Connect with us

Lifestyle

Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' trial to go ahead after judge denies motion to dismiss charge

Published

on

Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' trial to go ahead after judge denies motion to dismiss charge

Alec Baldwin in 2021.

Evan Agostini/Invision/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Evan Agostini/Invision/AP

A New Mexico judge has ruled that actor Alec Baldwin’s indictment will stand in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of his film Rust. In an order on Friday, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer turned down a motion by Baldwin’s attorneys to dismiss the indictment.

Baldwin therefore remains scheduled to go on trial in July for involuntary manslaughter. Nearly three years ago, during a rehearsal for a scene in the Western movie on a ranch outside Santa Fe, Baldwin was holding the prop gun that had been loaded with live ammunition. The Colt .45 revolver went off, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.

Baldwin, who was also a producer for the film, pleaded not guilty, and has maintained he was not responsible for Hutchins’ death. Shortly after the shooting, he told ABC News he had “no idea” how a live bullet got onto the set of his film, but that he “didn’t pull the trigger.”

Advertisement

In March, a jury found the film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, guilty of involuntary manslaughter and negligent use of a firearm. She’s now serving an 18-month prison sentence.

The New Mexico Environment Department’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau issued a citation against Rust Movie Productions and fined them for failures that led to Hutchins’ “avoidable death.”

The criminal case against Alec Baldwin

The high-profile criminal case against Alec Baldwin has had many twists and turns. Baldwin was first charged in 2023, but New Mexico’s case against him faced a number of setbacks: Baldwin’s attorneys fought to remove special prosecutor Andrea Reeb, a member of the New Mexico House of Representatives. She stepped down from the case. So did the district attorney who brought the case, after downgrading the charges against the actor. (Baldwin initially faced charges for a minimum of five years in prison under a “firearm enhancement” statute, but his legal team noted that such a law didn’t take effect in New Mexico until after the fatal Rust shooting.)

In April of 2023, the charges against Baldwin were dropped as two new special prosecutors were assigned. In October, they presented their case to a grand jury to determine whether he should be criminally charged. By January, the jury agreed to indict him.

But last week, Baldwin’s attorneys Alex Spiro and Luke Nikas asked Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer to dismiss his charges. They argued that during the grand jury hearing, the state’s special prosecutor unfairly stacked the deck against Baldwin, leaving out key testimony and interrupting witnesses multiple times.

Advertisement

“She doesn’t cut off anybody saying ‘I don’t like Alec Baldwin,’ that’s for sure. It’s always in one direction,” said Spiro.

Spiro argued that the “overzealous” special prosecutor engaged in “bad faith” by failing to make defense witnesses available to testify, and for presenting contradictory testimony.

Special prosecutor Kari Morrissey, meanwhile, was on the defensive with Judge Sommer. She denied that she had done anything nefarious before the grand jury.

“Everything he’s saying to you right now is a complete misrepresentation,” Morrissey said of Spiro. “I didn’t hide any information from the grand jury.”

She said she had planned to present several defense witnesses if the grand jurors asked for their testimony, and she denied that the testimony was contradictory.

Advertisement

“I want the court to understand that all I was trying to do was get the most accurate information before the grand jury,” Morrissey explained. She defended the testimony of witnesses, including that of veteran movie armorer Bryan Carpenter, who spoke about industry weapons practices during the grand jury trial: “Everything that Mr. Carpenter said is absolutely accurate about the way that safety protocols on movie sets are supposed to work.” She said Carpenter testified in the Gutierrez-Reed trial that the armorer is in charge of gun safety, and he testified before the grand jury “that the actor has a responsibility for the firearm once it is in his hand.”

Morrissey said according to safety protocols on movie sets, “The person who’s holding the gun isn’t supposed to point at anyone. The person who’s holding the gun is supposed to keep their finger off the trigger. The person who’s pointing, who’s holding the gun, is supposed to know what their intended target is. All of those are things that Mr. Baldwin failed to do. And that information was appropriately presented to the grand jury in this case.”

