand why the judge do what they did, but I couldn't understand the Baldwin team screaming, holy hell, because the FBI actually broke the gun. So that's gonna be a very contentious issue when it comes to that part of the case when the prosecution introduces that testimony of that FBI agent. And then FBI agent is gonna get their butt chewed off by Baldwin's defense team. - Mike, before we go to the opening statement by prosecutor or Linda Johnson, there was one issue decided by the judge yesterday that I think it's very important. And it was a victory for Alec Baldwin and his attorneys. And the decision was that the judge said, and I'll put it in layman's terms, that he could not be considered criminally negligent as his role, his role as a producer on the film, just as action. So she threw that out. No, you can't say that he was responsible for everyone else's actions. I'm gonna take that off the table. Your thoughts with that? - Billy, it's a big win for Baldwin, because now the case boils down to only his actions and his thoughts at the moment that that scene started when he was practicing that morning. That's it. Everything else, labor issues, misfiring with some other firearms, hazardous handling of firearms by people on the set. And has had a good tears, reads, previous maybe issues with her lack of experience, all labor issues, all those other things. The fact that I think New Mexico found them guilty of violating certain state labor standards and find them like $100,000, whatever happens to be. All that stuff is not gonna be heard by the jury. The fact is that jury has already read the newspapers. They've all heard this stuff before. There's no way that they don't know about it in the back of their minds. But supposedly for this case, they're supposed to disregard all of the know about that. And there will be no testimony involving that whatsoever. So it's a big win for Baldwin, 'cause he only has to concentrate on one thing now. And it boils the case down to just the absolute essentials of what happened on that scene. I think it's fair. The judge is trying to be fair. The judge is doing their best. And if it comes out that say, for instance, Baldwin isn't convicted and say he's acquitted whether it's a hung jury, the prosecution will have a second bite at the apple or if it's acquitted, nothing further. But the judge is trying to do their best. The judge has a lot of discretion when it comes down to make these pretrial decisions that affect the actual trial. This is all done outside the purview of the jury, outside the public's purview. Very few people know about it, but it's the way for the judge to say, "Look, we're gonna concentrate on one thing "and one thing only. "What happened that morning? "Nothing else." And I think for Baldwin, it's a big victory. - Okay, Erica Olson from the chat. This is a perfect storm case. If Hannah and David Hall had done their jobs correctly, if Alec had checked the gun himself, if the medics in hospital had intubated Helena correctly, she'd be alive. Erica, I'm gonna have to disagree with you about that. We'll hear right now when I play the prosecutor or Linda Johnson's opening statement, the bullet severed her spinal cord. You're not gonna live when that happens. So whatever the treatment was to try to save her life, I don't think they would have been able to save her life. If your spinal cord is severed, I'm pretty sure you're gonna die. And so all those other things you said were correct, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. And then we're gonna play the prosecutors or Linda Johnson's opening statement right now. - Someone plays make believe with a real gun in a real life workplace. And while playing make believe with that gun violates the cardinal rules of firearm safety, people's lives are endangered and someone could be killed. Ladies and gentlemen, that's what this case is about. It's simple, it's straightforward. The evidence will show that someone who played make believe with a real gun and violated the cardinal rules of firearm safety is the defendant, Alexander Baldwin. You will hear over the course of the next few days that in the fall of 2021, a movie called Rust began filming at the Bonanza Creek Ranch just south of Sanofi in Sanofi County. You will learn that this movie was a Western with a lot of gun action. And while it was a movie set, it was a real life workplace for many people. But you will hear this workplace was on a tight budget. And you will learn that some of the people who were hired to work at this workplace were very inexperienced. And one of those was the armor, a very young woman named Hannah Gutierrez Reid. You will hear testimony from crew members who worked on the set who will tell you that to them, Ms. Gutierrez's inexperience was obvious. You will also learn that this workplace has some talented people. And one of those was the director of photography, a vibrant 42 year old rising star named Halina Hutchins. You will also learn that the director of this film was Joel Susan, another talented individual who cares deeply for his projects. The evidence will show, ladies and gentlemen, that like in many workplaces, there are people who act in a reckless manner and place other individuals in danger and act without due regard for the safety of others. That, you will hear, was the defendant out of the vault, the lead actor on this film. You will learn that this movie began filming on or about October 6th, 2021. But the defendant did not arrive on set to begin working until about October 13th. And you will learn that prior to arriving on the set to work, he requested to be assigned the biggest gun available. So he was assigned this revolver, a replica of an 1873 single action revolver manufactured by Pieta firearms in Italy. You will hear from Alessandro Pieta, who will tell you he manufactured this gun. And he will tell you he manufactured it in 2015. And he will explain the quality control measures that Pieta firearms follows in order to ensure that firearms that are manufactured by Pieta firearms don't have any problems or issues. Mr. Pieta will tell you that this firearm, he himself manufactured. And that when Pieta sent it to EMF, which is the company that distributes firearms for Pieta firearms in the United States, this gun was in perfect working condition. You will hear from Justin Neal, who is a representative of EMF, excuse me, a company out of California that has historically been known to provide firearms to the movie industry. Mr. Neal will tell you that when EMF received this firearm in 2017, it was in perfect working order. And in fact, when EMF had this firearm, it was subjected to numerous quality control inspections because it was used as a show gun at gun shows. The evidence will show that in September of 2021, an individual by the name of Seth Kenny, was contacted by the folks with Russ production. They asked Mr. Kenny if he was, he would be able to provide some firearms for the filming for use during the filming of Russ. You will learn that Mr. Kenny owns PDQ firearm and prop. It's a duly licensed firearms dealership. Mr. Kenny then contacted EMF and ordered several single action replica revolvers. And in September or on September 29, 2021, Mr. Kenny purchased this gun. And you will hear that Mr. Kenny received it from EMF and it was in perfect working order. The only thing that Mr. Kenny did to this gun was to insert the firing pin. Because since it was a show gun, it didn't have a firing pin. But you'll learn that that's a very easy step. All he had to do was just insert the pin and that's it. And then Mr. Kenny had the firearms. This one and some other firearms transferred to the set of Russ at the Bananci Free Branch. - So Mike, what is the prosecutor, Elinda Johnson? What is she doing here? Let us just let our audience know what she's doing here. - Okay, what she's doing is letting the jury know that this gun, there's no possible way that this gun malfunctioned, that this gun had any sort of characteristics that would make it unsafe. That from the moment it was built, the moment was inspected, the moment was transferred to America, the moment it got to PDQ firearms, it was in perfect working order. And therefore, she's laying the groundwork for the argument that the only possible way this gun could have discharged a bullet was the fact that someone pulled the trigger and no other way. There's no one can make an argument that this gun just went off on its own. It just spontaneously fired. No, so that's what she's doing. Letting the jury know it's all about Alec Baldwin. It's nothing about this gun. Don't anybody think that this gun, no matter what the, but he may