Alec Baldwin is mounting some interesting legal arguments in the “Rust” film set shooting case that could cause headaches for New Mexico prosecutors trying to convict the actor of involuntary manslaughter.
For one thing, the actor, who has denied any wrongdoing in cinematographer Halyna Hutchins’ death, is going after the appointment of the special prosecutor in his case, Andrea Reeb, because she’s also a state legislator. His lawyers are making a constitutional argument that Reeb’s role oversteps the separation of powers and so she must be disqualified. “The legal question is not a close one,” Baldwin’s lawyers wrote in a motion filed last week.
I’m not as confident as the Baldwin legal team about that, because they note that New Mexico courts haven’t ruled on the issue. So it’s at least an open question, even though his argument has some broadly intuitive appeal. But given the unprecedented nature of the question, it’s one that could be subject to extensive pretrial litigation however it’s resolved.
On the subject of pretrial litigation, Baldwin’s team has thrown another big argument out there, separate from the special prosecutor issue. It’s claiming that prosecutors shouldn’t be able to use the firearm enhancement that carries a five-year penalty upon conviction because the enhancement charge was different when the alleged crime occurred in 2021. According to the defense filing, the version of the law that existed when the shooting occurred required a showing of intent to injure or intimidate someone in brandishing a firearm. However, the newer version, enacted last May, doesn’t require that level of intent.
Of course, both the U.S. and the New Mexico constitutions outlaw what are called “ex post facto” punishments, or ones that make conduct illegal after the fact. Simply put, we don’t want people punished for things that weren’t illegal at the time they happened. So while knocking out that gun charge enhancement wouldn’t…
Read the full article here
