The armorer faces up to 18 months in prison for the fatal shooting of a cinematographer by Alec Baldwin on the set of the Western.

A movie weapons supervisor is facing up to 18 months in prison for the fatal shooting of a cinematographer by Alec Baldwin on the set of the Western film “Rust,” with her sentencing scheduled for Monday in a New Mexico state court.

Movie armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was convicted in March by a jury on a charge of involuntary manslaughter in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and has been held for more than a month at a county jail on the outskirts of Santa Fe.

Baldwin, the lead actor and co-producer for “Rust,” was pointing a gun at Hutchins when the revolver went off, killing Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.

…

Prosecutors blamed Gutierrez-Reed for unwittingly bringing live ammunition onto the set of “Rust” where it was expressly prohibited and for failing to follow basic gun safety protocols. After a two-week trial, the jury deliberated for about three hours in reaching its verdict.

  • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    0·
    7 months ago

    Special prosecutor Kari Morrissey urged the judge to impose the maximum prison sentence and designate Gutierrez-Reed as a “serious violent offender” to limit her eligibility for a sentence reduction later, describing the defendant’s behavior on the set of “Rust” as exceptionally reckless.

    Morrissey told the judge Monday that she reviewed nearly 200 phone calls that Gutierrez-Reed had made from jail over the last month. She said she was hoping there would be a moment when the defendant would take responsibility for what happened or express genuine remorse.

    “That moment has never come,” Morrissey said. “Ms. Gutierrez continues to refuse to accept responsibility for her role in the death of Halyna Hutchins.”

      • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        7 months ago

        Yeah. That is extremely disturbing to read. I’m actually kind of shocked, to be honest.

        Morrissey told the judge Monday that she reviewed nearly 200 phone calls that Gutierrez-Reed had made from jail over the last month. She said she was hoping there would be a moment when the defendant would take responsibility for what happened or express genuine remorse.

        Jesus fucking christ.

        The judge is now taking the word of a prosecutor who claims to have:

        1. “reviewed” nearly 200 private phone calls made by the defendant
        2. doing so specifically to find ex-parte ** statements
        3. of responsibility (subjective as hell)
        4. made by the defendant to others
          – and – this might be the biggest shocker of all –
        5. the prosecutor who is actively gunning for the highest possible sentence did not find any, despite claiming that’s what she was “hoping” to find.

        Okay. The list of wtaf problems here is long.

        Prison calls are not private, everyone knows that, there is zero expectation of privacy. But they are obviously skewed and unreliable, especially when statements are removed from surrounding context. There’s a reason wiretap laws exist, nor do states necessarily allow recorded phone calls to be used as evidence in court proceedings. Since when are they legitimate factors to weigh in a sentencing, when the facts of the crime have already been weighed out and judged – UNLESS they are entered by the defense?

        What the fuck does “reviewed” mean? Morrissey closely reading transcripts and/or listening to full recordings carefully and in context, OR – which I believe is far more likely – Morrissey skimming transcripts at home while she sips her Bud Light and half-listens to Law & Order reruns at the same time? “Close to 200” calls is a lot of “reviewing” for anyone. What does that even mean?

        It is the prosecutor’s job to be biased, just as it is the defense’s job. So why the fuck is this one suddenly claiming to root for the defense, “hoping to find” ‎information that would presumably lower the sentence if found? That alone is complete bullshit: no legitimate prosecutor anywhere is rooting for the defense to win in any way, including the reduction of a sentence.

        Along that same line, was the defense given notification that the content of the defendant’s jail phone calls would be specifically “reviewed” for content that would be used in her sentencing, and the weight that they would be afforded in making that decision? Was the defense also given the transcripts that Morrissey “reviewed” to “review” themselves? Was the defense involved in any of this at all?

        What constitutes the “acceptance of responsibility” for a crime in phone calls made to uninvolved third parties? Did the subject ever even come up? Because generally speaking, ALL parties involved in litigation are forcefully and repeatedly advised to keep their yaps shut about the case at all times. If the defendant took that advice, there would be zero context for such an “acceptance of responsibility” to be made, as the subject would be shut down and not discussed at all.

        And that’s before you get to the part where any defendant in a criminal trial, anywhere, is a complete fucking moron to admit to guilt audibly under any circumstances, including alone in the bathroom. (Anyone else remember Robert Durst and The Jinx?) To assume responsibility for a crime – whatever the fuck that means to a biased prosecutor to begin with – one must first discuss it, AND in the context of being guilty of it. If the defendant was smart and listened to her attorneys, she never discussed it at all. Thus it is entirely possible that in 200 hours worth of phone calls, the case was never even discussed, and this is the prosecutor taking that innocence and completely twisting it into something it never could have been in reality.

        I can think of more – like what part of “close to 200 hours” of calls were made to people who were irrelevant to any part of the defendant’s actions, like a dogwalker, and should be discarded from consideration anyway – but now we’re just splitting hairs.

        This is truly shitty news for anyone who would like to think there is still any form of fairness in a criminal trial. I have no idea what the local laws are there, or whether their own criminal court’s procedures allow for all this, but the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

        ** Ex-parte: “Of or relating to an action taken in a legal proceeding by one party without the presence or participation of the opposing party;” literally, one side only. Some of it is legitimate and allowable by local rules and procedures, but not everything.