Serving the High Plains
Serving the High Plains
By now, most New Mexicans are aware of the case against the movie star Alec Baldwin. It was getting plenty of play both here at home and abroad until, poof, it went away.
It shouldn’t disappear so easily. There are more than enough questions still left to answer.
The case against Baldwin was dismissed Friday after it was discovered that ammunition from the set of “Rust” had been “misfiled” and was not disclosed to the defense. That was enough to compel Santa Fe’s First Judicial District Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer to grant a motion to dismiss the case, which she did “with prejudice” so the case can’t be refiled against Baldwin.
This was more than a technicality. It struck at the heart of the case, and it raises some serious questions about the prosecution of this case.
In case you haven’t been paying attention to the trial of the moment, it all started in October 2021, when “Rust” was being filmed outside Santa Fe. A gun being used as a prop had been mysteriously loaded with live bullets, and Baldwin, the film’s co-producer and star, inadvertently fired the gun while preparing for a scene. Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was shot and killed. Writer/director Joel Souza was also injured by the shot.
Earlier this year, the film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for her role in the tragedy. She’s currently serving an 18-month sentence, but she may go free sooner than that now.
Meanwhile, Baldwin, the film’s producer, is already free to go.
Baldwin’s defense team wasted no time moving for a dismissal following disclosure of the “misfiled” bullets. It’s hard to see how the judge had any other choice but to dismiss the case after the critical piece of evidence turned up.
“There is no way for the court to right this wrong,” NPR quoted Sommer saying as she passed down her order.
The prosecution began to unravel when the missing evidence was discovered. Special prosecutor Kari Morrissey testified she didn’t think the evidence was relevant to Baldwin’s trial, but Baldwin’s attorneys disagreed.
The jury was dismissed while the judge considered how best to proceed. Another member of the prosecution, Erlinda Johnson, bravely resigned over the issue, leaving the judge to rule that the state was “highly culpable for its failure to provide this discovery to the defendant.”
Next up is reconsideration of Gutierrez-Reed’s conviction. Her attorney is already alleging misconduct by prosecutors for withholding the evidence and is seeking a dismissal.
The handling of these cases is not only an embarrassment to the state, it’s also a miscarriage of the judicial process.
On the prosecutorial side of this state’s judicial system, it begs the question, how many times does something like this take place? If a high-profile case can be handled so poorly, what about all the lesser-known cases out there? Is it a fluke or common practice to set aside valuable evidence based on a prosecutor’s discretion?
And perhaps just as importantly, what’s this say about New Mexico’s film industry? Are the proper health and safety protocols being followed on sets around the state?
Filmmaking is big business in New Mexico, and there should be consequences to irresponsible behavior on any and all sets — especially when someone is killed because a bullet replaced a blank in a prop.
Tom McDonald is editor of the New Mexico Community News Exchange. Contact him at: