Author: the walter white of this generation (walt jr.)

I had a long af explanation but then I accidentally closed the tab, and now don't have the energy to replicate. Suffice to say that it's a little complicated, because the theory of the rounds' relevance is attenuated and their provenance can be very credibly questioned. The proxy I was referring to assumed that you agreed that it's not normal for a prosecutor to resign mid-trial in protest over a decision s/he views as unethical.

There's a sabotage theory out there that someone brought rounds onto the set deliberately in order to cause chaos (this is what I think happened; it's like people who throw bricks off interstate overpasses) or to make some quasi-political point (there were all kinds of labor disputes on this set; this theory seems lame to me, but who knows, maybe it exasperated some weirdo's preexisting grievances). The armorer's attorney made this point and was roundly mocked for having "no evidence" to support it, which to me seems to ignore the res ipsa loquitur aspect of this. (What I mean by that is: look at all the ppl ITT saying that it was totally reasonable for baldwin to point a gun at someone and shoot it b/c this is a movie set. What they're really saying is "the protocols in place to prevent an accident have been so refined and are so reliable that the normal rule-#1 safety requirements attendant to firearms need not apply; they have been replaced here with clean-room-type safety procedures administered by dedicated safety professionals." It's a fair question at what point a movie becomes shitty enough to where it's no longer reasonable for an actor (or a producer-actor (!), which to me is relevant, but the judge disagreed with me) to dispense with certain of the normal "don't shoot ppl" gun-safety rules (e.g., SAG guidelines prohibit what baldwin did, and it would also not be seen on a true high-budget film, but there's some evidence that it's standard practice for B-movies that aren't so bad they just paint on CG muzzle flashes). But regardless, one of the major premises of their argument is: it's nigh impossible for live rounds to end up in an actor's gun given the protocols in place. To me, the flipside of that premise, assuming it's true, is that when an on-set shooting happens, sabotage has to be kept in consideration until it's excluded, which normally only happens at the point at which the actual cause is uncovered -- which never happened here.)

Anyway, in this case, the armorer's father (also an armorer, but a real one, not a DEI nepo hire like his daughter) has been using his connections to poke around on set and with the various firearm/prop vendors that sold to the set and try to gin up somewhat-questionable evidence of sabotage and/or negligence not attributable to his daughter, in the hopes of undermining the case against her. I will broadly characterize these efforts as unconvincing at the specific level, but *definitely* the type of thing that a defense attorney would want to know about and be able to work off of, as the theory remains very strong (I still think more-likely-than-not) at the general level. I will note that I doubt there's any evidence out there that's going to fully exculpate the armorer -- her job, after all, literally involves directly monitoring the last steps of the process, not just administering the earlier-stage protocols that keep live rounds off the set altogether -- but (a) it might exculpate baldwin, who has an easier row to hoe here; and (b) the varying cases against baldwin and Gutierrez notwithstanding, baldwin just gets to relitigate shit that was decided in Gutierrez's case if he wants to (and he does want to, as he has better lawyers than she did and much more ability to pay the shit out of them).

Morrissey said that she reviewed photos of the rounds and they didn't resemble the live rounds found on set. I have no idea what means, given that my understanding is that the 6 rounds found around the set varied in caliber, headstamp, age, etc. (they were also found everywhere: mixed in with blanks, one was on another actor's bandolier, the one baldwin used to murder that girl, etc.) But apparently at least some of the distinguishing characteristics relied upon did not actually exist when the actual rounds were produced in court. (This is a point where I fully admit we need more information. Saying "those rounds don't resemble these rounds" without specifying, say, I dunno, caliber (?), is pretty classic NYT soyboy-level understanding of guns.)

Anyway, the prosecutor deemed these rounds to not be "material to the defense" based on the defense being that baldwin didn't pull the trigger, which is so wrong it just has to be viewed as bad faith -- and by that I mean a deliberately snarky/flippant expression of a decision that (hopefully) was not actually based on that analysis.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5553292&forum_id=2#47836337)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837035)

-completely abnormal for a prosecutor to resign in protest

-sabotage/mystery rounds theory is dubious because the provenance of the rounds cannot determined

-Gutierrez lawyer advanced sabotage theory (agent of chaos or someone with a political motivation) but was mocked for this. But it can't be ruled out.

