I believe they are allowing Hannah Gutierrez to do a virtual appearance as well.

There is also discussion that Baldwins attornies, and Gutierrez's are trying to get the 5 year add on charge dismissed on the grounds that the law being used for it wasn't in place when the shooting happened.

Baldwins team is also trying to get Special Assistant Prosecutor Reeb removed as well...

Link

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
How many of us would be allowed that ‘courtesy’?

I can't say what they do in New Mexico. But virtual appearances for matters not involving witnesses, the presentation of documentary evidence, or final determinations have been common where I work since the beginning of the COVID epidemic. Courts and lawyers have found they work well. They speed things along - saving time and money. They help with judicial economy.

I can't find anything that describes the purpose of the hearing, but one report is that it is scheduled to last only 15 minutes. That tells me is something routine - a scheduling or status conference, perhaps.

So, lots of people would be allowed that courtesy.

Not special at all. I just managed testimony of a client who is a non-party witness. Everything was virtual.

The hits just keep on coming.

Alec Baldwin sued by Halyna Hutchins' family for fatal 'Rust' shooting

I question the journalistic objectivity of the author of this article:

quote:

Hutchins passed away on Oct. 21, 2021 after a gun Baldwin was holding fired on the New Mexico movie set.

The phrase "passed away" implies that Hutchins succumbed to a medical condition. She didn't "pass away" - a phrase which invokes images of a peaceful death in bed, surrounded by loved ones; Hutchins was killed. And saying that the "gun Baldwin was holding fired" implies no human intervention.

"Hutchins was killed on Oct. 21, 2021 after (or when) Baldwin shot her on the New Mexico movie set." This is far more accurate than the suspicious wordsmithing we see.

Karma has found him.

Alec Baldwin sued by Halyna Hutchins' family for fatal 'Rust' shooting

Fox News can be such a disappointment at times...

If the 'journalist'/author was set on accurate wordsmithing w/ some added journalistic flair in the article, 'Blown Away' on Oct. 21, 2021 by Alex Baldwin would certainly be accurate!

Here's a clue for us:

"Lauryn Overhultz is an entertainment writer for Fox News Digital. She has interviewed many celebrities including Tori Spelling, Luke Bryan, Shania Twain and more."

She's an "entertainment writer" and yet, she's covering a wrongful death.

If you look at her other articles on the Rust shooting, she uses the same language.

https://www.breitbart.com/ente...her-halyna-hutchins/

The Alec Baldwin western, Rust, that has been bombarded by indictments and lawsuits over the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins is set to renew shooting in New Mexico, with promises of enhanced safety measures to be put in place

Hutchins’ family has also filed a lawsuit against Baldwin and the production seeking compensation for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, months after Baldwin settled a similar lawsuit with Hutchins’ husband.

Now, Baldwin and the producers of the movie are announcing that filming is resuming after instituting enhanced safety measures, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

“The production will feature enhanced on-set safety protocols, including safety supervisors and a prohibition against any working weapons or ammunition. Live ammunition has always been barred,” the paper noted.

The Reporter added that Hutchins’ husband, Matthew Hutchins, has offered his “full support” for the resumption of filming after Bianca Cline (American Horror Story) was hired to replace the deceased cinematographer on the project.

The scene Baldwin and crew were rehearsing that caused Hutchins’ death has also been scrapped.

Shameless. This movie project should not resume. They are actually using this horrific incident as free advertisement for this film. The producers of this film- including Baldwin- know that the lurid fascination of the American public will cause people to want to see it, who would otherwise have no interest in it.

I have no interest either.

Also The Hunt for Red October comes on often. Its a movie I have seen many times and could watch many more times but now when Baldwins face shows up I have to turn it off.

I’m guessing he’ll use it to show how safe he is and/or how serious about safety he is in an effort prove how he wasn’t responsible for killing Hutchins.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
I’m guessing he’ll use it to show how safe he is and/or how serious about safety he is in an effort prove how he wasn’t responsible for killing Hutchins.

I'm guessing that would not be admissible evidence, if you mean he would try to use that at trial.

I was thinking in the court of public opinion.

I’m curious though, could it be brought up in sentencing should he be found guilty?

The fact that Mathew Hutchins used the tragedy to score a Producer credit is cringe inducing.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
I was thinking in the court of public opinion.

I’m curious though, could it be brought up in sentencing should he be found guilty?

Doesn't it cut the other way, though? Making it better after the fact makes you look worse for not doing it in the first place.

But I still don't think it is admissible, although since I don't do criminal cases, I am not sure about admissibility in sentencing hearings.

quote:

The Reporter added that Hutchins’ husband, Matthew Hutchins, has offered his “full support” for the resumption of filming after Bianca Cline (American Horror Story) was hired to replace the deceased cinematographer on the project.

It appears that Balwin (through his lawyers) has made some kind of offer to the family to provide compensation for their loss via profits gained by the release of the completed movie project. Disgusting? Sure, but considering the millions of dollars in damages and attorney fees the civil suits can potentially cost Baldwin and other defendants, I guess it's not surprising.

Typical Hollywood sleaze. The people listed as producers on a film may have direct involvement with the making of a film, but more often they are financiers. When you see "associate producer" in a film's credits, this is usually someone who is owed some kind of favor by the producers or it's used to grease the wheels in some way.

My God, if someone had killed my wife and then turned around an went on national TV lying about their culpability, and who then offered to make me a partner in some business venture of theirs, I'd tell them to shove it up their ass, and that I am going to sue the son of a bitch into oblivion.

"Well, Para, it's complicated."

No it's not. What it is, is manslaughter.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
I was thinking in the court of public opinion.

I’m curious though, could it be brought up in sentencing should he be found guilty?

Doesn't it cut the other way, though? Making it better after the fact makes you look worse for not doing it in the first place.

But I still don't think it is admissible, although since I don't do criminal cases, I am not sure about admissibility in sentencing hearings.

Admissable? I'd expect the court case/sentencing to be concluded long before the movie gets released, so unlikely to be a consideration anyway!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...n-Rust-shooting.html


Victory for Alec Baldwin as Santa Fe prosecutors DROP key 'gun enhancement' charge in 'Rust' shooting death of Halyna Hutchins: Embarrassment for DA for belatedly spotting 'basic legal error'
Baldwin and Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed were both charged with involuntary manslaughter in January

Both have now had their enhanced gun charges dropped after the actors legal team filed an argument in court

They say that the charges could not be brought because a change in the law used to file them was not completed until seven months later

Can't charge someone for doing something that wasn't a crime when they did it. At least I think that's what the Constitution says.