Attorneys defending the actor Alec Baldwin from an involuntary manslaughter charge in the film-set killing of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins are urging a judge to stop prosecutors from seeking a five-year prison sentence, saying the law authorizing that punishment did not exist when the shooting occurred.
In court documents filed on Friday, lawyers for Baldwin contended that allowing New Mexico state prosecutors to charge the actor under a gun enhancement law would violate a clause in the US constitution that prohibits retroactively changing the legal consequences of actions.
“The prosecutors committed a basic legal error,” attorneys led by Luke Nikas wrote in documents first obtained by Variety and other outlets.
If Baldwin’s lawyers persuade the judge in the case, Mary Marlowe Sommer, to eliminate the gun enhancement law, the actor’s legal peril would lighten significantly. In the event of a conviction, he would face a maximum 18 months in prison.
Hutchins, 42, died on 21 October 2021, shortly after she was shot during rehearsals for a scene in the western film Rust, at a ranch on the outskirts of Santa Fe. Baldwin was pointing a pistol at Hutchins when the gun discharged. The director, Joel Souza, was wounded.
Baldwin, known for roles in 30 Rock and The Hunt for Red October as well as Saturday Night Live impressions of Donald Trump, has maintained Hutchins died in a “tragic accident”. He has insisted he was told the gun was safe – and said that when he pointed the weapon he pulled back its hammer and released it, discharging it.
Authorities deemed the death an accident. But in late January, they filed charges of involuntary manslaughter against Baldwin and the film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, arguing the killing resulted from negligence.
Prosecutors added a sentencing enhancement alleging the discharge of a firearm in the course of a felony, which would require anyone convicted to spend five years in prison. But the law cited did not take effect until May 2022, seven months after Hutchins’s death.
At the time Hutchins died, a three-year enhancement was in effect. That law required a gun to be “brandished” with the “intent to intimidate or injure a person”, lawyers for Baldwin said in the documents filed on Friday. Baldwin has never been accused of intending to hurt Hutchins.
A New Mexico criminal defense attorney, Caitlin Smith, first mentioned the firearms enhancement that was not in effect when Hutchins died on a legal affairs podcast, Serious Trouble. Smith told Variety prosecutors “probably shouldn’t” have sought the enhancement.
Asked about potential problems with the enhancement, a spokesperson for prosecutors said the matter was under internal review.
Baldwin’s legal team have made significant moves twice in recent days. On Tuesday, they filed a motion arguing that a special prosecutor appointed to the case, Andrea Reeb, should be disqualified because her position as a state legislator prohibits her under New Mexico law from holding any judicial authority.
On Thursday, Hutchins’ parents and sister sued Baldwin and others for damages. That suit is separate from one filed Hutchins’ husband and son, which Baldwin settled for an undisclosed sum.
Baldwin and Gutierrez Reed are set for arraignment in connection with the criminal charges on 24 February.
The film’s assistant director, David Halls, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor negligent use of a deadly weapon and agreed to spend six months on probation.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/10/rust-shooting-alec-baldwin-manslaughter
He arrived in America undocumented, became a U.S. citizen, and was elected mayor. Now, federal prosecutors say he misused more than $1.5 MILLION in pandemic relief loans—and he’s facing 26 criminal charges across two separate cases.
Lawrence, Massachusetts, Mayor Brian DePeña supported ICE targeting criminals in his community. Then the FBI arrested him.
In this video, Nate the Lawyer breaks down DePeña’s rise to office, the controversy over his English and use of a translator, and the allegations that COVID relief money went toward his campaign, personal tax debts, and mortgages.
And the federal case is only part of the story. Massachusetts prosecutors also charged him with distributing an illegally recorded conversation and witness intimidation. DePeña has pleaded not guilty and refuses to resign.
How did this become two criminal cases—and what happens next?
Watch the clips, follow the allegations, and tell me: Should a mayor facing charges like these step aside while the ...
Can the U.S. government strip a sitting congresswoman of her citizenship—and then deport her? The investigation into Ilhan Omar raises an extraordinary legal question: does the government have a case that could actually get her removed from the country?
