Alec Baldwin’s fate rests on this tiny part of his gun
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
In the months after Alec Baldwin’s Colt .45 discharged in his hands, killing a cinematographer in the set of a wooden church in the deserts of New Mexico, police focused on whether the Hollywood star had properly inspected the weapon beforehand.
His claims that he was told that the gun was “cold” – meaning it did not contain any live rounds – appeared to be crucial to the first criminal prosecution for an on-set shooting death in US history.
But during a set-piece television interview after the dust had settled, the Oscar-nominated actor made a claim that would change everything: he never pulled the trigger.
On Wednesday, the Oscar-nominated actor will go on trial for his role in the death of Halyna Hutchins, shot by a bullet that lodged in Joel Souza, the director of the film Rust, who was standing behind her.
Baldwin, 66, faces up to 18 months in prison if convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
Over the course of about 10 days, the jury will be led through every minute of what happened on Oct 21 2021.
Eventually, they will be taken deep inside the inner workings of the Italian-made Pietta pistol, a replica of a vintage 1873 model, and, crucially, whether it could have gone off without Baldwin pressing the trigger.
Baldwin has said he pulled, then released, the gun’s hammer because Hutchins wanted a close-up camera angle of the gun’s loaded barrel.
An FBI analysis of the weapon concluded that the gun would not go off without the trigger being depressed, but Baldwin’s lawyer’s complained that they hadn’t had a chance to analyse it before the expert hit the fully cocked gun with a mallet and broke it as part of the analysis.
Baldwin’s legal team also alleged the full-cock notch had been filed down, making it easier to fire. That allowed a mechanical failure or “accidental discharge” without a trigger pull, they claimed.
Last year, prosecutors dropped charges, convinced the gun was modified, only to have a grand jury reinstate them in January after Lucien Haag, an independent firearms expert, confirmed findings of the FBI examination.
The report examined the gun, safety mechanisms and markings and concluded the trigger had to be depressed to go off – but it had to rely on replacement parts to carry out some of the tests.
“Although Alec Baldwin repeatedly denies pulling the trigger, given the tests, findings and observations reported here, the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver”, Mr Haag wrote in his report.
Zac Sneesby, a crew member who was holding a boom microphone during the rehearsal, is expected to testify that he saw Baldwin pull the trigger of the revolver, prosecutors said in court filings.
There are two ways prosecutors can prove the charge. One is based on the negligent use of a firearm; the other is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldwin acted with total disregard or indifference for the safety of others.
David Halls, the assistant director, who pleaded no contest to negligent handling of a firearm, is also expected to testify.
Lisa Torraco, Mr Halls’ lawyer, told The Telegraph that her client would be called as a witness for the defence.
“Of the three of them, Hannah [Gutierrez Reed, the armourer who was responsible for weapons safety on Rust], Dave and Alec, Dave feels Alec has the least amount of responsibility because he relied on the armourer and it is not the job of the actor, in Dave’s opinion, to double check,” she said.
Ms Torraco said that Mr Halls originally said he saw Baldwin pull the hammer back, but not the trigger.
“There are some nuances about that I’m sure will be an issue”, she said.
She believes the prosecution’s case will focus on arguments that Baldwin may have been “reckless... [and] may have hurried the schedule and didn’t give appropriate attention to detail.”
“I think it’s kind of like a big, bigger theme than just ‘was the trigger pulled or not?’... I think they’re gonna say that he was reckless and pointed guns at people throughout the filming”.
She said that she thinks the defence will argue that it is a “frivolous prosecution” that doesn’t belong in criminal court and the prosecutors have a “bad motive”.
Baldwin has also been accused of neglecting safety protocols on set, with prosecutors expected to depict the atmosphere as “chaotic” and Baldwin as “erratic”.
In March, Gutierrez-Reed was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for mistakenly loading a live round into Baldwin’s gun and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
She is appealing against the conviction and is on both the defence and prosecution witness lists.
The defence is also expected to try to show it is not the job of an actor to make sure a gun is not loaded with live ammunition.
But Dr Ron Martinelli, an expert firearms and ballistics consultant who has been a technical advisor on westerns, told The Telegraph that he thinks Baldwin’s “in trouble” because he did not double check whether the gun was loaded.
“Pleading ignorance is not going to work. I think it will be a very easy argument for the prosecutor if they use the right experts... to just go through the very simple safety protocols.”
