Embed from Getty Images
As we’ve been covering, Alec Baldwin’s involuntary manslaughter trial for the death of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins went from jury selection on Tuesday July 9, to dismissal with prejudice — meaning Alec can never be recharged — by Friday July 12. Alec’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case after they learned of evidence the prosecution had failed to disclose, which is a major Brady violation. It was a pretty stunning turn of events, and I’m still gobsmacked that the prosecutors made such a blunder. And the ripples may still be coming: Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was convicted of the same charge earlier this year and sentenced to 18 months in prison, where she is now. She’s already appealed the conviction, but legal experts say she could have her conviction overturned on the same grounds as Alec:
‘Lost by the prosecution’: “I fully expect Hannah Gutierrez Reed to make the same argument for her conviction to be overturned,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told CNN. “I think this case wasn’t won by Alec Baldwin as much as it was lost by the prosecution. … This evidence is more exculpatory and exonerates Gutierrez Reed even more than Baldwin.”
More about the evidence that was withheld: A crime scene technician testified that a man had delivered a box of ammunition to the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office after Gutierrez Reed’s conviction. Troy Teske, a retired cop and friend of the armorer’s father, told investigators he believed the ammunition could be associated with the “Rust” case, according to testimony by crime scene tech Marissa Poppell. But, Poppell told the jury, the bullets were catalogued separately from Baldwin’s case and were not included in the “Rust” case inventory or tested to see if they matched the lethal round.
The Brady rule: Baldwin’s defense team argued prosecutors buried this evidence. His attorneys claimed in a motion the state “unilaterally withheld” evidence that could be favorable at his trial — a violation of the Brady rule, named after the 1963 Brady v. Maryland case. The rule requires prosecutors “to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government’s possession to the defense,” according to Cornell Law School.
Hannah’s attorney will file for a dismissal: Jason Bowles, Gutierrez Reed’s attorney, told CNN Friday that he will seek freedom for his client. “The judge found intentional misconduct and we also have had the same failures in Hannah’s case by the state. We will be moving for dismissal of Hannah’s case,” Bowles said.
Relevancy: [Judge Mary Marlowe] Sommer was also the judge in the armorer’s trial. Her ruling regarding the failure to disclose the ammunition should carry significant weight in the Gutierrez Reed case, CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson said. “I think what you’re going to see is a motion from her attorney giving the indication that when she was on trial, she did not have this information,” Jackson said. “Clearly, it was in the prosecution’s control. Clearly, it was brought to the prosecutor’s attention. And prosecutors don’t get to make a unilateral decision as to whether something’s relevant or important in the case. It’s shared and then assessed and analyzed.”
‘A tragedy to the victims’: Rahmani, referring to Gutierrez Reed, said: “I fully expect either the trial court or the appellate court to overturn that conviction. It won’t just be Alec Baldwin who’s a free man. Hannah Gutierrez Reed will go free as well. And it’s really a tragedy to the victims in this case.”
Well, sh-t. Color me stupid, but when the news broke about Alec’s dismissal, it didn’t even occur to me that it could benefit already-convicted Hannah. It’s curious that the judge is the same for both cases. Judge Sommer can’t really maintain one opinion/ruling for Alec and a different one for Hannah, right? But since Judge Sommer did not hold back at all in her scolding of Hannah at the sentencing hearing, my prediction is that she will overturn the conviction… after a preamble reiterating how reckless Hannah was in her job as armorer. And we don’t have nearly enough info yet, but there’s something fishy about the detail that the man who first brought the withheld evidence to the Sheriff’s Office is a friend of Hannah’s father.
The final expert quoted got it right, though: this is all a terrible miscarriage of justice for Halyna Hutchins, and my thoughts are with her husband, her son, her sister, and her parents.
“the bullets were catalogued separately from Baldwin’s case and were not included in the “Rust” case inventory or tested to see if they matched the lethal round.”
Imo, it doesn’t matter who brought the new evidence. They intentionally hid it. All of them should be fired. If they are doing this in a very publicized case, imagine what they are doing in cases where people don’t have money for a good lawyer. Why are you keeping the evidence under a different case file if the person told you it is related to “Rust” case? They need to lose their jobs.
Yes she will probably be freed. This wasn’t an error the police officers were caught repeatedly lying on the stand! They did this on purpose and nothing can remedy it but dismissal. So the victims family looses all sense of justice because of this shadiness. Disgusting
Insanely poor judgement by the special prosecutor. She led the decision to hide the evidence. Then Friday when she realized the judge was not having any of her bs, she should have dismissed the charges right then. Instead law enforcement and herself continued to either lie or admit to false testimony.
