With all the chaos and craziness that happened during the Baldwin Involuntary Manslaughter with a Firearm case, I need to jot my thoughts down and try to make sense of the senseless.
First, let me write out what Alec Baldwin was charged with. According to the document online, Alec Baldwin was charged with 1 count of involuntary manslaughter (negligent use of a firearm). In the document, there is an alternative charge which was involuntary manslaughter (without due caution or circumspection). For the first part, "the defendant did cause the death of Halyna Hutchins in the commission of Negligent Use of a Firearm, an unlawful act, which did not amount to a felony". For the alternative, "the defendant did cause the death of Halyna Hutchins by an act committed with total disregard or indifference for the safety of others, and the act was such that an ordinary person would anticipate that death might occur under the circumstances".
According to New Mexico's involuntary manslaughter statute, involuntary manslaughter is a killing which occurs under any of the following circumstances:
* While committing a crime which does not amount to a felony
* While acting in a reckless manner which may cause the death or another person
* While committing any other act which may cause the death of another person in an unlawful manner
Negligent use of a deadly weapon consists of:
1. discharging a firearm into any building or vehicle or so as to knowingly endanger a person or his property;
2. carrying a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicant or narcotic;
3. endangering the safety of another by handling or using a firearm or other deadly weapon in a negligent manner; or
4. discharging a firearm within one hundred fifty yards of a dwelling or building, not including abandoned or vacated buildings on public lands during hunting seasons, without the permission of the owner or lessees thereof.
"Negligent" defined. — "Negligent" means omitting to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do
According to the same resource, the defense for this charge is the death was an accident and the person was not acting in a reckless manner or with criminal negligence.
Now, the case was dismissed with prejudice by the judge because of an alleged Brady violation.
So, now we have to define what is a Brady violation which, according to the Cornell Law School website, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense. Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant's potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant’s guilt.
The defendant bears the burden to prove that any withheld information was both material and favorable. A defendant meets this burden if they can show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the information been disclosed.
Next, what evidence was withheld? It was evidence regarding live ammunition turned into the police department that had been filed under a different case number.
Now, is this evidence relevant to the charge against Baldwin. Per the statute, where the live ammunition came from, who put the live ammunition in the gun, when the live ammunition was put in the gun, why the live ammunition was put in the gun, and how the live ammunition was put in the gun are irrelevant facts. There is no defense that would be strengthened using any evidence pertaining to the live ammunition. Live ammunition does not say anything about the incident being an accident. Live ammunition does not say anything about Baldwin's handling of the gun.
The live ammunition evidence is not material as laid out in the previous paragraph. It is not favorable to the defendant, for the same reason, that it does not speak towards the handling of the gun. It is not exculpatory for the same reason. It does not impeach any evidence pertaining to the involuntary manslaughter since the primary evidence for the involuntary manslaughter is Baldwin's own words from his police interview and other interviews he did along with the standard rules and regulations governing guns on a movie set, and handling guns in general, none of which was proffered by the State at the time of the ruling. I would go as far to say that no relevant evidence had even been presented yet. Why the State did not focus on the handling of the gun and Baldwin's knowledge about guns on a movie set rather than chase all the defense's rabbit trails is beyond me. I really expected to hear more "Objection: Relevance"
Honestly, the dismissal was a knee-jerk and emotional decision that did not have a thorough analysis of the matter as it relates to the charges of this case. The judge said it was material, but did not say how it was material. Nothing supporting the assertion was given. It was said and everyone took it as a matter of fact. No one has given that supporting information or even done any in-depth analysis to ask the questions. It is being assumed that the non-disclosure was a Brady violation and I am not certain of that. It very well could be, but I have not heard a good argument for it from a law perspective as it relates to involuntary manslaughter. The analysis would be different for murder or voluntary manslaughter in which case the live ammunition would definitely be material evidence.
Now, putting Brady aside, what evidence could be submitted to prove involuntary manslaughter? Did Baldwin commit an unintentional killing by acts unlawful, but not felonious, or lawful, but done in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection?
His police interview provides the answer to those questions as well as other interviews he did since the shooting. The answer is yes, he acted recklessly and he definitely knew that it was since he stated that even blanks could possibly injure someone.
Now then, what are the essential elements of the involuntary manslaughter case:
1. The death of a human being.
Halyna Hutchins was killed
2. The death was caused by the defendant’s act or omission.
Baldwin pointed the gun at Halyna Hutchins. The fact she was shot proves that he did. He can argue that he was told to do it by the director which would be something that the jury would deliberate about to see if it absolves him of the act. I believe that was something he did say in either the George Stephanopoulos interview or police interview.
He pulled the trigger. There were many tests performed that proves that the only way the gun will fire is if the trigger is pulled. Baldwin says he did not pull the trigger, but this means these are two facts that a jury would deliberate about.
3. The act or omission was unlawful, but not felonious.
What are the rules of gun safety?
1. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded
2. Always point firearm in safe direction
3. Never point firearm at anything you do not intent to shoot
4. Keep finger off trigger until ready to shoot
5. Know your target and what is behind it
Baldwin broke every one of those rules. This is at the very least negligence as defined above. I believe that with regards to guns, if someone ignores these safety rules they are usually held accountable by law.
4. The act or omission was done without due caution and circumspection.
Baldwin's Stephanopoulos interview and police interview should be sufficient to show that he knew how dangerous guns were and still behaved without any thought to someone being possibly injured. It could be argued that he should have checked the gun and that should be considered reckless behavior, but again, that is something a jury would deliberate on.
Those are the facts that the jury would be debating. Nothing about the live ammunition needs to be submitted since it is irrelevant as it pertains to the elements of the involuntary manslaughter case.
I tried to connect the dots as I see them with regards to the charges and material evidence with supporting information to show that the evidence is material or that the evidence is immaterial rather than simply state that the evidence is material or immaterial. If the bullets are material evidence, okay, then step through the reasoning that illustrates this in a logical manner. Screaming and hollering "it's obvious that it matters" and "we don't know how the defense would use it" are not persuasive in the slightest and definitely would not work against an involuntary manslaughter charge. That is merely a smokescreen for a weak and unsupportable position. No one to my knowledge has done this analysis of materiality for the bullets with regards to involuntary manslaughter with the exception of Andrew Branca who has asked the questions.
All the people harping on the fact that information about the bullets was withheld is treating this like a murder trial and it just is not. The killing was unintentional and does not rise to the level of murder or voluntary manslaughter There is a lot of hyper-focus on prosecutorial misconduct to the point that everything is seen as a horrible miscarriage of justice, but every charge of a Brady violation should be analyzed with a rational lens and with the same presumed innocence that is afforded to the defense be given to the prosecution. For Brady, the deference goes the other way and no involuntary manslaughter defense would be effective using information about live ammunition, therefore, while something was withheld it was not anything that actually mattered to the case.
Yes, people are entitled to a good defense, but please, defend against the right thing and do a thorough analysis, not throw up a dazzling smoke-screen and harp on irrelevant nonsense.
Resources:
New Mexico Involuntary Manslaughter statute
New Mexico Negligent Use of a Firearm statute
Cornell Law School - Brady Rule