say, his defense team may say, this gun was an absolute perfect working order, the way it was designed to work and was perfectly safe. - You know, Mike, someone in the chat asked, we were trying to explain before that in some of the tests that the FBI did, which was concluded beating the gun with a mallet. - Yes. - They were basically trying to see if it would go off. - Right. - It was cocked back, loaded, and they hit it and they did all kinds of tests. That, those tests rendered it inoperable. I've never heard that done before, but I think that they were trying to go the extreme route with that so that it would totally eliminate the defense to say, oh, it could have just went off through a malfunction or, you know, a earthquake or whatever, but they were trying to eliminate that possibility. And with that, I don't want to stay on it, but that's what rendered the gun inoperable. So I want to go back to the prosecutor's opening statement. - And on October 13th, 2021, the defendant was supposed to have a training session with this gun and this young armor. But you will see that during this training session, the defendant had somebody or a couple of people filming him while he's running around shooting this gun. You will learn, ladies and gentlemen, or you'll hear during this trial the use of the words prop gun. And you'll learn a prop gun is this real gun. It's not a toy, it's not made of rubber, it's a real gun. - You know, Mike, we defined before and that's why I was a little bothered where a lot of broadcasters were saying the prop gun because the New York state definition of a firearm right out of the penal law is any loaded weapon that is capable of firing a projectile. That is it, very simple. So if a loaded weapon is capable of firing a projectile, it's a firearm, not a prop gun. Maybe you could call it a prop gun if the barrel was blocked and was incapable of firing a projectile, then maybe you could call it a prop gun. But this, in every sense of the word, is a firearm, not a prop gun. I think that's important to draw that distinction. - Oh, 100%. All you have to do is like she alluded to the fact that you take out the firing pin and you render this operable firearm inoperable because therefore it's no longer capable of discharging around. I wish they actually had used prop guns, maybe real guns that had the pin taken out whereas you say the barrels blocked or something else. The fact that they were actually using a real 45 pietta, which looks like an old army cult, a 45 slug is not something like a tiny little 22. This thing is huge and it's a big, slow piece of lead coming right at you and it's really dangerous. And so the idea that they would actually take a real gun and not have the firing pin out of it, or doing something else or having a prop gun with rounds that just make a lot of noise, to me is crazy. But this is playing, I had to use a stupid term but it's like Russian roulette. You're just looking for something to go wrong and it's terrible. It's a real firearm. It's not a prop gun. It's terrible. - Akane-ji, if a live round was not in the gun, no one would have been killed. Akane-ji, you're 100% right. - That's right. - Hannah Gutierrez is in prison right now, but she's the one that put that live round in the cylinder. But, but, and there's a couple of butts here, there was more criminal negligence to go around. And that part of the criminal negligence was this man, the assistant director, David Hall's, who did not check the gun after it was handed to him. He shouldn't even have been the one handing the gun to Alec Bolden. It should have been the armorer. So just the armorer would should be 100% responsible, not handing it to an assistant director. But that's what happened. Now, let's see if there's more negligence. You can agree or disagree. Is the person handed the gun, the actor, is it his part of his responsibility to check that gun? I say yes. Many people could say he was told he was a cold gun. That does that absolve him of responsibility? That's what this whole trial is about. And we'll see. Let me go back to the opening statement of the prosecutor. - You will also see evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that during the days before that fateful October 21st day, the defendant handled this firearm multiple occasions. You will see video footage of the defendant firing this firearm. Working perfectly fine. But you'll see evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that each time the defendant handled this firearm, he did not do a safety check with that inexperienced armorer. And you'll hear that the reason he didn't do a safety check is because he didn't want to offend her. The evidence you will see will paint a real life picture of a real life workplace where this defendant mishandled this gun. You will see him using this gun as a pointer to point at people, to point at things. You will see him cock the hammer when he's not supposed to cock the hammer. You will see him put his finger on the trigger when his finger's not supposed to be on the trigger. You will hear about numerous breaches of firearm safety with this defendant and this use of this firearm. And the evidence will show that on the morning of October 21st, 2021, the camera crew walked off set. And you will learn that one of the reasons that camera crew walked out is because they were concerned over safety breaches with the use of firearms. The evidence will show that the morning of October 21st started out a couple of hours behind. They filmed some scenes at this church on the Bonanza Creek Ranch. And you will see that one of those scenes required the defendant to pull out his gun. This was in the morning, pull out his gun and you'll hear the director tell him, pull it out and hold it. And the first time you'll see evidence, the defendant does what the director tells him. But you will hear the director tell you that many times the defendant would do his own thing. So then the director in the morning asked him, okay, do it again, just like you did now. The defendant pulls out the gun, but this time he cocks the hammer. The evidence will show they then broke for lunch. And around 130 or so they came back to this church to do what's called a blocking. The evidence will show that Ms. Hutchins wanted to do a blocking for an insert. And you will learn what a blocking is just working out the details of the moves of the actor. Wasn't even a rehearsed. You will hear from one of the witnesses who walked into the church and saw the defendant kind of playing with his gun. And then you will see evidence or hear evidence that Ms. Hutchins and Mr. Sousa were talking to the defendant about doing this insert. And the insert was just supposed to be from here to here and it was supposed to be of the defendant to slowly taking his gun out of this holster, out of his holster and just holding it at an angle. The evidence will show that someone asked the armor to bring the defendant's gun to him. And she did, she brought it into the church, showed it to David Hall's who you will learn is was the first assistant director. The gun was empty. Ms. Gutierrez then handed the gun to the defendant. But then you will hear that Ms. Gutierrez was given the gun back and she took it and loaded it with dummy rounds. And what you will learn is that dummy rounds are inert rounds. They look like real rounds, but they are very easy to tell that they are not because they'll rattle. Ms. Gutierrez then went back to the church, showed the revolver to the first assistant director very fast. They only checked about three rounds, very quick. And they missed one round. You will learn that one of the rounds in that revolver was a real round. And the evidence will show that Ms. Gutierrez then handed the gun to the defendant. And what you will learn is that once again, the defendant failed to do a gun check or a safety check with this armor. So he takes the firearm, puts it in his holster, then Ms. Hutchins, and Mr. Suze, that we're doing this blocking. And the evidence will show, ladies and gentlemen, that the defendant, again, did his own thing. You will hear from an individual by the name of Kent Jorgensen. Mr. Jorgensen will tell you that he's been involved in drafting and revising movie set safety rules. You will learn that these movie set safety rules require actors like the defendant to treat every firearm as though it's loaded, to never point a firearm at another person, and to never put your finger on the trigger unless you're prepared to shoot or to destroy whatever's in front of you. The evidence will show that on October 21st, 2021, after that lunch break, the defendant once again violated those set