On Friday, Judge Sommer allowed the grand jury’s decision to stand.

A web of lawsuits

Since the fatal shooting in October 2021, a complex web of lawsuits has grown.

The Rust crew has filed a number of suits against each other. Serge Svetnoy, the film’s gaffer, or lighting lead, sued Baldwin, Guttierez-Reed, and a number of others involved in production. Then script supervisor Mamie Mitchell sued Baldwin and other producers and crew members, too. In 2022, Baldwin filed a lawsuit against the film’s first assistant director, the armorer, prop master and ammunition supplier, alleging negligence.

Advertisement

Halyna Hutchins’ family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against him and his co-producers, alleging their cost-cutting and reckless behavior on set led to her death. As part of the settlement, Hutchins’ widower Matthew was named as executive producer of the film, which resumed and finished filming last year. There is still no release date.

From their home in Ukraine, Hutchins’s sister and parents also filed a civil suit against Baldwin, his co-producers and some crew members.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Lifestyle

'Wait Wait' for July 27, 2024: With Not My Job guest Kathleen Hanna

Published

on

'Wait Wait' for July 27, 2024: With Not My Job guest Kathleen Hanna

Kathleen Hanna of The Julie Ruin performs onstage at the 2016 Panorama NYC Festival – Day 2 at Randall’s Island on July 23, 2016 in New York City. (Photo by Nicholas Hunt/Getty Images)

Nicholas Hunt/Getty Images/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Nicholas Hunt/Getty Images/Getty Images North America

This week’s show was recorded in Chicago with host Peter Sagal, judge and scorekeeper Bill Kurtis, Not My Job guest Kathleen Hanna and panelists Meredith Scardino, Peter Grosz, and Mo Rocca Click the audio link above to hear the whole show.

Who’s Bill This Time

Momala Takes Over; Assigned Seats Are Back; And The Heat Is On

Advertisement

The Olympic Torch Reporch

Our Summer Olympics Preview

Bluff The Listener

Our panelists tell three stories about someone committing an office faux pas, only one of which is true.

Not My Job: We quiz Bikini Kill’s Kathleen Hanna on Hanna-Barbera

Advertisement

Punk icon Kathleen Hanna plays our game called, “Kathleen Hanna Meet Hannah-Barbera.” Three questions about the animation studio.

Panel Questions

Hide Your Receipts; VR Meets ER; Avocado Apologies

Limericks

Bill Kurtis reads three news-related limericks: Situation Room Cocktails; Burrito Bird; Hopped Up Sharks

Advertisement

Lightning Fill In The Blank

All the news we couldn’t fit anywhere else

Predictions

Our panelists predict what will be the big story out of the Paris Olympic Games

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

L.A. Affairs: At 77, I had a crush on my best friend’s widower. Did he feel the same way?

Published

on

L.A. Affairs: At 77, I had a crush on my best friend’s widower. Did he feel the same way?

At 77, I had given up. After two failed marriages and years of unsuccessful dating, I accepted what seemed to be my fate: single for almost 40 years and single for however many remained. You don’t get it all, I told myself. I was grateful for family, friends and work. Life settled into what felt like order.

Until Ty.

As the husband of my best friend, he was no stranger, but he was usually peripheral. Then 10 years ago, my friend got lung cancer. I watched during visits, stunned at how nurturing Ty could be, taking care of her even though they had separated years before at her request.

After she died, Ty and I stayed in touch sporadically: a surprise sharing of his second granddaughter a year after we scattered my friend’s ashes, an invitation to the launch of my book a year later. Ty attended, hovering in the back, emerging after everyone left to attentively help load my car.

Advertisement

Two more years passed. During quiet moments, I remembered his sweetness. I also remembered his handsome face and long, tall body. Confused about what I wanted, I texted Ty, who’s an architect, under the guise of purchasing a tree for my backyard.

