A judge is planning to hear arguments in court Thursday over whether to dismiss a criminal conviction against a movie armorer in the shooting death of a cinematographer by actor Alec Baldwin.

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed has requested a retrial or dismissal of her March conviction for involuntary manslaughter in response to allegations that prosecutors failed to share evidence including ammunition that might have been exculpatory in the shooting death that occurred on the set of the Western movie “Rust” in 2021.

Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer is reconsidering the armorer’s conviction after throwing out an involuntary manslaughter case against Baldwin midtrial on similar grounds.

  • girlfreddyOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer is reconsidering the armorer’s conviction after throwing out an involuntary manslaughter case against Baldwin midtrial on similar grounds.

    That’s why.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      ehhh, his charges were more about did he pull the trigger, and now that the gun was broken by the feds, it cant be discerned.

      no one is challenging the fact that it was live ammo in a gun which she was responsible for making sure had no live ammo

      • girlfreddyOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Hannah Gutierrez-Reed has requested a retrial or dismissal of her March conviction for involuntary manslaughter in response to allegations that prosecutors failed to share evidence including ammunition that might have been exculpatory …

        No. It’s about prosecutor’s not sharing evidence.

        Please read the article.

        • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Why did you include a different quote in your last comment when you said “that’s why?”

          Now you’re saying “no that’s not why, (new quote) this is why!”

          • girlfreddyOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Both quotes are back-to-back in the article. The first gives general reasons for the retrial request, the second lists specifics.

            Why did you ask a question without reading the summary or article first?

            • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Not sure why you keep claiming that nobody but you read the article since I did read it. Perhaps you should put a little effort into writing your comments instead of doing a copy and paste along with a two word comment?