safety rules. And during this blocking, the director had instructed him to just slowly take out that gun and just hold it at an angle. But you will see if the defendant takes it out quickly, the first time, points it. And you will hear witness testimony who will tell you the first time he does it, his finger is on or around the trigger. He does it again, takes it out very fast, points it. And once again, you will hear testimony that his finger was on or around the trigger. And the evidence will show that that third and fatal time, he takes it out once again, fast, hammers, cocks, he cocks the hammer, points it straight at Ms. Hutchins and fires that gun. Sending that live bullet right into Ms. Hutchins' body. You will learn that this bullet was a 45 caliber round that entered Ms. Hutchins' body right underneath or right underarm. (buzzer) - How effective was that opening statement by prosecutor, Alinda Johnson? - If I'm the judge, I'm rolling my eyes. If I'm the defense attorney, I'm objecting to any mention, any mention at all of labor issues on that set. If I was the defense attorney, I'd be objecting, trying to throw her off her game, trying to get her out of her rhythm because I would, when she started mentioning that, she just went over it quickly. I would have, I was like shaking my head going, stand up, object, object, object, throw her off her game. I thought it was too lengthy and I don't like it when defense attorneys or prosecutors start telling the jury what the witnesses are gonna say. Let them, let the witnesses say what they're gonna say. And she talked about the firearm expert that's gonna tell you about the gun, being perfectly operable, all that stuff. I mean, a little too much. To me, a little too much is, if I was a judge, I'd be like, stop it, stop, stop, stop. Move on, move on, move on, move on, move on. Don't sit there and put your own words as a prosecutor into the witnesses' mouths, don't do that. So I thought it was a little too long. If I'm a jury on that case, I'm like, come on, come on, let's get to the testimony. Let's get to the testimony here. So I don't like it when judges give way, way too much time for opening statements. I'd rather, me, I believe in being succinct, make your point, move on. Don't sit there and just keep on going. And I think the defense attorney missed a great opportunity to stop her in her tracks. You know, I think that she laid a lot of the argument that no doubt the defense is gonna go after. And she sort of set the stage for what they're gonna use as a defense. But look, this case, although it's gonna be made more complicated than it actually is, it's about like three different issues. Did he pull the trigger? And the FBI, in their ballistics test says yes, the gun could not have gone off without him pulling the trigger. In video and still photos, you could see his finger is on the trigger. Should he have checked the firearm? Yeah, in my opinion, yes, he should have. Was he negligent, criminally negligent in pointing the firearm at another human being? All three, I think you checked the box. Now, if the jury buys all of those things, then he will be found guilty. If they do not, if his defense can build a platform for him and say no, he wasn't responsible for this, then he'll be found innocent. Nighthawk, thank you so much for the 999 Supersticker folks. This is police off the cuff, real crime stories. If you like real crime, true crime from a police perspective, you're in the right place. And if you're not subscribed to us, please go on our YouTube. Hit that subscribe button, give us a thumbs up and ring that bell. If you wanna contribute to us financially, we have a Patreon with four different levels and we also have a YouTube channel membership with count 'em, five different levels. We appreciate all you guys and all the support that you do give us. Pamela White, thank you so much for the $5 Supersticker. Much, much, much appreciated. Guys, I try to answer the questions as they come up. Tom Keene, yesterday, I believe the judge told the prosecutor in defense, they had a limit of 50, five, zero minutes, each for their opening statements. That, well, she definitely didn't go 50 minutes. Let me play a little bit now, of course, of the defense. And I don't know exactly if this is the entire rebuttal to the prosecution, but let me play some of this here. - I fixed that firearm onto a fixed platform and then struck a firearm on six different planes where they were remarried. And Mr. Ziegler explained to Mr. Haig that he had not fixed the mallet to another fixed device. Instead, he did it beforehand. Mr. Haig will tell you what this particular series of experiences of forensic, firearms, forensic experts. He applied or concluded that those very tiny microscopic diagonal lines on the surface of the trigger series were likely caused by the FBI's accidental research group. The evidence will show, ladies and gentlemen, that regardless of how those tiny microscopic lines brought on that trigger statement, these firearms experts will tell you that those would not accept the functionality of this firearm. - Try to tarnish them in your arms, but that's not what happens here. On this set, there was a real bullet, something that should never be on a movie set, something which has nothing to do with making the movie. And you will hear no evidence, not one word that Alec Baldwin had anything to do with that real bullet being brought onto that set. The second critical issue in this case is why did a real bullet get loaded into a prop movie gun? It is undisputed that the bullet was loaded into the gun by the armorer, the person on set, whose responsibility it was to ensure the gun was safe. And so picture that moment of the armorer placing a live bullet into that firearm. You know, you hear the prosecutor say, you know, he did this or he performed in a certain way. He picked out the biggest gun as his prop. It's to tarnish him in your eyes. You will hear no evidence whatsoever. No evidence that anything Mr. Baldwin did, that something he did in that moment, that horrible moment when she put that bullet in that gun, none of it had anything to do with Alec Baldwin. And finally, the first assistant director's job, the head of safety, Dave Hall's, checks it before it goes to the actor. And he will tell you he made a tragic mistake. You failed to detect the live bullet. And Alec Baldwin had nothing to do with that either. So all this evidence that the prosecutor just outlined, all of it has nothing to do with these critical issues, nothing, which leads us to this. The evidence will show that on a movie set, safety has to occur before the gun is placed in the actor's hands. In this case, this unique case on a movie set, the prop gun was placed in Mr. Baldwin's hands and cold gun was announced, meaning it had been checked and double checked by those responsible to ensure the gun was safe. It was just a prop. They all thought it was just a prop and could do no harm. The actor's job is to act, to rehearse, to choreograph his moves, to memorize his lines. He's Harlan Rust. He's an outlaw running for his life, who in the incident in question, he's pulling a six-shooter to try to defend himself. That's why the gun has to be safe before it gets into the actor's hands. His mind is somewhere else, in the being of another, a century away, an outlaw. He must be able to take that weapon and use it as the person he's acting would. The waiver to point it, to pull the trigger like actors did in ways that would be lethal in the real world, but are not lethal on a movie set. And I'm gonna show you that scene now before lunch. And if you do just play action. - Maybe you'll find some notes. - Let me go damn note. Let me down for note. - He's wounded on the run. Play again, let me in. Harlan Rust. He can stand up nice and slow. Talk to me what the movie will have. He's on the church pued, bleeding, his hand gripping the revolver. He can defend himself against the men in the movie. Why? One more? Okay. Ready. Harlan Rust. He can get up nice and slow. He's working to have. - Well, normally we can get a line in your lambs. Put camera in your lambs. - Yep. - Okay, which way, camera right or not? The camera left here. - I'll stand right here. - So whip it up. - Yeah. - Okay, let me get the show at least. Ready? - Yeah. Ready? Okay, ready? Ready. - That's better. Harlan Rust. - One more, it's like that. No, one more. - Yeah. - Anyone else know? - They want him to do it again. There's no danger. They want him to do it again. - And that's better. And that's better. - Harlan Rust. - You know, Mike, I understand why the defense attorney is trying to present this argument, but