We spent an afternoon at the nursery, laughing, comparing options and agreeing on a final selection. When the tree arrived, I emailed a photo. He emailed a thank you.

Another three years passed, broken only by news of his third granddaughter and my memories of how good it felt to be with him. Alert to his attentiveness, but unsettled by both his remove and my growing interest, I risked reaching out again, this time about remodeling my garage.

Ty spent several hours at my house making measurements, checking the foundation and sharing pictures of his home in Topanga. His sketches for the garage arrived two weeks later via email.

I was grateful for his help but unsure over what sort of friendship we were developing, at least from his point of view. I, however, was clear. I wanted him to wrap his long arms around me, tell me sweet things and make me his.

Advertisement

Instead, I sent a gift card to a Topanga restaurant to thank him for his drawings.

“Maybe we should spend it together,” he texted.

We dined in the dusk of late summer. Our talk was easy. Discomfort lay in the unspoken. Anxious for clarity, I repeatedly let my hand linger near the candle flickering in the middle of our table. It remained untouched.

And that was as far as I was willing to go. I refused to be any more forward, having already compromised myself beyond my comfort level with what seemed, at least to me, embarrassingly transparent efforts to indicate my interest. Not making the first move was very important. If a man could not reach out, if he didn’t have the self-confidence to take the first step, he would not, I adamantly felt, be a good partner for me.

Two weeks later, Ty did email, suggesting an early evening hike in Tuna Canyon in Malibu. The setting was perfect. Sun sparkled off the ocean. A gentle breeze blew. We climbed uphill for sweeping coastal vistas and circled down to the shade of live oaks, touching only when he took my hand to steady me where the path was slippery. At the end of the trail, overlooking the juncture between the mountains and the sea, we stood opposite each other and talked animatedly for almost an hour, both of us reluctant to part.

Advertisement

Our conversation was engaging, but my inner dialogue was louder. When, I kept thinking, is this man going to suggest we continue the evening over dinner? We didn’t have to go out. We could eat at his house. It was 7 p.m., for God’s sake. Passing hikers even stopped to remark on our matching white hair and how well they thought we looked together. It was like a movie scene where the audience is yelling, “Kiss her, kiss her,” rooting for what they know is going to happen while the tension becomes almost unbearable. But bear it I did.

Each of us ate alone.

A few weeks later, at his suggestion, we were back at Tuna Canyon. This time Ty did invite me to end the evening at his house. Sitting close on his couch, but not too close, we drifted toward each other in the darkening room. His shoulder brushed mine reaching for his cup of coffee. My hip pressed his as I leaned in for my tea. Slowly, sharing wishes and hopes for our remaining years, we became shadows in the light of the moon. And in that darkness, in that illuminated space, he reached out.

This reticent man, this man who was so slow to move toward me, this sensitive man who hid himself behind layers so opaque I was unsure of his interest, released all that he had inside him.

“I wanted you,” Ty repeated again and again. “I was afraid of ruining things. You were her best friend. I didn’t want to lose your friendship.”

Advertisement

Our pent-up tension exploded.

Stunned and thrilled, I leaned into the space he opened.

Three years later, it is a space we continue to share: a place where neither of us has given up, a place where he wraps me in his long arms, a place we hold carefully against our diminishing days.

The author is the owner of a preschool in Venice as well as a psychotherapist, photographer and writer. Her first book, “Naked in the Woods: My Unexpected Years in a Hippie Commune,” was published in 2015. Her newest manuscript, “Bargains: A Coming of Aging Memoir Told in Tales,” is seeking a publisher. She lives in Mar Vista and can be found at margaretgrundstein.com, Instagram @margwla, Medium @margaretgrundstein and Substack @mgrundstein.

L.A. Affairs chronicles the search for romantic love in all its glorious expressions in the L.A. area, and we want to hear your true story. We pay $400 for a published essay. Email LAAffairs@latimes.com. You can find submission guidelines here. You can find past columns here.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Lifestyle

'Deadpool & Wolverine' is a self-cannibalizing slog

Published

on

'Deadpool & Wolverine' is a self-cannibalizing slog

Ryan Reynolds stars as Deadpool and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine in an odd-couple action hero pairing.