OK, what am I misunderstanding?
Because to me, the above article states that some random guy brought in a box of bullets after Reed was convicted (so, after her trial and looooong after the shooting), and a friend of her dad’s – a retired cop, so not a cop working the case, and not the person cataloging evidence – thinks those bullets MIGHT be related to the Rust case.
But why would he think that? And if there’s no specific reason to think that, why would they have catalogued them as definitely part of the Rust case? Wouldn’t that also be manipulating evidence, to include it as definitely part of a case, if they had no reason other than some unrelated guy saying they might be?
[Also, even if they had been catalogued properly, how would a box of bullets have helped exonerate either Baldwin or Reed? Either they would have been the live bullets that were in the gin and killed the woman, or they would have been the fake bullets they should have used but did not, right? So….what could the rest of the box of bullets show?]
Or is the retired cop/friend of her father the guy who brought the bullets in, and told the evidence cataloguer when he dropped them off that he thought they might be related to the Rust case?
If that’s the case, that’s also dodgy – so months later, you’ve been tried and convicted of manslaughter, and your dad’s former cop bestie – who wasn’t involved in the production – just happens upon a box of bullets that might have been from the production, and decides to turn them in?
If it’s the latter, it sure sounds like Dad’s cop friend knew this would get his little girl out of prison on a technicality….
@DK, if you get an evidence someone is claiming related to the case, you archive it under the case folder. Of course, you are gonna investigate it and determine whether it is related to the case or not. But, even the rejection of the evidence should be under that case AND you give access to the defense. The prosecution isn’t the judge. They can’t say that it was nothing to do with the case and throw it into the garbage. They present their case to the judge, then the defense makes their own case. They didn’t do that. They intentionally hid it under a different case number, so the defense AND the judge didn’t know about it. It violates constitutional due process
@DK, the crime scene tech said the lead investigator couldn’t interview Mr. Tesky while he was at the policer department because she was in court at the HGR trial. So it was during the trial the evidence was turned in and put under another case number. I imagine many folks who have genuine information may seem rando until someone bothers to investigate. And if this evidence was truly not meaningful why not go ahead and be transparent about it?
Of course people have to be accountable to their actions. This is a tragedy. But let me bring up the importance of unions, and the right to refuse unsafe work without repercussions, and the long hours, and rushing on movie and tv shoots.
that is true, and yes, it is problematic in the industry. but it’s not really relevant here.
there should never have been live rounds on the set. they should not have been playing around with the guns in the off hours, with live ammo.
Hannah is responsible and I hope that she remains where she belongs – in prison.
Agreed, @catmom but what puzzles me is that when the case against Baldwin was dismissed with prejudice they specifically indicated on the news that the same evidence, to which Baldwin’s team did not have access, was offered to the defense in the armorers case but they refused the offer of access to the bullets (as irrelevant?). If true, they would be hard-pressed to argue any Brady violation.
@Mayp, that’s interesting. No way can she try to appeal based on these grounds if her attorneys were offered this bit of evidence and refused it.
And ITA with you both: this entire thing is on her and I hope she stays in prison where she belongs.
Not a lawyer but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk for Hanna. My understanding a brady violation discovered before, during or after conviction have different standards. After her conviction Hanna’s lawyers must show that is is likely the evidence would have changed the outcome. Alec’s lawyers only had to show it was hidden, the trial underway, and there is every chance they would have opened and preceded differently if they had the hidden info. They didn’t have to prove it showed Alec was innocent.
I was kind of wondering the same thing. This article says that evidence was brought in (by her dad’s friend) AFTER she was convicted. How can they argue that it was hidden from them the same way Baldwin’s lawyers did?
@Jill, they should have informed her lawyers that a new evidence was presented to them. It still counts as a violation. I remember reading that even after conviction, they can make a case for Brady violation in case of new evidence being hidden by the state. But, it is up to the judge.
Repeating what I posted above, the crime scene tech said the lead investigator was in court at the HGR trial when the new evidence came in, it was during trial not after. I believe the man expected to be a defense witness, found out he wouldn’t be called so turned what he had into the police.
I feel horrible for the family. Now they have to keep going through this day after day.
The case with Hannah is different since Kari actually brought this knowledge to Jason Bowles who rejected the evidence. And had Troy Teske on his witness list and did not call him to the stand. Personally, I think Jason did not want this brought in for Hannah’s case. Since if it was tied directly to Thell Reed her stepfather. That would make Hannah look worse.
