Attorneys for actor Alec Baldwin, who currently faces charges of involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of his film “Rust,” filed a motion with the First Judicial District Court in New Mexico on Friday. The lawyers argued that Baldwin has been charged in the October 2021 death under a version of a New Mexico firearm law that had neither been introduced, nor passed until 2022.
If Baldwin were to be convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of 18 months under the 2021 statute, according to The New York Times. The new version of the law, HB 68, signed by New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham last March increases the maximum sentence to five years.
In the filing, Baldwin attorney Luke Nikas wrote, “The prosecutors committed a basic legal error by charging Mr. Baldwin under a version of the firearm enhancement statute that did not exist on the date of the accident.”
Nikas has a valid point. Baldwin should be charged based on the laws that existed at the time of the incident. Changes to laws made after the fact should have no bearing on his case.
The Times reported that Heather Brewer, a spokeswoman for the prosecution, issued a statement which said Friday’s motion was an “attempt to distract from the gross negligence and complete disregard for safety on the ‘Rust’ film set that led to Halyna Hutchins’s death.”
“The special prosecutor’s focus will always remain on ensuring that justice is served and that everyone — even celebrities with fancy attorneys — is held accountable under the law,” the statement said.
On Jan. 31, both Baldwin and the film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, were charged with involuntary manslaughter in Hutchins’ death.
Lawyers for Gutierrez-Reed filed a similar motion on Friday. The Times reported that attorney Jason Bowles “noted that Ms. Gutierrez-Reed was not holding the firearm when it discharged, arguing that the conduct she is accused of does not fit the language of the statute.”
New Mexico defense lawyer Steve Aarons told the Times that the court must apply the statute that was in effect on the date of the incident, which makes sense.
The debate over which version to apply also “hinges on the exact wording of the law,” according to the Times.
The article says, “The version on the New Mexico books when Ms. Hutchins was killed says the firearm enhancement applies when a weapon is ‘brandished’ in the commission of a noncapital felony. The newer version imposes a minimum five-year sentence if a firearm was ‘discharged’ in the commission of a noncapital felony. According to the law’s definition of ‘brandished,’ the action must be done ‘with intent to intimidate or injure a person.'”
In their motion, Baldwin’s lawyers point out that nowhere in the statement of probable cause is Baldwin accused of acting “with intent to intimidate or injure a person.”
In the statement of probable cause, Robert Shilling, a special investigator for the district attorney’s office, lays out the prosecution’s case against Baldwin. He is accused of negligence that “directly caused the fatal shooting.”
Shilling wrote: “BALDWIN was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming. Statements, depositions from OSHA, and evidence show BALDWIN was provided only minimal training on firearms, even after REED requested more training for BALDWIN.”
Shilling charges, “This reckless deviation from known standards and practice and protocol directly caused the fatal shooting.”
Asked by @GStephanopoulos how a real bullet got on the “Rust” set, Alec Baldwin says: “I have no idea. Someone put a live bullet in a gun. A bullet that wasn’t even supposed to be on the property.”
Watch TOMORROW 8pm ET on ABC and stream later on @hulu. https://t.co/fJQly1za1T pic.twitter.com/OnpDuYERiC
— ABC News (@ABC) December 1, 2021
In a December 2021 interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, Baldwin claimed he did not pull the trigger and that he’d been told the gun was “cold.”
Although these remarks and other similar ones did not win him much sympathy, there’s no indication that Baldwin had acted with any malicious intent. It had been an unfortunate accident caused by a man who had ignored the most basic rules of firearm safety.
Unfortunately, the results of this neglect were deadly. And Baldwin should be subject to the laws that existed in the state at the time of the incident.
A previous version of this article appeared in The Western Journal.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
I won’t attempt to know what New Mexico law is, and anything about the existing law and how it should have applied. What I do know is that he killed someone and wounded another, apparently accidental. If that is the case, and he is found guilty, it is up to that court, jury and how New Mexico law is applied, not the New York Times, or any other source.
I would have been more concerned if there was intent determined. What bothers me is that Baldwin went on TV and lied outright, about how the gun went off on its own, like it had a conscious. If he is not willing to accept that he had a role in that woman’s death, he should have punishment to fit that crime, also.
I’m concerned that the New York Times, and other sources, like ABC, have gone out of their way to trivialize a crime for someone they have a strong agreement with his ideology. That should never be the case.
This just makes me angry because I know a media outlet wouldn’t do anything to aid me, if it were I, instead of him. It kinda hints at the idea that Baldwin will only be judged by his Creator, and that may be his most harsh punishment of all, depending on his beliefs. Having observed his actions, and things he has said over the years, that might be his biggest hurdle. If New Mexico performs justice, that’s all I care about.
Baldwin’s narcissism is what will harm him the most, because he could have done a much better job walking the Earth if he only accepted that he had a pointed gun aimed at someone, and simply said it went off and he is full of remorse over the sad tragedy. Instead, he tried to make it all about someone else, which would have come out without his insistence. I think that makes him a coward.
Regardless of the circumstances, when one handles a gun he is automatically to assume it is loaded. Sorry Alec, you should know that.
I hope that little fact about gun owners and how they handle their firearms, is spread in the courtroom, because Alec failed that test, and he knows his damned finger pulled the trigger. He has been around too many guns to not know.