Virtual and Phone consultations available in all cases.
[Speaker 2]
Big day today with the highly anticipated opening statement starting this hour in the case in New Mexico against A-list actor Alec Baldwin. I also want to welcome in a new guest on the program, criminal defense attorney Lauren Johnson Kelly. Great to have you both on today.
So let's chat a little bit about the Baldwin defense. Criminal defense work is what you do. Tell me your thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages the team has as they're going into this case defending their client, A-list actor Alec Baldwin.
No longer.
[Speaker 1]
Well, good morning and thanks for having me. You know, the ruling just two days ago that excluded one of the prosecution's theories of the case, that Baldwin as the producer was responsible for this death, the elimination of that ruling leaves just one theory for the prosecution. And that's that Baldwin is the actor who was responsible for the negligent use of the firearm.
So the defense is going to go in really focusing on why the armorer was the true culprit here, why the armorer was responsible for making sure that that prop gun was safe to be used in this film and deflect responsibility from Baldwin onto the armorer. That's definitely going to be the focus of their case.
[Speaker 2]
Absolutely. Lauren. And you're right.
They got a huge win the other day with that ruling. Now there's so much that the jury won't be seeing. There were videos I know that the state wanted to introduce of him using the weapon to kind of direct people around.
Won't be able to use all of that. Let's take a look at some of those clips together now.
[Speaker 4]
One more, one more, one more. I forgot to recall stuff. Right away, right away.
Let's reload. Here we go. So, Helena.
[Speaker 3]
Let me show you something. Hold on. Step back to your original mark.
So 1-1000, 2-1000, 3-1000. I'm getting up.
[Speaker 1]
Right.
[Speaker 3]
Then when he drops his arm, Helena, he drops his arm, that means Brady's close. I'm going to start to really get up. Okay.
[Speaker 2]
So the judge really narrowed things in terms of the evidence this jury is going to be able to view, Lauren. Tell me, when you think about how the state now has to narrow its theory, as you said, into the negligence, the recklessness that they're alleging with just him as the actor holding that gun, what do you think his biggest problems are going to be in terms of the evidence coming in against him by the state?
[Speaker 1]
Well, I just think when you look at those videos, even considering that those are excluded, it doesn't change that much. You know, Baldwin was the actor, and he relied on the armor. That gun was supposed to be filled with blanks, and it wasn't supposed to be something that could cause a death or an injury to anybody on the set.
So from the defense's perspective, even if he were waving it around or firing it at any time, he was assuming that those were blanks. He was assuming that that could not harm anybody. And so the defense is going to be focused on that.
I think the prosecution, their theory at this point, what they are left with, was that Baldwin should have checked to make sure that, in fact, the gun wasn't loaded with live ammunition and couldn't injure anybody. They are operating on a theory that he was negligent in its use. So waving it around or even firing it, despite that being part of the movie, they're going to go forward with the theory that he shouldn't have done that without checking to make sure there wasn't live ammunition.
So that's where the rub is in this case. It's really a question of, should he, as the actor, relied on the armor in her experience and what she was hired, the only job she was hired to do, to make sure that that gun was safe? Or did Baldwin have a responsibility to also check?
[Speaker 2]
Yes. And we know Hannah Gutierrez failed miserably at that job. What occurred is unconscionable on a movie set, yet it happened.
As you know, Lauren, here we are. Now we're in criminal court for this case. Alec Baldwin says the gun came from Hannah Gutierrez, but she says that the assistant director, David Halls, intervened and he was the one who gave the gun to Alec Baldwin.
So what might this look like if she is brought in to this courtroom by the prosecution? Lauren Johnson Kelly, let me go back to you on this one. If she was your client, tell me what you would be doing right now, knowing that she's been transported and the state wants to call her as a witness.
[Speaker 1]
Well, I think this is a disastrous move for the prosecution to try to bring in someone who's already been convicted of the very same crime. Someone who the defense is going to blame entirely for what happened here. And as the defense lawyer, I'm already prepared to know that they're going to try to bring my client in to elicit testimony from her that could potentially even open up new crimes or doors of, you know, of harm for her.
So absolutely, I anticipate that she would take the fifth. Even despite the fact that she's been convicted, my understanding is she's still appealing that verdict. So there's just no way her defense lawyers are not going to intervene and have her take the fifth.
And when that happens, that looks really bad in front of a jury. Anytime someone calls a witness who takes the fifth, that witness is not helpful to them. So I just can't see why the prosecution would want to do that in this case.
