A legal expert with experience in on-set shootings weighs in.
Prosecutors in New Mexico have charged actor Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter for his role in the shocking tragedy that took place on a movie set in 2021. Specifically, Baldwin was holding what he thought was a prop gun when (according to prosecutors) he pulled the trigger and a live round of bullets was fired, wounding the film’s director and killing a cinematographer named Halyna Hutchins.
In the time since the shooting took place, Baldwin has spoken with police (to the chagrin of many lawyers) and even given an interview to George Stephanopoulos, in which he expressed his regret, maintained he never pulled a trigger, and insisted that he believed the gun was a prop.
Baldwin has simultaneously reached a settlement with Hutchins’s family in a wrongful death lawsuit and personally sued the crew members responsible for handling the loaded gun and supplying it to him on set. (That second case is ongoing.) Now, he faces another legal challenge with the state of New Mexico, and this one is all but guaranteed to go to trial.
What happened on the set of Rust will hopefully never happen again. At the same time, it’s worth noting the sense of history repeating itself: This tragic event is, unfortunately, an echo of another incident that happened more than two decades earlier.
In 1993, an actor named Brandon Lee was shot and killed on the set of a movie called The Crow. Lee, the son of martial arts icon Bruce Lee, died after another actor, Michael Massee, fired at him with a prop gun during a scene.
The circumstances aren’t identical to what happened with Rust, but they are remarkably similar. For that reason, Katie Couric Media spoke with lawyer James Brosnahan, who served as the lead defense attorney for the studio that made The Crow in a case with Lee’s mother, which was eventually settled out of court. Below, Brosnahan shares his take on the case against Baldwin.
How does the Rust case compare to what happened with The Crow?
In one major way, the Crow and Rust shootings are extremely similar.
“I can almost guarantee you that Baldwin had a gun in his hand and had no idea that there was a live bullet in it,” Brosnahan said. “And that’s the major similarity with Lee.”
Brosnahan notes that this perceived ignorance on the part of both actors is a strong legal defense — especially in Baldwin’s case since he’s been working in the industry (and handling weapons on set) for decades now.
“He’s been doing movies forever,” Brosnahan said. “They always hand him a gun, and it’s always got blanks. That’s his state of mind.”
One difference between the two situations might have to do with the gun itself, Brosnahan noted, as well as the context around the live ammunition. In the Crow shooting, the tip of a .44-caliber bullet was lodged in the barrel of the prop gun, and Lee’s co-star was meant to point and shoot the gun at him during a scene. In Rust, Baldwin was meant to point the gun toward the camera lens, but he was not meant to pull the trigger. (Baldwin maintains he didn’t pull the trigger; prosecutors allege he did.)
Additionally complicating the Rust situation is that there were two additional “accidental discharges” that took place on set in the days leading up to Hutchins’s death. Plus, mere hours before the shooting took place, six members of the camera crew actually walked off the set as a form of protest against their working conditions.
These details will likely be used by the prosecution in their argument, Brosnahan noted — but the real question here is whether Baldwin himself, as an actor and producer for Rust, bears explicit responsibility for the allegedly poor safety and working conditions on set.
Why did the prosecutors choose to indict Alec Baldwin?
As one would expect, the speculation around what happened on the set of Rust has run rampant on social media, which begs a question: How does the virality of this story, not to mention Baldwin’s A-list status, impact the criminal proceedings, if at all?
It’s not surprising that there would be criminal charges following an event like this, especially given Hutchins’ tragic death. But New Mexico prosecutors have made one unexpected move that could indicate how social media attention is influencing their process. Specifically, prosecutors announced in January that they intend to indict Baldwin with an involuntary manslaughter charge, but they didn’t actually charge Baldwin for another several weeks.
“Announcing that you’re going to indict [without actually indicting the person] is unusual,” Brosnahan said. “Usually, a prosecutor might make a public statement that says, ‘We’re investigating it.’ But to go further and say, ‘We’re going to indict,’ when there’s no written document to file immediately along with the statement… that’s strange.”
Of course, prosecutors could have many reasons for making that decision, and what they’re doing is entirely legal. But it’s very possible that they were aware of the social media speculation on the case, and that this very speculation is impacting how they decide to roll out information.
Does Alec Baldwin’s role as producer matter at all?
One aspect of this case that has inspired confusion online has to do with an important detail about roles and responsibilities: Baldwin wasn’t just employed as an actor on the set of Rust. He was also a producer of the film, which means that even if he didn’t have an obligation as an actor to prevent an on-set accident, he might have had that exact obligation in his other role.
Brosnahan acknowledged that this crucial distinction will likely play a major role in the trial proceedings — but he’s far from convinced that it’s a slam dunk for prosecutors.
“There are all kinds of producers,” Brosnahan said. “Plenty of producers have nothing to do with the security on the set.”
Brosnahan also referenced, again, a crucial fact for Baldwin’s defense: He has been a producer, as well as an actor, in countless shows and movies. In those previous roles, he likely had no involvement with security and safety, so why should he expect to have that involvement now?
Only time will tell if a jury will buy that argument or not.
Could Alec Baldwin be found guilty?
Looking ahead, Brosnahan was quick to point out one important thing to keep in mind: Trials never go exactly as you might expect, and that’s because they’re dependent on so many different people, from lawyers to judges to jury members, and people can be hard to predict.
“When I was trying cases, I never knew what was going to happen,” Brosnahan said. “Even when I felt totally prepared, and thought I knew everything…it never goes exactly like you expect.”
He did offer one certainty: This case will not be settled out of court.
“This case is going to trial,” he said, citing the level of Baldwin’s celebrity, coupled with the social media attention and sheer uniqueness of what happened on set.
As for what the strongest argument might be for both the prosecution and the defense, Brosnahan offered a few predictions.
“The prosecution will likely argue that this man had a gun in his hand, and the bullet was visible,” Brosnahan said. “They might say that he was waving [a loaded gun] around, and there were people all over there, [and] that’s gross negligence. A woman died.”
As for the argument in defense of Baldwin: “Baldwin’s state of mind establishes that at no time did he think there was a live bullet in the gun that had been handed to him. The defense might say, ‘We showed you how many times he’s fired guns in [other movies]. But on each of those times, he was handed a gun with blanks. That’s what movie stars do all the time.'”
If the coverage we’ve already seen about the case is any indication, we’ll definitely be hearing much more once the involved parties hit the courtroom.
