‘Rust’ Prosecutors Allege Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed Introduced Are living Ammunition Onto All set

The legal trial for “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is scheduled to start out after era later being behind schedule from December 2023.

The rookie armorer is dealing with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in reference to the dying of “Rust” cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. She has additionally been charged with tampering with proof later prosecutors claimed that they discovered a eyewitness who advised them that she “transferred” narcotics to some other particular person at the past Hutchins died, thus impeding the police investigation.

In step with unused court docket paperwork acquired through The Burst, prosecutors are not looking for her to be allowed to say the protection violations that the eager confronted all over her trial, fearing that she would possibly aim to virtue it to liniency her personal culpability in Halyna Hutchins’ dying.

‘Rust’ Prosecutors Worry Armorer Will Blame Halyna Hutchins Dying On Protection Violations

In step with court docket paperwork acquired through The Burst, prosecutors Kari T. Morrissey and Jason J. Lewis are asking a pass judgement on to exclude proof and testimony alike to the findings of the Occupational Condition and Protection Bureau (OHSB).

“After the fatal shooting on the set of Rust, OSHB conducted an investigation and determined that Rust Management failed to ensure proper safety procedures on the set as they pertain to firearms,” the submitting states, noting that the “Rust” manufacturing corporate used to be fined $100,000.00.

They cite Rule 11-403, which states that “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”

The prosecutors argue that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed used to be answerable for firearms and firearm protection on eager, which incorporated duties comparable to: “the safe keeping of firearms, cleaning of firearms, firearms training of the cast of Rust and loading and unloading prop guns (in this case real functioning firearms (with dummy and blank ammunition). In this role, the primary goal of an armorer is to ensure that no one is injured by a prop gun.”

“Obviously, Ms. Gutierrez failed to ensure that the gun handed to Alec Baldwin was loaded solely with dummy rounds. Moreover, live ammunition is strictly prohibited from being present on movie sets and Ms. Gutierrez was responsible for all of the ammunition on set,” the submitting continues, occurring to mention that the atmosphere has “developed significant evidence” that she introduced a field of “dummy” ammunition to the eager that contained each dummy and reside rounds.

“This is the box of ammunition that Ms. Gutierrez was obtaining rounds from on October 21, 2021, and Ms. Gutierrez acknowledged this during her interview with Santa Fe County Sheriff’s detectives in November 2021,” the court docket paperwork atmosphere, noting that dummy and reside rounds are “visibly dissimilar.”

Prosecutors Allege That Hannah Gutierrez-Reed Introduced The Are living Ammunition Onto The Film All set

The court docket paperwork allege that “Ms. Gutierrez was unable to distinguish between the two and inserted a live round in the prop gun being used by Alec Baldwin’s character. Mr. Baldwin manipulated the gun during a pre-filming procedure called ‘blocking’ and the gun discharged.”

The atmosphere is anxious that she is going to aim to “use the findings by OSHB to try to minimize her culpability and argue that she is not responsible for the shooting and that Rust Management is responsible for safety violations.”

They progress on to mention that the jury shall be requested to decide if she is “guilty of involuntary manslaughter for putting a live round (from a box of dummy rounds that she brought on the set of Rust that was going to be used by an actor in a movie. Although the OSHB findings do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they do need to find that an employer demonstrated “plain indifference” to office protection.

The atmosphere feels that the proof and testimony will most effective lead to uncertainty for the jury and lead to a “highly prejudicial” state. They be aware that she would possibly name observers to testify to her protection, however really feel that presenting proof of a free prison continuing with “findings established through a lesser prison usual will have to be excluded.

“Simply put, the jury may be confused by evidence that indicates that a legal finding was issued against Rust Management for safety failures on set while trying to determine whether Ms. Gutierrez is guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter for her own failure to ensure the firearm was safe to be used as a prop by an actor on a movie set,” the submitting states, occurring to conclude that the atmosphere “respectfully requests all evidence and testimony of the OSHB findings be excluded” from her court docket case.