it's an argument between fantasy and reality, which really a movie is a fantasy. It's not a real depiction of life. However, where reality slams like a speeding freight train into the side of a building is that the reality is that someone lost their life during this fantasy shoot. And calling, again, the defense is calling this a prop gun. We just discussed how this is not a prop gun. This fits the definition of firearm, which is any loaded weapon that is capable of firing a projectile. And again, Hanagatira's Reed, guilty. She put those rounds in the gun. David Hall's guilty. This is the third one. This is the third criminally negligent, potentially. I'm not on the jury. This is the third potentially criminally negligent cast member of this fantasy rust that has nothing to do with reality, except the cinematographer lost her life and the movie's director Joel Souza was shot in the shoulder. So that's where fantasy, like a speeding freight train, hits reality, your thoughts. Finally, I thought that it was really strange that the judge would allow a critical piece of what was considered evidence because it shows the mental state of everyone involved on that movie set at that critical moment to be shown during opening statement. If I was a judge, I'd be like, no, no, wait, you have that. We are not doing any sort of introductory introduction of evidence at this point. You got 55 minutes, state your case, talk about what anyone want to talk about within certain limitations. I thought the judge was very here. To allow that was very interesting. I never thought that I would see that. I certainly wouldn't want to do that if I was a judge. But I think the defense attorney did was say, look, I think he talked very slowly, talked very distinctly. He talked about the fact that Handy Gutierrez was the armorer, Mr. Halls was the second assistant, was the assistant there. And he said he's in charge of safety on the set. And therefore, he touched it. He told Alec, it's a cold gun. Alec is trying to be in his rust mindset. He's thinking like an actor at that point. I think he made that very clear. And therefore, he's got to handle the firearm in a way that Harlan Rust would do if he was confronted by a lawman out in the old West. He's no longer thinking about safety protocols. He's thinking like an actor. So his mental state is detached. He's in character. He's not the producer at that split second. He's an actor taking directions. And strangely, at the end of that, when he pulled the firearm that last time, you could see clearly he'd cock the firearm with the thumb. His finger was clearly on the trigger. And clearly, you could hear someone in the background saying like great, great, good job. Like that's the way we want it. Like you did an excellent job. And so therefore, he's like, okay, in his mind, this is what the defense attorney is saying is that he's in the mode. He's in the period. He's acting like Harlan. This is what Harlan would do. So you can't blame him for what he did. So that's the defense's take on this. Very interesting, very, very interesting. In this case, the way the judge and everybody is handling this very first day. Very interesting. - Let's go back to the statement. - It's a scene similar to scenes. We've all seen in movies and television, performed by thousands of actors. And the scene that continues after lunch is the same scene. It's just not unfortunately captured on videotape. And the scene they envisioned and acted out, that prop gun was positioned in the afternoon. So close to the camera that you could see inside, that you could feel it. You could feel that it was loaded. And it was loaded, of course, with dummies. Dummies to make it look like a real gun. But this one time, one of those dummies was a real bullet. The real bullet was not known to anyone in that church. Amongst the actors, directors and crew in the scene. Everyone was doing exactly how they go about their business every day on a movie. Not as if some lethal element had been included in the environment. You will see creativity and movement and everyone talking and vibrant. No one had any idea that this venomous toxic element had been inserted into this magic they were created. But it did. It entered that place. It killed an amazing person. It wounded another and it changed lives forever. And so to find out what happened on that movie set, you need to do something that the prosecutors could never do. You have to step back and remember what they were doing on a movie set. What were Helena Hutchins, the cinematographer, Joel Sousa, the director, and Alec Baldwin, the actor, doing on Bonanza Creek Ranch? You know, movies and magic have always been closely associated. The first people that made movies were magicians. And this imagination that happens in movies. You know, King Kong, he can stand above a city and Superman can fly horses and snakes and gun battles. For this to all work, for cinematography, what Helena did to work, for acting to work. You have to be so close to the barrier of real and imagined that the viewer feels that they're there, that it's real. The viewer can't see strings from the stuntman. The stuntman must leap. The snake must hiss. And guns happen in movies. All over this country, for many decades, bang bang, you've all seen it. Guns have been an element of theater and film and television since the earliest of times. Depictions of war and combat, Spartacus, it stirs audiences because it feels real. Later films, platoon, Apocalypse Now, they showed the unvarnished realities of war. This ranch, Santa Fe, it had been the scene to many gun fights and movie scenes. Well, before Alec was even bored. Laramie, Bookchin, the Sundance Kid, and these Westerns. (indistinct chatter) There's the first objection. The prosecutors approaching the bench with along with the defense attorney, probably to object to this line of questioning, or this line of presentation, I should say, not questioning. - The evidence will show that guns are in movies because movies are about people's lives and guns are in people's lives. So let's talk about the evidence and how the lethal bullet got there. How did this happen and how did it unfold? The evidence will be the following. Everybody on a movie set has a role. The armor or armors, the director directs, the actor acts. They work in harmony, but they have a division of responsibility. Safety being important has the first assistant director, whose name is Dave Halls, above the armor and sort of the safety of the set. And on that day in question, the cast and the creative directors and crew in the church, it's a fake church. Their actors are not in their normal clothes, costumes. There's debris falling from the ceiling, it's fake debris, and they yell out cold gut. And that is an important term you're gonna learn in this case. It means that the gun is cold. No one need worry. But even that requires a little bit more explanation. Cold gun doesn't mean no live bullets. There are for sure 100% of no live bullets on movie sets. That's unimaginable. Cold means you don't even have the fake, fake, blank poof in it. You don't need to worry even about, you know, I gear or earplugs for that fake bang. It means it's empty, inert, cosmetic, can do no harm. Cold guns can't hurt people. It's impossible, literally impossible for a cold gun to hurt somebody. You could hurt you more by dropping it on your foot. And that's why these artists are carrying on in their art. Cold gun, gun, all clear to go. And the armor on this set hands a prop gun to Alec, like she had done times before, like people have done with him in movies for a generation. And he's there. He's in the movie set church with his movie set gear and his holster and he takes his movie set gun. And he's deeply focused in that moment on his character. The artists, the crew members, they're moving around him. Again, no, no, I gear earplugs, nothing to protect against. They carry on, they practice, they rehearse, they take a lunch break. Some folks leave, some don't, they continue to seem. Dave Hall's The Head of Safety is actually practicing the movement. So they can frame, they can frame the footage that will happen after lunch. And the prop cold gun comes back. The prop cold gun comes back, cold gun. They call it again, same gun, again, safe. The first assistant director, Dave Hall's Head of Safety for the entire film, a man with decades of experience, comes and takes the additional step and inspects the gun, verifies again, cold gun. Everyone relax, go back to focus on the making of a movie. There's nothing in the gun that can hurt anybody. And Alex sits on that pier. And the creative director is the crew, they're moving around him in front of him. And Harlan Rust, he begins, like the prosecutor told you, rehearsing, acting. This is a completely mundane, uneventful routine act on a movie set, on a movie set. And so everybody carries on, nobody fathomed, imagined, foresaw any possible danger. They moved around Alec as he practiced his draw. As the prosecutor put it, working out the details of the move in the actor. He does it, does it again, does it in a different way. Nobody bats an eye. And they will tell you that the investigation revealed that Baldwin was practicing drawing and pointing the weapon of the scene with guidance and instruction from Helena Hutchins and Joel Sousa. The gun goes off. Everybody's shocked. Alec is startled. He immediately says, I didn't need to shoot the, I didn't pull the trigger, immediately. What the hell just happened? They collectively explained. Shock turns to panic. 