-Sabotage theory can't be ruled out because the protocols on high budget films is believed to be airtight. Although this was a low budget film and Baldwin clearly violated Basic Gun Safety and the SAG guidelines. Either way people on movie sets have a reasonable assumption that protocols are being followed, thus sabotage must be considered

-Gutierrez dad went around drumming up exculpatory evidence by contacting his prop master friends to prove the round didn't come from her and thus advancing Sabotage Theory. This is likely all bullshit to get his daughter off the charge but it's the exact type of thing that defense attorneys want to have in their back pocket because it can benefit their case and maybe they can make a mountain out of a molehill with the jury.

-No concrete evidence that the externally delivered rounds have anything to do with the case whatsoever, but extremely bad faith by the prosecution not to put it in discovery anyway because it's just the type of thing that defense would want and it could be a moonshot for their case and not including it was just a big middle finger and the pros resigned in protest over it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837133)

(they were also found everywhere: mixed in with blanks, one was on another actor's bandolier, the one baldwin used to murder that girl, etc.)

Who was the other actor? Is there any scene in the script with a bullet? Why would that be brought into the building?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837161)

1. Everyone saying that Keanu Reeves deserves reasonable assumption that the gun is cold on the set of John Wick is ignoring the fact this was a low budget film. This is criminal negligence ipso facto. You don't have the same presumption of innocence here because you don't have the same protocols in place. Not all movies have the same protocols ergo you cannot grant blanket immunity. If I make a movie in my back yard it's not the same as John Wick. C'mon!

2. Hiring an inexperienced nepo baby and just assuming everything will be alright is also criminal negligence. This plays into Baldwin as producer. You can't hire a baby for instance and say well I ought to have a right to not follow basic gun safety on set! If the armorer has no idea what she's doing it's the producer's fault for hiring her.

3. The exculpatory evidence/sabotage theory being excluded was not intentionally to harm the defense. It simply wasn't relevant to the case. Gutierrez dad went on a fishing expedition and came up with nothing of relevance. This at best is grounds for appeal where a post conviction attorney would have to go to a judge and prove that some box of bullets her dad found had some bearing on the case. It did not. It's not the job of prosecutors to include pennies found on the sidewalk. And furthermore, getting slammed with endless busywork by expensive defense attorneys to the point of making minor mental errors should not be how justice is determined in our system. Let the jury decide and then go to appeal.

4. Lastly some low level bitch prosecutor resigning signifies nothing. Women are retarded and should not be taken seriously. Also New Mexico is a third world country. All these Latinas and dykes the system is a fucking joke. Cartoon world country. Baldwin is a criminal who got off on a technicality and should be in jail. Some things are left out of discovery for a reason, and that reason is lack of relevance. Dad found some bullshit in his buddy's garage, oh no, we must submit EVERYTHING into evidence! (Jfc no)

5. Lib judge seems like she was chomping at the bit to dismiss this with prejudice for political reasons. IE FUCK LIBS.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837163)

Let's just give someone with no qualifications a chance on a matter of life and death because they might grow into the role? She was convicted of negligent homicide. She was criminally irresponsible.

Baldwin: "How could I have possibly known she would mess this up! I just hired a n00b for my film with no budget! Sometimes n00bs figure things out and grow into experienced armorers, sometimes they're criminally negligent and end up in prison! It's just a shot in the dark, but I bear no responsibility." LJL

You CANNOT have it both ways. You cannot both say you are taking a risk on a new hire with no qualifications AND say that you have JOHN WICK level of buttoned down safety. They cannot BOTH be true!!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837235)

You are essentially arguing there was *ABSOLUTELY NO WAY* to have possibly known that this individual woman was CRIMINALLY IRRESPONSIBLE? No way to have known? Does picking an armorer work like the NFL Draft? We *THINK* Johnny Manziel/Ryan Leaf are going to be big time QBs but oops we were just way wrong and no way to know???

Don't you think a big boy job matter of life and death (turns out the candidate chosen was ridiculously negligent to the point of sheer and utter irresponsibility, one would say 'unconscionable') that you ought to just pick random people with little experience and hope it works out? A young inexperienced girl who was only in the position to get the job because of who her dad was? You're still going down with the ship of NO WAY TO POSSIBLY HAVE KNOWN SHE WOULD BE THIS BAD IT'S ALL A CRAPSHOOT?