I’m Nate the Lawyer, and I break down the potential legal path from U.S. Congress to deportation. We examine how Omar obtained her citizenship, why her family’s immigration records could become central to the investigation, and why the marriage allegations dominating the headlines may not be the deciding issue.
There are two potential legal theories—and both require the government to prove much more than a suspicious timeline or an inconsistent record. I explain those theories, the evidence they would require, and the legal hurdles between an investigation and a successful challenge to her citizenship.
A federal search is not a finding of fraud. The question is whether the government can prove the case.
⏱️ CHAPTERS
00:00 Federal raid: ...
What did Jane Doe originally tell police—and how does that compare with the allegations in her Cornell 7 lawsuit?
In this video, I compare her original sworn police statement, as reproduced in the Tompkins County District Attorney's public statement, with her civil complaint. We examine the accounts side by side: consent, intoxication, alleged force, drug use, requests to stop, and who allegedly did what.
Which differences are direct conflicts? Which are omissions, added details, or changes in how an event is described? And why do those distinctions matter?
I walk through the passages and explain my analysis so you can evaluate the documents for yourself. We also examine text messages discussed in the video and how they fit into the comparison.
The lawsuit contains allegations, not findings of fact. My conclusions and opinions are identified as commentary.
Which difference matters most to you—and why? Leave the timestamp in the comments.
#Cornell7 #NateTheLawyer #LegalAnalysis
00:00 ...
And We’re Back!
And we're back, y'all. I appreciate every single one of you supporting the channel right here behind the paywall. You get the unvarnished analysis, the procedural realities, and the raw legal breakdowns before the mainstream algorithms try to throttle the reach, shadowban the facts, or bury the story.
The Inside Story of an 11-to-1 Jury Room
Today, we are diving into the exclusive sit-down interview with three jurors from the Lindsay Clancy trial who finally broke their silence—and what went down in that deliberation room is crazy, y'all!
Now, the public saw a hung jury mistrial. But when these jurors walked through what actually happened during deliberations, it wasn't some evenly divided debate over the facts.
It was 11 to 1 for Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.
Eleven jurors were ready to sign the forms committing her to a state psychiatric facility. And the lone holdout? The other jurors revealed that he actually admitted during deliberations that he had reasonable doubt, but refused to vote not ...
And We’re Back!
And we're back, y'all. I appreciate every single one of you supporting the channel right here behind the paywall. You get the raw receipts, the unredacted files, and the unfiltered legal analysis before the algorithms try to throttle the reach, shadowban the facts, or bury the story.
The Narrative Completely Collapse
Today, we are diving right back into the Karmelo Anthony murder case out of Texas, and the newly leaked text messages published in full context by the Daily Mail are completely crazy, y'all!
Quick recap: Karmelo Anthony was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison for fatally stabbing 17-year-old Austin Metcalf in the chest at a track meet. The internet immediately turned this into a massive, racially charged civil rights crusade. Activists rallied, social media commentators took up arms, and an online GiveSendGo fundraiser hauled in over $630,000 for his defense before it was pulled from public view.
Now, his legal team and family have launched a brand-new $250,000 legal defense ...
And We’re Back!
And we're back, y'all. I appreciate every single one of you supporting the channel right here behind the paywall. You get the raw receipts, the procedural breakdowns, and the unfiltered legal analysis before the algorithms try to throttle the reach, shadowban the facts, or bury the story.
The Mirror-Image Case Nobody Talked About
Today, we are looking at a case out of Linn County, Iowa, that is an absolute mirror image of the Lindsay Clancy tragedy—and the legal outcome on this one is crazy, y'all!
For the past year, social media and the legal commentary circuits have been arguing one specific talking point: "If a MAN had strangled his children and claimed psychosis or mental breakdown the way Lindsay Clancy did, he would be convicted of First-Degree Murder and sent to prison for life in two seconds flat."
Well, a man did do it. Almost a year after Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children in Massachusetts, 45-year-old insurance executive Matthew Schlier strangled his 5-year-old son, Jack, to death in Marion, ...