But now he is trying to change the narrative to make them seem they were in the dark. When they weren’t exactly in the dark. If anything, he could have asked for a continuance and get the bullets tested. He had options and chose not to utilize them. I wonder if Hannah would have a case for ineffective counsel. I have a feeling; Hannah may get a new trial. But I don’t think her case will be dismissed. Which again, will put the family through hell all over again.
But the chain of custody on this new evidence was just pure incompetence. Which like the Judge said came scorchingly close to the line of bad faith. I will never understand why Kari decided it had no evidentiary value and didn’t disclose it. As a lawyer she knew better. Especially, when it really was irrelevant to the case. It was about Alec’s behavior on set. I will be interested to see if she gets sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct.
It was Hannah’s job to check each bullet for safety. It was Dave Halls job to keep the set safe. They just rushed, were sloppy and disorganized. There is even a text Hannah sent to Seth and asked if she could shoot live rounds from the guns supplied by Seth Kenney. And he said NO. I don’t think the bullets came from Seth. I think Hannah brought them on set. Got them mixed up and that is how Halayna died.
To me, Alec at the least was guilty of negligent use of a firearm. I don’t know about manslaughter. But my gut told me at the start the jury would split the difference.
Thanks for the breakdown! I feel for Halayna’s family.
I mean… I live in the EU, I say this because we have a completely different law logic, but I watched The Good Wife and even I know that a Brady violation is one of the biggest no-no’s!
I even know the term Brady violation and thank you for quoting where the name came from!
If Hannah’s conviction is overturned, that will be a gross miscarriage of justice for the victim’s family, but perhaps there’s some comfort in the reality that she’s professionally ruined. There’s an approximately 0% chance that she’s working on another film set. No one wants that kind of risk and no insurer would cover that project.
I am less worried about her working on a film set. And more worried about her being legally able to own a gun again. At least with the felony that bars that from happening.
I don’t think her case will be dismissed. Different situations and Jason Bowles was aware of this evidence during the trial and rejected it.
He’s just trying to turn sewer water into champagne here.
An interesting sequence of events that the lawyers laid out in their excellent presentation.
1) Cops focus from the beginning on where the live bullets on the Rust set came from.
2) Seth Kenney’s prop company provided the weapons and dummy bullets to Rust.
3) Kenney and Thell Reed (Hannah’s stepdad) were friends and worked together.
4) Just before Rust, Kenney and T Reed worked together in TX, teaching Yellowstone 1883 actors with real bullets at a shooting range for ‘cowboy camp’
5) The bullets were reload bullets made by another friend of theirs, JS.
6) At the end of camp, over 100 are leftover and Kenney takes some in a green army can and T Reed takes the rest.
7) Kenney take his bullets to NM, T Reed takes his to AZ.
8) T Reed takes his to secure storage at his friend’s home, retired cop and judge, Troy Teske.
9) Kenney supplies the weapons and dummy bullets to Rust in NM on Oct 11.
10) After the shooting, Oct 21, Kenney is questioned and puts the blame on Hannah and T Reed as the source, tells cops about T Reed’s bullets at Teske’s house in AZ are likely from the same batch, neglects to mention his own bullets.
11) Teske shares pics and offers them to cops and prosecutor, who never picks them up in AZ
12) A search warrant at Kenney’s finds the green army can empty of bullets.
13) In March, on the last day of Hannah’s trial, Teske tries to give the box of bullets to the lead detective at the courthouse, but she doesn’t come over to meet him.
14) Teske goes to the police station and gives an interview and the bullets, directly to the main Crime Scene Tech on Rust, partially captured on bodycam.
15) The bullets and a report done much later are put under a different case number and the bullets were never sent for testing to see if they matched the Rust set bullets.
16) The Crime Scene Tech admits all under cross by the defence and says she was ordered to do it by her boss.
17) A motion hearing for dismissal happens on Day 3 on the trial and a key member of the prosecution resigns. Defence cites it being the fourth Brady violation by prosecutors.
18) Another Brady issue was a report by a gun expert prior to Hannah’s trial that said the gun in question had been modified. It was explained away by the prosecutor as a mistake in uploading the report.
19) The lead detective, now a Cpl, questioned directly by the judge and implicates the Santa Fe cops and the prosecution, including Kari Morrissey, saying it was a deliberate group decision to put the bullet evidence and report under an different case number.
20) Judge grants the motion to dismiss with prejudice.
– If the bullets from Teske match the Rust set bullets, it implicates Seth Kenney as the likely source of the live bullets on Rust.
Thank you!