I would argue that in matters of, literally, LITERALLY life and death, in a situation where the actors on set ADVANCED THE ARGUMENT that they could not possibly bear ANY CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY over a live round getting into a gun, that there ought to have been more scrutiny on the candidate, or are we still going with NFL draft you just pick who you think will work out and no one can predict a bust?? in a LIFE OR DEATH SITUATION???

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837277)

Why is only Baldwin being charged if it’s about negligent hiring? I doubt he was the person directly responsible for sifting through resume and conducting the hiring process. Shouldn’t all the other producers be charged?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837301)

This imo is WRONG. You can't just entrust someone without the qualifications in a life or death matter. Ridiculous miscarriage of justice.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837314)

if the real ammunition was sabotage or a mistake that really shouldn't help baldwin's case unless it's the type of sabotage where a real bullet is made to look like a fake bullet and that's not what it sounds like

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837722)

Our discussion of the merits on xo hasn't been particularly high-quality (me included). Presumably everyone would agree that if some dude off the street said "hey walt, let's make a funny youtube video with my iPhone; here, take this gun -- it's loaded just with blanks, don't worry -- and shoot it at this baby" and I did so and killed the baby, I would be liable for some form of homicide. That's one end of the spectrum. The other end would be a wachowski siblings movie practicing state-of-the-art safety. What about a Neil Breen movie? (Neil breen is a crazy person who does these so-bad-they're-good vanity projects that have become immensely popular in the circles who enjoy such things. He has a "crew" technically, conducts "casting," shoots with lighting and drones and on film stock, but he's also a crazy person, and if I were in one of his movies there is no fucking way in fuck I would ever shoot at a person without checking every goddamn round personally.)

Another thing ppl have been ignoring is that safety protocols extend to the on-scene conduct itself. All the baldwin defenders are sitting around thinking "a bunch of these films have like 300 gunshots depicted in the final cut, which means there were probably >2,000 shots fired in cut takes, unfilmed rehearsals, etc.," which is true enough, but ignores that a vanishingly tiny number of those shots are even in the general direction of another actual person. This seems obvious once you say it, but every shot you look at in True Grit that shows John Wayne ALONE ON SCREEN shooting his gun "at" another person -- that other person is not actually anywhere near the line of fire. Even if both actors are on scene, SOP is to fire slightly off from the person since the camera can't tell anyway (I assume everyone knows this, but blanks themselves can cause injury, including death (see Jon-Erik Hexum) at close range, and if there's a barrel obstruction or squib round in there, it can be just as bad as firing a live round). Of course there are scenes you can point to where you clearly have both actors on scene, close enough to where the shooter clearly has to point the muzzle directly at the victim for the shot to be convincing, but: (1) if we're talking a contact shot or close to it (within a couple feet; think about "execution style" killings and "hostage taker" scenes), those have NEVER been done with blanks, as blanks will 100% kill you at that range; and (2) of the remainder, you're now talking an extremely small number of scenes, and additional safety protocols are taken in those instances, which are pre-planned and treated specially. This is why the John Wick example from the other thread was a relevant one (I know the guy just meant it as an illustrative example, but it's really more than that), because that *is* a film where there's a whole shitload of close-range shooting -- such that it would be impractical for reeves to be checking his ammunition personally -- and that example was countered by the director being like "I would never ever use live firearms in a film like this." Again, none of this is to say that it never happens that an actor has to, say, go through a full magazine of blanks while pointing his muzzle directly at another human, but it is rare enough to where it can be treated 'special.' The prosecution here had video of behind-the-scenes footage of a comedy film where the armorer rolled out a thing that looked like a stainless-steel surgical cart containing the gun and ammo to be used in a scene, and had the actor watch as each blank was speed-loaded into the clip in front of the actor and then handed to the actor, with a third-party observer verbally verifying the gun's status and the actor verbally confirming it. These sets are not just like the grown-up version of little kids running around with toy guns.

TO ME -- and the judge disagreed with me on this -- it is relevant that baldwin is (a) a star and (b) a producer, in the same way that it's relevant in these 18 USC 241/242 cases (where they prosecute a cop for deprivation of civil rights) based on failure to intervene against another cop's excessive force, whether the non-intervening cop was of higher or lower rank than the bad actor, more or less experienced, etc. Note that this doesn't even get into the question of whether he's liable by virtue of his role as the producer (your point #2). But to me, some 23-y/o chick living in LA with 5 roommates and working as a barista while chasing her dream of being an actress has less of an expectation of saying "woah woah woah, this doesn't seem right" when handed a gun and told to shoot someone, than a highly experienced actor with tons of leverage, and who in fact was partially in charge of setting up the high-level protocols of the shoot in general.

