Those are pretty hot, aren't they? You seen the one with her and her dad and the gunny sack full of guns? Looks like she grew up on that set. Probably knew it better than anyone there.
wrong... she was rail roaded she was a part-time armorer told to do other jobs while unqualified people did the job she was supposed to be doing, then they all blamed her. OSHA investigated it and found all the evidence Hannah asked for more time to do safety training, was told No. Hannah asked to do less other jobs, was told she would be fired if she didnt do the other jobs. Hannah was ordered off set and was told to do other jobs when the killing happened.
@@dijax7863 I watched the entire trial and am completely baffled how you came to these conclusions unless you have some heavy bias towards her. Let’s try to straighten you out here: 1) HG was in charge of firearms and that additional training for actors wouldn’t have prevented her from loading live rounds into that gun. She had the opportunity to leave if she felt that a lack of training was an unsafe decision. 2) HG was the one who loaded the firearm and was the one in the church doing “checks” on the firearm prior to the incident. HG chose to leave that church and do other tasks. 3) An armorer’s main role is to ensure firearm/weapon safety on set, no matter how busy they are. End of story. 4) There is no evidence that HG would be fired if she didn’t perform those additional prop tasks, in fact, the only mention of firing HG came after she allowed two negligent discharges to occur.
shes looking at a year n half max, I dont understand why she doesnt just do it. take it out of respect for the victims, time will literally fly right by. makes me not like her even more that she cant shush up and just take it with a smile. what a brat.
@@kevinmcboyle This trial has been full of armchair lawyers, judges, armorers, and actors on RU-vid trying to motion the court (via their meager RU-vid comments) with their preferred prison sentences… Not surprised they’re back for this hearing.
She doesn't need to be let out. There's already implications that she'll just get a slap on the wrist for her drug-induced negligence on the job that cost the life of a wonderful woman.
This is a great example that you shouldn't get a job based on your father's merits. She just wasn't qualified for the job she was hired for, period. It must have happened that someone (the one who hired her) wanted to do a favor for her famous father.
Maybe. Nepotism is pretty common. It seems like that was part of it but also they wanted to get someone they wouldn't have to pay as much as a more seasoned person. They ran a set with lax safety standards, from the producers on down, and everyone paid the price.
not really all the facts... she was hired as a part-time armorer. she didnt realize she was going to be the only one and no one told her it was going to be a job that required a full time armorer. she got rail roaded.
OR… she fudged her resume a bit to say she was more experienced than she really was (possibly for ego) AND seeing who her father is, the person who hired her didn’t question it. That’s my theory…😏
She is dodgy. If you knew about her behaviour prior to and during the grand jury you would not praise her. Alex Spiro Baldwin's lawyer is undefeated and he is going to eviscerate her.
This case has multiple people connected to the shooting and this is obvious to everyone now. Just landing a guilty verdict on a single person here is wrong.
Thats not correct, mr hall pled guilty and was sentanced , alec baldwins trial is in july so i dont get how you think this has been put on one person , she was the armourer it was her job to be in control of weapons on set.
This trial was only about her, so only her could get a verdict. She IS the main person responsible for the incident. The other person will have his trial this summer. Anyhow, why do people try to find excuses for her all the time by saying, there were other things wrong on set? It still was HER, and ONLY HER duty to check every bullet and every gun. Nobody forced her to do the job.
if you apply Taylor here then the entire history of and/or verdicts would come into question. This is why the term precedent comes into play. The Taylor opinion came out AFTER this case....womp womp...too bad so sad.
There is a big difference with the Taylor case and was pretty complicated and confusing. It had and a) + b) and/or b) +c)... Also a d) but Hanna is pretty simple.
"if you apply Taylor here then the entire history of and/or verdicts would come into question." Incorrect. If Taylor DOES have retroactive effect then it certainly does apply to the case at bar as well as to all past verdicts. Normally ( and I can't say about the Taylor rule without researching more) . . . application of new precedent is ONLY required for those cases currently on "direct appeal" at the time of the [Taylor] ruling. Bottom line, applying Taylor to the present case IS NOT the gate that determines whether or not "the entire history of and/or verdicts would come into question." I believe that gate is reserved for "watershed procedural rules". So, is Taylor such a watershed procedural rule? I don't know without more research on it.
