Big Blue Huddle

 I know we had discussed this a while back but this news has just appeared and maybe the discussion should be renewed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/alec-baldwin-to-be-charged-with-manslaughter-in-fatal-shooting-on-the-set-of-rust-da-says/ar-AA16wnMu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2a1341dc4dc4433cb1211c27bd2d3148

 Myself, and most of us, are not privy to all the facts, but I believe that Baldwin should not be guilty of anything IF what they say, that he was just handed a gun, as a prop, and never even assumed it could be more than a prop, how can he be charged with manslaughter?

I don't know either although the article mentioned him as a producer of the movie. Maybe since it was a revolver, they believe he should have recognized a live round? I don't see how unless protocol was to inspect the cylinder.

I Googled the special prosecutor who was in charge of the case.  I will just say that I was not shocked when I learned about their background.  That is all I am going to say on this matter.

I know next to nothing about this, but I will say I have a good friend who worked on the set of Walker, Texas Ranger and he said that the prop/weapons guy on that show was anal about making sure the weapons were safe and secure every step of the way. I guess as Baldwin was the producer in overseeing the entire set, he is somewhat responsible, but I think the Prop Master or whatever his title is, is the true responsible party and should be held accountable.

Back when this first happened some people seemed basically 100% certain there was zero chance of criminal charges coming out of this. I think we need to remember that we only know what we read in the papers and online. There may be (and usually is in this type of situation) more information that we outsiders are not aware of. Not everything makes it into the NYT and other publications or into news programs.

If this was the English legal system, I don't think it would get very fair, perhaps Gross Negligence Manslaughter (there's a few versions of manslaughter here).

But I don't know anything about your legal definitions/tests.

Will follow this very sad case with interest

I've been thinking about this a little bit today. If this was in England it could be classed as Gross Negligent Manslaughter (I'm an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Procedure so have an interest in this stuff)

This is the test and my (simplistic) initial thoughts are in bold:

In order to prove the offence, the prosecution must therefore establish the following elements:

a) The defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased; - I read earlier that he was a producer, so I think this can be satisfied.

b) By a negligent act or omission the defendant was in breach of the duty which he owed to the deceased; This is tricky, it would need to be proven on a balance of probabilities (i.e. 51% or higher) that he didn't do his due diligence re: the gun. Not checking would be negligent but if the court were not satisfied by that, they could find that not checking was an omission (if it's standard practice to check it's not loaded. Of course, someone might have to sign off that the gun is fine and safe - either way, that could be an omission). 

c) The negligent act or omission was a cause of the death; Yes, this is the case

d) The negligence, which was a cause of the death, amounts to gross negligence and is therefore a crime; again, I think this is the case.

Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on February 07, 2023, 01:19:15 PMI've been thinking about this a little bit today. If this was in England it could be classed as Gross Negligent Manslaughter (I'm an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Procedure so have an interest in this stuff)

This is the test and my (simplistic) initial thoughts are in bold:

In order to prove the offence, the prosecution must therefore establish the following elements:

a) The defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased; - I read earlier that he was a producer, so I think this can be satisfied.

b) By a negligent act or omission the defendant was in breach of the duty which he owed to the deceased; This is tricky, it would need to be proven on a balance of probabilities (i.e. 51% or higher) that he didn't do his due diligence re: the gun. Not checking would be negligent but if the court were not satisfied by that, they could find that not checking was an omission (if it's standard practice to check it's not loaded. Of course, someone might have to sign off that the gun is fine and safe - either way, that could be an omission). 

c) The negligent act or omission was a cause of the death; Yes, this is the case

d) The negligence, which was a cause of the death, amounts to gross negligence and is therefore a crime; again, I think this is the case.

Excellent analysis, Ed.

Obviously, we don't know the precise differences between US and English law, but obviously the prosecutor's office believes there is a criminal case here.

One thing I read in a couple articles is that Baldwin may not have taken the various gun training sessions this project had very seriously. Ie, he was on the phone, not present, distracted, goofing off, etc during these sessions. If true, I have no idea if this makes him any more guilty of manslaughter, but I can't imagine sworn testimony saying that was the case is going to be helpful to him as far as the jury's opinion goes.

Here's a decent five minute video analyzing the legal implications of the Baldwin case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXIRwkC-x6Y

https://archive.ph/tNc2m

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 07, 2023, 07:10:11 PMExcellent analysis, Ed.

Obviously, we don't know the precise differences between US and English law, but obviously the prosecutor's office believes there is a criminal case here.

One thing I read in a couple articles is that Baldwin may not have taken the various gun training sessions this project had very seriously. Ie, he was on the phone, not present, distracted, goofing off, etc during these sessions. If true, I have no idea if this makes him any more guilty of manslaughter, but I can't imagine sworn testimony saying that was the case is going to be helpful to him as far as the jury's opinion goes.

The bottom para is interesting, Dave. Thanks for that.

Would certainly point toward him not doing everything he should in order to not be guilty of negligence (through either an act or omission).

The prosecutors dropped the big chargers after milking as much publicity as possible from them

https://abcnews.go.com/US/da-drops-gun-enhancement-charge-alec-baldwin-rust/story?id=97337067

In the clear (criminally at least)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/charges-dropped-alec-baldwin-fatal-set-rust-shooting/story?id=98734243

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on April 20, 2023, 03:40:39 PMIn the clear (criminally at least)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/charges-dropped-alec-baldwin-fatal-set-rust-shooting/story?id=98734243

Charges dropped, I hope there is a way Baldwin can sue the prosecutor because he was badly mistreated by them.

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 20, 2023, 03:59:00 PMCharges dropped, I hope there is a way Baldwin can sue the prosecutor because he was badly mistreated by them.

Whilst my criminal justice experience is limited to the England and Wales, I suspect US prosecutors are protected by immunity for recourse against charging decision.