The prosecution here was going to show behind-the-scenes footage of baldwin doing all kinds of weird shit that he shouldn't have been doing -- like having people stand as targets during unfilmed rehearsals and shooting blanks at them -- in order to show that he was generally reckless in his handling of firearms on set.

My honest view is that it's a fact-intensive question and, if I'd been on the jury, I'd probably be inclined toward acquittal based on what I've seen of the evidence, but it's not this obvious open-and-shut case some ppl make it out to be.

2. This is a very different theory from #1, and I've seen no evidence that Baldwin was in any way involved with the hiring of Gutierrez or the implementation of safety protocols on set. Like I said, I do think his role as a producer is part of why there's a greater onus on him to not just go along to get along as shit is clearly going wrong on set (there had been **3** prior accidental discharges on set, 2 prior gun-safety-specific complaints, and a crew walkoff due to safety conditions), but the judge forbid such arguments.

3. Yeah, see the law and culture of criminal discovery is also kind of its own world, too. States vary, obviously, but in general -- I'll use the FRCrimP as my model, although it's true that states vary more from the FRCrimP than they do from the FRCivP -- defense attorneys literally just get whatever the prosecution gives them, and have virtually no ability to conduct their own discovery. The FRCP does not allow depositions, RFPs, Rogs, or RFAs; all Rule 16 is is a list of things that the prosecution is supposed to give to the defense upon ITS OWN DETERMINATION that the materials fall within the producible categories. (For the most part, these categories are (i) things the gov't intends to use in its case-in-chief (that's easy enough to administer); (ii) things seized from the defendant (lol, that's very kind of you, government); and (iii) things "material to preparing the defense," which is where all the disputes arise; this is supposed to be a broader standard than Brady materiality but still ultimately requires the gov't to make its own determination.)

This leaves tons of gaps and is in every way inferior to what a party gets in civil discovery. As one example, you very, very often do not get to talk to the other side's witnesses until you examine them at trial. "Well nothing keeps you from reaching out and having them talk to you voluntarily," you say? Well, first of all: lol. Second of all, yes, often you end up literally not being allowed to talk to the important witnesses: want to talk to the FBI case agent? sorry, the DOJ's Touhy regs forbid him from talking to you absent a Touhy request to the department, which they will deny (they'll point you to the 302s already produced, and will in no instance make the agent available for an interview); want to talk to the cooperating witness who's going to sink your guy? sure, but the ethical rules require you to go through their attorney, who knows damn good and well that his client's sentence will be based entirely on how happy the gov't is with him, and so will not allow his client to talk to you; what about the client's mom, who says she bought the gun that's the subject of the 922(g) charge and it was kept in the house for her own use? better not let the gov't know that defense is coming, or they'll move to have her appointed CJA counsel (which is always granted), and then you're in the same boat as with cooperating witnesses. Well don't these rules apply to the gov't? No, the gov't has the power to issue grand-jury subpoenas, which are basically ex parte depositions where the witness doesn't get an attorney (they can bring one to the courthouse, but he has to wait outside the door like an 18th Century house slave), and where they don't even have to show you the transcripts until after *they* call the witness at trial (courts do usually set an early Jencks disclosure deadline, but (1) it's like a week before trial, tops; and (2) it still only applies to the gov't's own witnesses.)

Another way it sucks is that, while I mentioned that the Rule 16 materiality standard is theoretically broader than Brady materiality, the former only applies to *documents*, not to orally conveyed information. (It may shock you to learn that the memo-writing and written-timekeeping practices of most fentanyl-distribution operations are not airtight.) So if a dude comes in and says directly "walt did not commit that homicide because he was with me the night of the murder," yes the gov't has to disclose that to my counsel, but if it's anything other than *directly and unmistakably* exculpatory -- as determined by the gov't -- my team will just never hear about it.

You will never hear the honest explanation for why we set up criminal discovery this way, but I'll give it to you now: it is much cheaper to run the system this way. That's it. It would cost whole a lot of money to administer a system where not only do we have to pay for poor ppl's attorney, but would also have to pay for those attorneys to conduct wide-ranging discovery, and also pay for the prosecution's attorneys to have to answer said discovery. This is fine in a civil case, where each side pays their own attorneys and we trust that monetary incentives will generally keep expenses proportionate to the stakes of the case, but we cannot have gross poor-people scumbags given free rein to spend up tons of cash like they're Apple v. Samsung... or even East Omaha Plumbing v. Cornhusker HVAC, Inc.

