Today in Santa Fe County First District Court the prosecution and defense made their opening statements in the involuntary manslaughter trial of Alec Baldwin. They needn’t have bothered.
Baldwin is going to be acquitted and it’s only a matter of time.
Though I’m a veteran homicide prosecutor and former criminal defense lawyer, this is not really a bold prediction. Rather, it’s an honest assessment of what both sides have described that they intend to prove and a review of the applicable New Mexico (New Mexican?) statute that criminalizes involuntary manslaughter.
The prosecution is relying on evidence that will show that Baldwin routinely had his finger on the trigger of the firearm which is not just terrible firearm discipline – for anyone who has ever taken a handgun class, ever – but also apparently against the standards that Hollywood says they use for possessing firearms on sets. They are going to show that Baldwin “did his own thing” on set and with props and yet, since he is a famous actor who has been a Hollywood fixture since the 1990s, Baldwin “doing his own thing” couldn’t possibly come as a surprise to the jurors. The prosecutor also said, both curiously and rather pejoratively, that Baldwin was “playing make believe” with a “real-life gun” which, of course, means that the prosecutor appears to be unfamiliar with the concept of cinema in general and movie sets in particular. I’ll confess I’ve never been on a movie set, but it seems to me that “playing make believe” is functionally the stated goal of the enterprise.
The defense told the jury that the evidence will show that Baldwin was handed what was described to him as a “cold” gun. That is, the gun – even though it was a real firearm – was loaded with dummy ammunition. The defense also added a helping of suggested police incompetence into the mix. Since the defense has no burden in a criminal trial – they don’t have to prove anything, they just have to show that the state didn’t carry its burden – impugning aspects the law enforcement investigation is a sound defense strategy that could make the jury question the result of that investigation.
The defense has no burden in a criminal trial – they don’t have to prove anything; they just have to show that the state didn’t carry its burden.
However, I think the defense left a very important point on the table: that the law in New Mexico is decidedly on Baldwin’s side here. Now it’s easy to see why they left out this part. Opening statements are about story telling. Getting into the weeds of the New Mexico (New Mexican?) statutes during opening is not telling a great story.
However, because you, gentle reader, are a subscriber (or even casual fan with commitment issues) to The Crime Enthusiast, I am here to break down the law for you and tell you why Baldwin is going to walk out of the Santa Fe First District Court a free man.
We start with Section 30-2-3 of the New Mexico Statutes. The statute is the written law, passed by the New Mexican (that sounds right, doesn’t it?) legislature which criminalizes conduct. For you to have “broken the law” there has to be a law prohibiting the conduct you’ve committed. That’s the statute. To prove a violation of the law, and qualify you to own of one of those snazzy orange jumpsuits, the prosecution has to show that you violated the terms of the statute. The important bits of the involuntary manslaughter statue in New Mexico reads as follows:
“Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.”
I know. A lot of word salad there, right? Lawyers. Gotta love us. But let’s take this apart and see which part of the statute the prosecution has to be traveling under: what they have to prove to win. A person in New Mexico can commit involuntary manslaughter – which is the unlawful killing of another – in basically three ways.
The first way is “in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony”. Think of a speeder tearing down the streets of Albuquerque at 80 miles an hour in a thirty-five mile per hour zone. The speeding is not felony conduct but it is an “unlawful act” (a misdemeanor). But if a person steps off an Albuquerque sidewalk and gets fatally hit by the speeder, the speeder has committed involuntary manslaughter. However, this varietal doesn’t apply to Baldwin because no one is saying he killed Ms. Hutchins during the commission of an unlawful act. “But wait,” you are crying out at home, “isn’t killing someone an unlawful act?” It can be of course but, under this statute, the unlawful act has to precede the killing so that the killing is committed in the course of the unlawful act. Baldwin pulling the trigger of gun on a movie set isn’t illegal for him to do as a general proposition so it can’t be the preceding “unlawful act” to an involuntary manslaughter charge.
The second way to commit involuntary manslaughter is “in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner”. This varietal is trickier. A good example is if a person’s home is being broken into and they defend themselves from the assailant with a bazooka that blows up the innocent neighbor’s house across the street. Sure, you have a right to defend yourself when you’re being attacked in your home (“the commission of a lawful act”) but using a bazooka is too dangerous to passers-by and, obviously, your across-the-street neighbor who was incinerated by your use of said bazooka (“produce death in an unlawful manner”). This varietal is closer to what Baldwin did but still not there. It’s okay for Baldwin to use the firearm on set and even okay for him to pull the trigger, in fact, that conduct will even be required later in the day.
The final varietal, and the one the prosecution is traveling under, is “without due caution and circumspection.” And here’s where the prosecution’s case will inevitably fall apart. New Mexican (I really still don’t know if that’s right) courts have determined that the phrase “without due caution and circumspection” involves the concept of something called “criminal negligence”. Basically, the state has to prove that Baldwin acted recklessly, wantonly, or willfully in causing the death of Ms. Hutchins. That’s why, in opening statements, they kept harping on the fact that Baldwin was using the gun as a pointer, putting his finger on the trigger, and generally being “careless” with the gun.
“If someone you worked with handed you a water gun at a water gun fight, would you imagine it was not filled with water but, instead was filled with armored piercing rounds or even battery acid? “
But here’s the thing: the testimony will be that Baldwin was handed a gun by armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and told it was “cold”, meaning it did not have live ammunition in it. Not only was it Gutierrez-Reed’s job to ensure the firearm did not have live ammunition (and not Baldwin’s) but it was also the job of first assistant director Dave Halls to supervise her work (also not Baldwin’s job). Baldwin could have reasonably relied on the fact that they did their jobs and that the firearm in his hand was as harmless as a water gun or a banana. All the jury needs to have is a reasonable doubt that Baldwin acted recklessly, wantonly, or willfully when he pulled the trigger on a gun that he was told by qualified professionals was loaded with blanks.
If someone you worked with handed you a water gun at a water gun fight. Would you imagine it was not filled with water but, instead was filled with armored piercing rounds or even battery acid? Would you even check? Neither would I.
And that’s reasonable doubt, folks.
The death of Halyna Hutchins was a terrible, and completely avoidable, tragedy. But Alec Baldwin isn’t criminally responsible for it. So, when he’s acquitted later next week, you can impress your friends by telling them you knew it all along.