Jay Maidment/20th Century Studios


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jay Maidment/20th Century Studios

When Fox Studios released the first Deadpool movie back in 2016, it played like an irreverently funny antidote to our collective comic-book-movie fatigue. Wade Wilson, or Deadpool, was a foul-mouthed mercenary who obliterated his enemies and the fourth wall with the same gonzo energy.

Again and again, Deadpool turned to the camera and mocked the clichés of the superhero movie with such deadpan wit, you almost forgot you were watching a superhero movie. And Ryan Reynolds, Hollywood’s snarkiest leading man, might have been engineered in a lab to play this vulgar vigilante. I liked the movie well enough, though one was plenty; by the time Deadpool 2 rolled around in 2018, all that self-aware humor had started to seem awfully self-satisfied.

Now we have a third movie, Deadpool & Wolverine, which came about through some recent movie-industry machinations. When Disney bought Fox a few years ago, Deadpool, along with other mutant characters from the X-Men series, officially joined the franchise juggernaut known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Advertisement

That puts the new movie in an almost interesting bind. It tries to poke fun at its tortured corporate parentage; one of the first things Deadpool says is “Marvel’s so stupid.” But now the movie also has to fit into the narrative parameters of the MCU. It tries to have it both ways: brand extension disguised as a satire of brand extension.

It’s also an odd-couple comedy, pairing Deadpool with the most famous of the X-Men: Logan, or Wolverine, the mutant with the unbreakable bones and the retractable metal claws, played as ever by a bulked-up Hugh Jackman.

The combo makes sense, and not just because both characters are Canadian. In earlier movies, Deadpool often made Wolverine the off-screen butt of his jokes. Both Deadpool and Wolverine are essentially immortal, their bodies capable of self-regenerating after being wounded. Both are tormented by past failures and are trying to redeem themselves. Onscreen, the two have a good, thorny chemistry, with Jackman’s brooding silences contrasting nicely with Reynolds’ mile-a-minute delivery.

I could tell you more about the story, but only at the risk of incurring the wrath of studio publicists who have asked critics not to discuss the plot or the movie’s many, many cameos. Let’s just say that the director Shawn Levy and his army of screenwriters bring the two leads together through various rifts in the multiverse. Yes, the multiverse, that ever-elastic comic-book conceit, with numerous Deadpools and Wolverines from various alternate realities popping up along the way.

I suppose it’s safe to mention that Matthew Macfadyen, lately of Succession, plays some kind of sinister multiverse bureaucrat, while Emma Corrin, of The Crown, plays a nasty villain in exile. It’s all thin, derivative stuff, and the script’s various wink-wink nods to other shows and movies, from Back to the Future to Furiosa to The Great British Bake Off, don’t make it feel much fresher. And Levy, who previously directed Reynolds in the sci-fi comedies Free Guy and The Adam Project, doesn’t have much feel for the splattery violence that is a staple of the Deadpool movies. There’s more tedium than excitement in the characters’ bone-crunching, crotch-stabbing killing sprees, complete with corn-syrupy geysers of blood.

Advertisement

For all its carnage, its strenuous meta-humor and an R-rated sensibility that tests the generally PG-13 confines of the MCU, Deadpool & Wolverine does strive for sincerity at times. Some of its cameos and plot turns are clearly designed to pay tribute to Fox’s X-Men films from the early 2000s.

As a longtime X-Men fan myself, I’m not entirely immune to the charms of this approach; there’s one casting choice, in particular, that made me smile, almost in spite of myself. It’s not enough to make the movie feel like less of a self-cannibalizing slog, though I suspect that many in the audience, who live for this kind of glib fan service, won’t mind. Say what you will about Marvel — I certainly have — but it isn’t nearly as stupid as Deadpool says it is.

Continue Reading

Trending