But this system produces unusual results in (1) cases where withheld information happens to be uncovered post-conviction (this "materiality" standard we've been discussing? you might think that a lot of problems would be solved by just interpreting it liberally to favor over-disclosure, but the problem is that it's the standard where, if the evidence was withheld, you're going to VACATE THE CONVICTION of a duly convicted defendant... this unattractive result leads courts to interpret materiality narrowly, which in turn leads prosecutors to under-disclose); and (2) cases where the trial defense happens to have a ton of resources to exploit the obvious stupidity of this whole system in real time.

If you're going to have a system where all the defense gets to defend itself is what the Government gives it to do so -- and that *is* the system -- then you have to have sanctions for the nondisclosure of evidence. Those sanctions rather clearly do not apply just to evidence that would (clearly? more likely than not?) change the verdict, but to things that defense counsel -- who, unlike the government, is the side with the incentive to be creative and make the most use of marginally exculpatory material -- could work off of.

Long story short on this point: most ppl know what Brady is, but I think a lot of civil lawyers and non-lawyers think of Brady disclosures as some super-awesome ethics-based, fallback protection that applies ON TOP OF normal discovery that the defense gets to conduct anyway. It's not. It is ~95% true that the ONLY thing that criminal defendants get, and the only information that they know about, is the shit that the government gives/tells them.

4. This doesn't seem to be a serious point. The prosecutor resigning is a proxy for the merits of the Brady issue, sure, but of course it's a reliable one. I don't know yet if Johnson is an ethical heroine or if this is a 'rats fleeing a sinking ship' thing, but either way, it shows that someone with strong institutional incentives in one direction is making a strong decision in the opposite direction.

This is just a 'by the way' point, but I hope it says something to ppl that a prosecutor would do this in a case like this, where they know damn good and well that they have a super-funded defense team AND a super-interested media that's actively looking over their should and was going to continue doing so post-conviction.

5. Yeah maybe. Name a highly publicized criminal trial in this country, and the bulk of the public wants conviction. This case probably had more pro-acquittal buzz around it than any I can think of -- and it included elite buzz (everything from law profs to news anchors), unlike, say, some of the recent racially charged prosecutions (zimmerman, rittenhouse).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837684)

1. Absolute garbage that the judge tossed all of Baldwin's irresponsible antics. Dogshit judge. Just do be wavin' guns around and shooting real blanks at people and tons of accidental discharges > It's all inadmissible! Yeah, right. Dumb cunt. All blue state crim judges are corrupt.

2. I think you overall agree with me that the set was not safe, cannot be compared to a tightly secure high budget film, and that Baldwin as well as anyone else involved in producing this deserves to be charged for such a criminally unsafe environment.

3. I read your towering word salad about how discovery actually works in our criminal justice system. Only sort of understand the point you're getting at. So 95% of the time the government hoses defense attorneys in discovery by not giving them anything to go on, because it's cheaper to do things this way and Tyrone can always be acquitted later on appeal. Besides providing a metric ton of context, I don't understand your larger point.

What's the relevance to this case. My outstanding question is why the fringe theory bullets Hannah's dad found in his buddy's garage that were deemed to be not related to the case were so exculpatory to the defendant that they had to be shared by the state? This is the nut of the issue. We still haven't gotten anywhere, here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837745)

You letting your own biases get in the way of having a serious discussion. I wouldn't judge anybody if they were inclined to feel the way you do about the facts. But please be less insufferable for your own sake.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837774)

Also this is my thread I do what I want you don't like it start your own thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837778)

I try to refrain from ever saying anything remotely controversial IRL so xo is my only outlet.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837782)

Actually the budgets probably aren't that different when you comp John Wick 1, and this isn't a home movie - its a real production starring a real star.

Most importantly, the shoot had the budget to hire (1) someone directly in charge of props and (2) someone directly responsible for arms.

Imagine being so stupid that there are 2 people on set whose basic job it is to make sure this doesn't happen and putting your blame on the voice of Thomas the Train.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837756)

Surely this is the procedure on big budget films like John Wick, too, which entrust life or death jobs to the deaf and blind routinely.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837763)

Why can nobody articulate the issue in a paragraph?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554596&forum_id=2#47837262)