9-1-1 is called. (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking) - Accidentally shot on a movie set with the prop gun, the fucking AD, it was his responsibility. Not a word about Alec Bolder. While they were en route, police EMS, the cast and crew were outside trying to figure out what happened, frantic. Talking to those responsible for the profit and safety. The armorer is yelling, sorry, Paul's the first assistant director is panicked. The prop master, Sarah Zachary, I don't know exactly where she is at that point, but they check the gun lavishly, they take the ammo out of the gun, they look at it, what the heck happened, they go back to the prop cart that houses the ammo, they're touching the gun and manipulating the gun, emptying it, they go and move some stuff off the prop cart, trying to figure it out. Sarah Zachary, the head of props, will tell you she threw some stuff out. And eventually, of course, EMS and police arrive pretty soon thereafter. And Helena Hutchins and Joel Sousa, the director, are transported to the hospital, where Helena tragically passes away. And I'm not going to be asking questions about her condition after she was wounded or the medical interventions that followed. Her injuries, the efforts to revive her, are not a dispute in this case. The evidence will be there. The prosecutor may present some of these emotionally charged images, but we're not going to be asking questions about that and it's not an issue of dispute in this case. And you jurors are allowed to ask yourselves whether or not that should be the focus or the focus should be the evidence. So police enter the scene. They have lapel cameras. Thank God they have lapel cameras. You want to see what happens? The evidence will show you can play the videotape. You want to see if they take the right gun, play the videotape. Want to make sure what the people said or did. They're remembering correctly, play the videotape. And so they immediately recover the prop gun and they secure it. That's off to the side. And the reason that you preserve things in the moment is so that you know what existed in the moment, the evidence in the moment, the people and the witnesses and what they said in the moment. These folks, the members of Rust, they've never been through anything like this before. That is why what they originally said madder so much in this case. If you remember anything I say today as the evidence proceeds, remember that. Look at the evidence of what the people of Rust said and did that day. Life changes, memories change. There are human motivations, internal pressure, external pressure. That's why preservation is so important. So the police continue in terms of the prop cart and the prop ammo that's on the cart. It's manipulated, altered, kind of messy. And you know, at this accidental shooting on a movie set, the police began to make some mistakes. No one had ever investigated it. Prop gun on a movie set before. They recover the prop gun, but they don't wear gloves. They don't have the prop cart inside the crime scene. Someone moves it onto the crime scene. People start touching it and showing, okay, this is a dummy, this is a blank. And then they make another mistake that matters in this case with some more significance, which is that they don't secure the prop truck that houses the cart. See that cart that they roll off comes from a truck where all of the ammunition, all of the firearms are, and that's where they're stored. They don't secure the prop truck for several days. And then the prop house that supplies the truck, that supplies the cart, they don't secure it for over a month. Lot of mistakes they had never investigated it. Case in a movie set. But they had the prop gun, that was key. And so they needed to figure out where the live bullet came from. They had the shell casing, star line brass. That's the sort of make. You'll hear that phrase, star line brass. And the police were right to focus on that. That was the lethal element. And so they work outward, makes good enough sense. Folks around the ammo and the gun to be interviewed at the precinct, the armorer at the precinct, she loaded the live bullet, halls, head of safety, he double checked. And Alec walks up to the police, you'll see this early today. And he says, I'm here, whatever you want to do, whatever you need me to do, just tell me where to go. And Sarah Zachary, the prop master who throughout the stuff, they missed her that night, to bring to the precinct. But the rest of them at the precinct. And thankfully, we have the lapel cameras. - And then they clearly got it outside after his request. And I witnessed them clear and so on and so on and so on. - Okay. - So, the one that was just before they fired me on out, then all the other ones being around me. - I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't stop. - Okay. - There, that was just a quick snapshot at the scene. - Mike, one of the things that I, that was so difficult on this crime scene, because you would have needed, you know, 50 officers to freeze the whole set. Because I don't know how many crew members, how many actors, how many people were on that, but you want to speak to every single person. And you also do not want the people involved to talk to each other, which is going on, it's going on live. And I know that the defense attorney won't point that out, but so you need tons of police personnel. And obviously they didn't have that. And to freeze this crime scene, also people are touching things. You know, you never bring something back into the crime scene. If the crime scene, if it wasn't there, you don't bring it back into it because for expediency, the crime scene has to be preserved exactly the way it is. But it was nearly impossible with the amount of personnel that the police had that responded. Also, all of crime scene protocols, they take a back seat to the preservation of life. And that is the most important thing was to make sure they treated Helena Hutchins and to try and save her life and try to save Joel Sousa's life. Because that takes priority over everything. Once they're removed from the scene, all right now, freezing that crime scene was no easy thing. Because again, there's all of these people are moving about talking to each other. They shouldn't also be talking to each other. But guess what? The New Mexico police are doing the very best they can with the cards they're dealt in this incident, your thoughts. - Yeah, Billy, you and I and Phil have seen this. People shot out and straight in the Bronx or in Manhattan when I was a sergeant. You know, we have a lot more officers that we could use to secure a crime scene. We got the tape, we got the radio cars. We can put them all around. I put garbage cans around crime scenes to try to get people to stay away. You know, you're dealing with the fairly remote area. They don't have a lot of cops out there. There may be, you know, just the county cops. They may have a, they're coming, you know, they might not have gotten that scene for a while. In New York City, you may get a 911 call. And with the 92nd, you've got cops all over the place in that crime scene. There, it takes a while to get there. You've got to save the people first. So, yeah, we've seen this bullet, you know, the spent brass gets kicked around. Things get lost. Furniture gets moved. The paramedics got to be in there first. They're in charge as far as I'm concerned when they're working on somebody who shot. They dictate for that. I try to keep everybody back. It's a sergeant as the officer. So there's going to be a lot of manipulation of what's going on there. You get, you get Elena Hutchison out of there, and Joel Susan out of there as fast as you can. Now, somebody's got to accompany them to the hospitals because