Maybe that's all they feel that they have. But I don't see this going well for them. I really see it backfiring.
[Speaker 2]
I'm with you, Lauren. I like the word you use, disastrous. Yeah, I think it's kind of embarrassing.
It's kind of sad that this is what they need for their case. I mean, they've already made, you know, a couple gaffes and the charging of Alec Baldwin and having to withdraw those charges and then breaking the firearm during the testing. They've created a lot of problems by their own hands.
So we'll talk about all of those things as the show progresses. Lauren, stand by kindly, please. We're going to hit a break.
Alec Baldwin, we know, maintains that he just pulled the hammer back. That's what he's saying occurred here. The gun during the lab testing by an FBI examiner that the state asked to review the firearm and do the testing on firearms has been broken.
It's been broken. It's no longer in its original operating condition. Big problem for the state.
Great for the defense. Lauren Johnson Norris, let me go to you on that point. They couldn't test the gun.
The defense team had no opportunity to do independent testing. Tell me, if you're on that Baldwin defense team, what are you going to do with this?
[Speaker 1]
Well, the defense team brought some motions forward saying that the case should be dismissed because they weren't able to test the firearm and it's not fair. The prosecution could test it and the defense couldn't test it to see if there was something wrong with the firearm. Those motions were unsuccessful.
The judge said, you know what, you're going forward regardless. So now the defense can make the argument to the jury that they didn't get the chance to test it, that we don't know for sure that it was operating correctly. And that could create reasonable doubt.
And so that's another way that Baldwin's team can create reasonable doubt. But I just want to say, you know, it's hard to imagine that movies are made every day where firearms are used. If every time that an actor was to use the firearm in a movie that they had to check and make sure every time and not rely on the armor.
So I understand we in regular course of every day, we expect people who are trained in firearms to check. I'm just not sure that the same responsibility applies to an actor who has an armorer charged with that responsibility on the set.
[Speaker 2]
Yeah, we can expect the defense to raise that issue on the opposite side of that argument. And Lauren, let me go to you on this one. The position of the defense will be, well, there was a person hired to do just that, to make sure that gun was clear and that there was nothing in it that could harm anyone.
Which argument do you think is stronger, Lauren, and why?
[Speaker 1]
I think the defense argument is stronger, but I'll say that was such a good point. Would Baldwin have acted or operated in the same manner, checking to make sure that the firearm was operable, that it had live rounds if he was going to shoot himself versus another? What an interesting question.
But I'll say at the end of the day, that's not what the prosecution has to prove. They have to prove negligence. And the thrust of the defense case is going to be that the armorer was charged with the responsibility, really her only responsibility, to make sure that that gun was safe.
And in the action and everything going on in the movie set, she was charged with that responsibility alone and the actor was not. So I think the defense will say that he had to rely on her. And we already know she was convicted because she failed miserably in her job.
She was wholly incompetent in that responsibility. And I think the defense is more likely to prevail on that.
[Speaker 2]
Appreciate it, Lauren. And Lauren, I want to go to you on something. The human element here, we know that Helena Hutchins was Alec Baldwin's friend.
She was a colleague and a friend. No matter what happens in this case, he will always have to live with this on his conscience. We know he didn't want to take her life.
This was a living nightmare that's going to continue for him and continue for him no matter what this jury decides. When I think about whether or not he will take the stand, I'm convinced that he will. I'm curious your thoughts, Lauren.
Do you think we're going to see him take the stand? And if so, tell us why.
[Speaker 1]
Well, I'm not sure. But I don't know that he needs to take the stand in this case. He has made some statements, and those would be admissible and may come in.
But at the same time, I'm not sure that it's necessary because the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And I think the defense might wait and see how does that case look before Baldwin and the defense team decide. I'm sure Baldwin thinks that he will do great on the stand.
But you know, folks don't always do as well as they think under cross-examination. And so far, things that Baldwin has said outside of the case to the media and even his statements to police might have done more harm than good. Ultimately, his argument that he didn't pull the trigger is one that is just really not plausible.
And so while he may have been mistaken in thinking that, if he hadn't introduced that fact, I'm not sure that the prosecution could bring that in and say that that's impossible. So I'm not sure that he should take the stand, but I agree with you, he might think that he should.
[Speaker 2]
We'll see what happens. And sometimes we'll get an indication from attorneys, as you both know, they may say in opening statements what his intention is in that regard. Lauren and Jennifer, thank you both so much.