A New Mexico judge has upheld her decision to dismiss an involuntary manslaughter charge against Alec Baldwin after the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of a Western movie.
In a ruling on Thursday, District Court Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer stood by her July decision to dismiss the charge against Baldwin.
She said prosecutors did not raise any factual or legal arguments that would justify reversing her decision.
“Because the state’s amended motion raises arguments previously made, and arguments that the state elected not to raise earlier, the court does not find the amended motion well taken,” the judge wrote.
The case was thrown out halfway through trial on allegations that police and prosecutors withheld evidence from the defence after the 2021 death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film Rust.
Baldwin’s trial was upended by revelations that ammunition was brought into the Santa Fe County sheriff’s office in March by a man who said it could be related to Ms Hutchins’ killing.
Prosecutors said they deemed the ammo unrelated and unimportant but Baldwin’s lawyers claimed investigators “buried” the evidence in a separate case file, and filed a successful motion to dismiss.
Special prosecutor Kari Morrissey can now decide whether to appeal to a higher court.
Baldwin, the lead actor and co-producer for Rust, was pointing a gun at Ms Hutchins during a rehearsal on a movie set outside Santa Fe in October 2021 when the revolver went off, killing the cinematographer and wounding director Joel Souza.
Baldwin has said he pulled back the hammer — but not the trigger — and the revolver fired.
A judge in April sentenced movie weapons supervisor Hannah Gutierrez-Reed to the maximum of one-and-a-half years at a state penitentiary on an involuntary manslaughter conviction.
Judge Marlowe Sommer last month rejected Gutierrez-Reed’s request to dismiss her conviction or convene a new trial on allegations that prosecutors failed to share evidence that might have cleared her.
She found that the armourer’s attorneys did not establish that there was a reasonable possibility that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the evidence been available to Gutierrez-Reed, who still has an appeal pending with a higher court.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here