it may be dying declarations. You don't know. You want to talk to them if they live. There's people all over the place chatting with each other, talking, oh my God, I can't believe what happened. And you don't have enough officers to isolate each and every person to say, do you do not talk to anybody? I need a statement from you over here. You know, when you see these shows on TV, there's always enough personnel around there. They're always in charge of the crime scene. It's always a fairly calm crime scene. There's a way to get these people isolated. But you see, people are talking to each other, kind of helping each other, maybe inadvertently altering the memories of everybody. So-- Well, Mike, I also think it was interesting that the defense attorney played the 9-1-1 call, where persons that made the call said-- she pointed the finger, right, at the assistant director and the armorer, right, at the box. They said, yeah, OK, that's that said job. They were negligent. And two of them-- one found guilty after trial, one of them pled guilty. This is the third piece. And what this trial is trying to determine whether or not the criminal negligence of Alec Baldwin rises to the level of recklessness, which is criminally negligent homicide the way it is-- the statute is that it has to be done recklessly. Was his conduct reckless? And that's what the defense attorney is trying to distance him from. And that's the only thing that the jury will have to decide. Was his conduct reckless? We already know. Now they're trying to blame the police. What did the police do? Did they have a sloppy crimes because they didn't have enough personnel to respond to the scene? Probably over 100 people on the crew and staff and actors and all that stuff. How do you separate all of them when maybe you respond with five or 10 police officers? Almost impossible. And try to interview each person separately without another person listening in so that they know what the other person said. So difficult. Let me go back to it because I want to give the defense as much play as I gave the prosecution. Let's approach that. This is the proposal. They can send it to you. The attorneys are up speaking to the judge right now on a sidebar that none of us are privy to what they're saying right now. Unknown what their objections are. It could be that he put forth the statement of the 911 caller who was also an employee of Rust. And her language was a little colorful and she in it somewhat exonerated Alec Baldwin and blamed it right away on the 911 call on David Hall's and Hannah Gutierrez read. So that may be what the prosecution is arguing right now. But they're coming back. The defense attorney will be back making his. The remaining witnesses from inside the church are interviewed on the scene. They're interviewed with lapel cameras. They're interviewed by the lead detective, detective canal. And those witnesses, some of them will come in here and testify. And not a single one of them will tell you anything different than what I'm about to tell you about the evidence. The gun was double checked, verified it was a cold gun, not an actor's responsibility to check, safety was insured before. Alec was doing his practicing, his rehearsing, his movements. People manipulate and point guns on movie sets. The gun went off during the rehearsal. No one saw him intentionally pull the trigger. It was obviously a tragic accident, but Alec committed no homicide. Alec took the gun from those charged with its safety. He did not tamper with it. He did not load it himself. He did not leave it unattended. It completed his costume and his character. It was an actor handling a prop and integrating it into the character of Harlan Rust. It was a dedicated professional there, off camera, whose sole sacred responsibility was that prop safety. And Dave Hall's the head of safety was there by her side. Everyone relied on that. And it was tragic that they let them down. He was just acting as he is done for generations. And it was the safety apparatus that failed them all. So law enforcement continues. They need to find the live bullet. That was the lethal element. So they led by Detective Kanell, executed a search warrant on the church. That's what law enforcement does. They immediately go to a judge. They say this is what we need to do. They go into the church urgently before anything can be altered. They're confirming it was an accident, not a crime in the church. They searched for guns and ammunition, videos and photos. There was no further answer in the church. They had the prop gun. They had all those witnesses secured. Their statements are clear. Allak had committed no crime, but the bullet was in history. And so they focus on the bullet, the critical lethal bullet and how did it enter a movie set. So they had the prop cart and then they go to the warrant on the prop truck. And so at that point, and I'm going to put up a photo so that you can see some of these individuals are, they're trying to figure out when they go to the truck, where is what is the source of the lethal bullet? And so they execute a warrant on the truck approximately a week later. The Seth Kenney that you heard about in the prosecutor's opening is supplier for the set. He's there. Sarah Zachary, the prop master, she's there. And they walk through what's inside of the prop truck with law enforcement. But there's no answer to the lethal bullet. And this case then takes on all this pressure. The media begins swirling. Where is the lethal bullet? How did it get on that movie set? And what about that actor Alec Baldwin, who had nothing to do with why the bullet got on the music set? And so police and prosecutors, they work hand in hand, meeting after meeting, trying to find the lethal bullet, meeting with Seth Kenney, meeting with Sarah Zachary, the prop master, the supplier, where is it? And about a month after the incident, Sarah Zachary finally sits down with law enforcement to answer some questions. And she explains to them that she threw away some stuff. She disposed of some stuff. And the prosecutors and police keep meeting, swirling media. And then at that point, they go to the last step, right? Done the cart, gun truck, met with Sarah Zachary, and they go execute a search warrant on as the prosecutor told to PDQ, the prop house. And again, Seth Kenney's there to greet them, let them in. And they don't find the lethal bullet. They never did. They never did. And as things roll in to police and prosecutors, cell phones and photos and forensics, looking for this shiny object, they found another shiny object. Instead of trying to find the source of the lethal bullet, they focused on Mr. Baldwin. But Mr. Baldwin was like every other actor. He goes bang, bang, and movies. He's told when guns are cold or not. He rehearses and acts as his character. Safety proceeds before the actor. Once the actor has the prop gun, he can handle it. However, a person he's acting as would. A properly cleared gun can't hurt anybody. And so they told you about some of the things that Alex said in the statements that they will take or picked out a few lines from. But he won't tell you anything different, that he took a gun, loaded, and cleared by the armor in the AD. He made motions with the gun as he was rehearsing. He didn't intentionally pull the trigger. The gun just went off. And he does say, I didn't have a problem with the gun before. And this idea that they said that he didn't want to check because he would offend them, in this moment, he's been doing this for 40 years. The evidence will show. And he has habits. And there are also sag guidelines that tell actors what to do and what not to do. And the sag guidelines don't tell actors to check the gun. You will see them. That's not the actor's role. And so I guess the point that they're trying to make is that why, in this specific moment, he doesn't break his habit of 40 years and check it differently and sort of insult them this one time. You know, if he had done that and started playing with the gun in that way, they'd be saying, I reckon actor, why is he doing that? So they will play these statements, Alex statements. You're going to hear a man in shocking grief. Father, an artist, worried about his family. You hear he's, you know, on one of the calls, he's going to meet with the Decedent's family, the Hutchins family. And he's upset about that. He will talk to one for us, but he will call them. He doesn't need a lawyer. He didn't commit a crime. He will call them and offer to meet and speak over and over again. And ask anyone in the acting world, actors know. Actors rely on armors and point guns and shoot guns. The armors act. What they did is clear and proven. The head of safety you will learn took responsibility for his verification failure, but Alec committed no homicide. So law enforcement didn't have a homicide case against Alec Baldwin, but they changed the question. You heard the prosecutor tell you about this. Did he pull the trigger? Did he pull the trigger? Did he intentionally pull the trigger? And if he did, of course, that would only make his statement incorrect, right? That would mean he would have misspoke, been incorrect. You know, and I want to stop for a moment and just tell you because you're going to hear a lot of testimony, expert testimony of the prosecutor told you about the gun functioning imperfectly. Did he let the hammer down when he cocked it? Did he hit the trigger? Did he in a calculated manner as the prosecutor made a motion, you know, fire the gun like that? And when this issue is discussed, it's easy to sort of pull yourself into courtroom land and away from a movie set. On a movie set, you're allowed to pull the trigger. So even if he intentionally pulled the trigger like the prosecutors demonstrated, that doesn't make you guilty of homicide. He did not know or have any reason to know that gun was loaded with a live bullet. That's the key, that live bullet is the key, that is the lethal element. But again, as the prosecutor told you, if they could prove that he intentionally pulled the trigger and he was in perfect, in precise, wrong with what he said, then maybe you take that and you say he's lying and if he's a liar, he committed homicide. And so what they do is they take the prop gun. They're blinded by the shine. They're blinded by trying to disprove Alec. They take it and they order a destructive test on the fire. They order the FBI to take a test that they know will destroy the firearm. It's a pointless unnecessary test where they blindly try to make this big case by taking the mallet and smashing the firearm. At the time that they did that, they knew that Alec had maintained, adamantly maintained, that he was manipulating the hammer and the gun just went off. That the witnesses said it went off out of nowhere. That there are these accidental discharges that happened on the set, that guns have issues in the real world, that this gun had a hair trigger and the owner's manual of this specific gun actually says that if you load it with a live round or any round in the chamber, in that last position and you drop it, like you see a cowboy in a movie, this type of old cowboy gun can accidentally go off. I don't remember hearing anything about that. The evidence will show that. So rather than trying to answer the question of what happened, they proceed with a destructive test. They eliminate the one item, the one item that could prove what Alec said and believed. They didn't offer him a chance to test the gun. They didn't take the gun apart before they broke it and destroyed it and look at its inner workings. They didn't turn on their videotape. They just destroyed it. Can't ever be tested in the same condition it was in that day, won't ever allow Alec to show his truth. And the destruction of this gun that you will hear in this evidence is symbolic of this entire case because the officers will tell you at that point they weren't really investigating anymore. They were trying to disprove Alec, to get Alec to have this day. And so after the destruction of the firearm, they hired some expert witnesses you heard about to pick up the piece, so to speak. And the state retained Lucian Haig, an expert with over half a century of experience. And he will come into court and he will tell you, he's never seen anything like this in his entire career. They conducted a pointless test, a test that would lead to inevitable destruction of the firearm. There were other correct tests that they could have done to prove whether or not it could have accidentally discharged. None of the experts can test the gun in the condition it was in on the day in question. Why? Not because of something that Alec Baldwin or the crew members of Rust did. They were all clear, the gun just went off. But because of something that law enforcement did, and they deprived him of that opportunity. However, Lucian Haig will tell you that in his analysis he did find modification that he thought likely pre-existed the FBI testing. And what that modification means and how it impacted the gun is hard to perfectly know, of course, but it was a modification on an important part, the critical part of the firearm. And it was important enough for them to put into a report and to write a new opinion about. They felt this revelation had to be sent to prosecutors. And they maintained that position, that this modification was a matter of import for almost a year. And then a few weeks ago before trial, they just took it back. They just took it back. You will get to see the circumstances of that take back. How far they would go for the shiny object. They never solved the question of the lethal bullet. They destroyed the gun, and all they were left with is Alec Baldwin and the movie they intend to put on. But because they never solved the lethal bullet, they eliminated the prop gun. There will not be one witness, not one shred of evidence in this trial that Alec knew or should have known the gun was loaded with a live round. So they can't prove. They can't prove their high-profile homicide. So they will proceed to then here and now tell you about other things, other evidence that you will hear that has nothing to do with what happened in the church on October 21st. That the movie said as a whole was improper, or anything, that they hired the wrong armor. I think I heard in opening. The evidence will show that the armor was hired by somebody else, trained by somebody else, had done gun scenes on rust with somebody else before Alec even got there. She was the daughter and the apprentice of the most famous and well-respected armor in Hollywood. And she had just loved left serving being an armor for Nicholas Cage on another Western. Then they'll come in and they'll say, "But what about the movie guidelines?" You heard about Mr. Jorgensen, the movie guidelines, that one of the protocols wasn't followed, or there was a set safety issue about something unrelated to this. Like these movie guidelines on a set are the things of Navy SEALs and NASA. The guidelines were followed. They followed the safety guidelines. Actors don't check the weapons. Safety is ensured by dedicated personnel. So they will say, you know, but there had been accidental discharges on the set that guns had fired accidentally prior, not related to Alec, by the way. You know, but again, that's the people we looked at, Hanigou Yair's Reed's fault, Sarah Zachary's fault, perhaps, Steve Hall's fault, faults, workplace issues. Some of them will end up, and you will hear the witnesses in this case, many of them have brought civil lawsuits. You know, and you'll hear that, you know, in those civil lawsuits, they're presenting evidence to try to meet a burden, not a criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, homicide trial burden, but they're gonna try to prove their cases in civil courts. And that's where faults and accidents are, at worst, 99% worked out. Not here. But you'll hear these members of the Russ crew come in here. They'll try to make sense of this for you. Some of them have sued. Some of them are in grief. Some of them are in grief and have sued. And part of this grief they feel that everybody feels is understandable. And what they will do is they will tell you, you know, if only we had had a second armor, one of them will say, "If only Dave Hall said check better, if only the camera hadn't been right there, and Ms. Hutchins wasn't leaning over the camera, if only I myself did this, if only Alec did that, this is natural, their testimony. It's part of the human condition. It's part of grief. None of them knew. - The attorney prosecutor made an objection for his line of this theory. - As I was saying, the witnesses in their grief will look for reasons to try to make sense of this tragedy. But again, none of them knew or should have known about the lethal bullet either. No one had any idea that it was on that set or in that gun. In that world, they were all in it together. And you will hear that none of this other stuff has anything to do with those two critical questions we started with. Why there was a live bullet on set, why the armor replaced it in the gun, and of course, why the head of safety failed to detect it. None of it speaks to whether Alec knew or should have known those things. He didn't, no one on that set did. It was not foreseeable. You will hear that word from the witnesses and from eventually the instructions, foreseeable. This was anything other than foreseeable. And they must prove beyond any and all reasonable doubt that this was foreseeable. Total indifference to human life, that death might occur. He's an actor. He's an actor. But here we are at a homicide trial. And so they will pull and they will pull witnesses and witnesses will be cross-examined. They will push themselves to the edge of truth and beyond. You know, these things about, you know, Alec didn't notice this or Alec didn't notice that. I want to make sure that you're clear on something that the evidence will show. He had been filming on that set for a handful of days. The evidence will show he had just gotten there. It's not as if he had been there for months and months and noticed things and failed things and he'd just gotten there. You don't notice every little thing when you start and then you place it when you're in the character of Harlan Rust. But they will push forward and they will have gaps in the evidence as well. Don't expect you to be hearing and for them to call the first AD head of safety. I don't know if you'll be hearing from the lead detective, Kanam, who investigated this case, the lead detective or the sergeant that supervised it. Sergeant Zook, I don't think you'll hear from Mr. Schilling, who was the lead investigator for the prosecutors. And so as you hear this, you jurors can assess about that gap of evidence. And there's one thing that I can tell you, you will not hear also. You will not hear from an actor or an expert in acting. And so they will play in the videotapes of Alec Baldwin, the actor acting. They will show you perhaps over and over again, him in shooting scenes. Bad Alec, bad Alec shooting a gun the wrong way in a movie scene. They will try to get you to picture that and forget that this was a movie set in the first place. And you will see actors in a Western acting. And your mind might go to your favorite gun scene in your favorite movie. You may picture actors and actresses doing exactly what you see here. The other actors in Rust are doing the same thing that Mr. Baldwin was doing. But when you come back from that moment, remember, this is a homicide trial. And you will see soon that the reason they play those videos of him over and over is because they don't have any evidence of actual homicide. And you will learn the truth. Not a day goes by when we don't wish Alec had saved her life. But never, the witnesses will tell you in the history is something that an actor has done, intercepted a live bullet from a propaganda, no actor in history. No one could have imagined or expected an actor to do that. So just remember that truth. So when they cry out justice, justice is truth. This was an unspeakable tragedy. Alec Baldwin committed no crime. Thank you. - So I think that he did a great job. The defense attorney, there's even people in the chat saying, oh, you know, he's making some good points. He did, he did make some good points. But I just wanna, some of the things that he said, number one, he wants to focus on this. Alec didn't load the gun. Sure, he did not. The armor is responsible, absolutely. And she's in prison right now. Baldwin's conduct. That is something, yes, we have to focus upon. And it's very, showing his prior conduct on the set, seemingly firing this gun all over the place where they have videotaped of it. That can be taken into consideration by the jury. Four, his conduct did not create the shooting. Well, that is what the jury will be deciding. And that, but the attorney says, you know, fully it didn't create the shooting. One of the things I thought was very interesting, and I never thought the defense attorney would say this, he didn't intentionally pull the trigger. That's the first time I ever heard that language said. So did he inadvertently pull the trigger? And does that rise to the level of recklessness, which is the requirement to be convicted of criminally negligent homicide? Those are the issues. And then all the police for the this, the that, the bomb, two people already are guilty in this case. This is the whole case is will the jury determine that Alex's conduct was reckless. That is what this case, that one word, it boils down to your thoughts, Mike. - Billy, I thought the defense attorney did a great job presenting the case. I thought the prosecutor did a great job too. I talked early about the length and the breadth and what was actually introduced during the opening statement is a little odd to me being from New York, but I guess that's just the way to do it. I thought probably his strongest, the thing, the two strongest things was that he talked about the destruction of the gun and that perhaps that model having a very, very slight to the touch, kind of like a hair trigger kind of thing. I think that's going to be a bone contention and the fact that the FBI destroyed it, you know they're going to be all over that. I think the other part that he said was very good was that in the New Mexico statute for criminally negligent homicide, upon which he's being charged, it says, a person is guilty of criminally negligent homicides, homicide if they act recklessly. Now he used the term recklessly and he defined it properly. It's foresight, you have foresight that your actions are liable, are endangering lives and you are disregarding a known danger. So he's going to pound that into the jury to say look, criminally negligent homicide requires Alec Baldwin to have the ability to see, foresee into what he is doing, or see what he's doing is actually risky to someone's life. And without Alec consciously knowing that and disregarding that known danger that someone could die, then he's not guilty of criminally negligent homicide. If the jury thinks that Alex acted with foresight and thought that what he was doing could possibly endanger someone's life and he acted anyway with full knowledge of that danger, then you could find him guilty of criminal alleged homicide. This I think are two really good points that the defense brought up. And I think the fact that you've got Hanukkah Tierra's and David Wells already guilty, I think he's going to distance himself from them and he talked about the bullet and the destruction of the gun, the sloppy procedures for the crime scene and they never actually got the bullet so that the big question is, how could a live round actually have been found on a movie set which is totally against protocol? Very interesting, I thought he did a great job. - I know I did too, but I just don't want to lose sight of what the issues are. Then the jury will be deciding almost that one single issue was his conduct reckless because that is the statue. That is the word and used in criminally negative homicide that your reckless conduct created a grave risk of death and caused the death. And that is the trial in itself. Mike, we've been on for an hour and 40 minutes. I think it was interesting to hear the opening statements of the prosecution and the defense. We'll come back to this case, but I don't think this case is slated, I think to last maybe seven or eight days, it's not going to be like another trial that lasted six or eight weeks, it's not going to last that long. And I, you know, just in my summation, but yeah, the FBI destroying the gun, that's horrible. That's never a good thing. I mean, will it become an issue in this case? It could, it could, I mean, that'll be left to the jury. Now, I mean, I think both sides has great arguments. - Sure. - It's all what the jury in this case is going to believe. And that's, that's what it comes down to. I don't think you need final thoughts 'cause you gave us a huge summation right there. - And I get paid by the word. - Pamela White, I'm not sure Alec could be considered acting recklessly if all he did, as Alec stated, was just doing what the script and director told him to do. But Pamela, that's where reality just collides with fantasy. Because the reality is that it's a firearm. And you're not supposed to point a firearm and another human being. And the other thing was, did he pull the trigger? And that will determine whether or not he was reckless or not. And again, we're not going to litigate this case right now. But those are the issues. And anyway, folks, thank you so much for tuning in. This was sort of an unannounced episode of Police Off The Cuff Real Crime Stories. I'm Bill Cannon. We'll see you soon on behalf of myself and Professor Mike Geary. Have a great day and God bless. (upbeat music) ♪ Just hangin' on ♪ ♪ Get it left up ♪ ♪ Get it in, you too ♪ ♪ You've made a better stand, you too ♪ (upbeat music)