@@2Truth4LibertyTaylor addresses jury instructions and the ambiguity of and/or constructs in jury finding of elements present, and by extension, possibly, court rules of evidence in general. As such, couldn't that open the door to sny past case for which instruction ambiguity could be reasonably argued? Taylor also addresses the categories of evidence and ambiguity brought about by combining different categories with and/or constructs such as the difference between simply failing to follow an established pattern of conduct (taking a head count to ensure nobody got lost) and actual proximate cause (leaving the kid in the car). There were some other things in Taylor regarding rules and/or recommended protocol. So, failing to take a head count doesn't show or go to the actual act of leaving a kid in the car, but rather to the fact that the defendant would have been alerted that a kid was missing and might be in the car had it been done. State v. Gutierrez is similar in the combination of categories of evidence and ambiguities introduced by the and/or constructs. I.e., a messy cart may be considered a contributing or enabling factor to the act of misloading a gun, but it is not evidence that a gun was misloaded or Hannah was the one that misloaded it. It cannot be demonstrated that a cleaner cart would have prevented the misloading of a gun.
@@fedfraud.protection.servic2557 doesn't apply to the Hannah case. In Hannah's case, she could've been convicted of manslaughter by either negligence of firearm handling causing endangerment of others Or Hannah loaded live ammunition, and/or failing to perform safety check of ammunition she loaded along with, willful ignorance of her action, willful disregard of others's safety leading to Helena's death. People don't need to agree that she loaded the ammunition AND was negligent with her firearms just one of the two is enough. The taylor case was with with failing to do headcount, driving without the CYFD permission, insufficient ratio of caretaker to kids and/or failing to remove the children from a vehicle leading to bodily harm and death. In the taylor case it doesn't matter if they found the headcount driving without cyfd and were shortstaffed to be true if the juror doesn't find unanimously that they failed to remove the children from the vehicle leading to them suffering bodily harm/death they can't convict.
I agree she should stay in Jail.....but how come Alec gets to roam free when he was the one holding the gun??? ONCE again. Double standard justice. Absolute crap!!!
Pre-trial release, _all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law_ It’s called due process, and it’s every citizens right.
@LP-bt4uk which double standard are you talking about exactly? 😂 Hannah wasn't in jail prior to her trial. Alec isn't in jail prior to his trial. Seems pretty similar to me....
I find people tend to make inflammatory statements about the judicial system based on zero actual comprehension of how the legal system works and only how they perceive it to be, then, other people who also don’t know, support their statement and go around telling others, thinking it’s true and they know what they’re talking about. It’s like an ignorance infection.
Seriously Mr. Bowles. "She's working" Who would hire her at this point? You can't ask for her to be released without bringing receipts. Also, This case is about criminal negligence that caused death. This whole idea of a new trial is a waste of taxpayer money. I want to thank the Judge for running her court the right way.
Costing the taxpayers millions by keeping her locked up will not help anything other than making the family "feel" better. Put in an order that restricts her involvement with weapons in the future, and let her work hard for the next 5-10 years to pay back the family instead. Prison does not "help" anyone, it just prevent dangerous people from hurting society any further. As long as she goes into a different line of work, she should not be a danger any longer.
Alec Baldwin is the one and he needs to go to prison if that’s the way it goes he’s been hurting people his entire career just google search his name he’s a piece of you know what and he needs to be right in there with her in prison for quite a long period of time and maybe he’ll sober up. I can’t get over the interview. He did shortly after this occurred where he said he didn’t feel one bit of guilt for killing that girl to begin with, what a scumbag
@loribee1234 FACTS I say cut off LV hair privilege it's deplorable to me I don't want to sound trite but my goodness my hair not that great out of jail who's coloring it, it's professional that type of color and curl is getying special privilege enabler behavior for sure
I’m already concerned about our legal system… and if the judge decided to let her go without a slap on the wrist?? I really would have been disillusioned!
Corruption runs deep when there's an opportunity made to sue someone (s) with deep pockets. "We want to change the industry.". Right. From a nurse that got PTSD from a gunshot wound that she didn't get and didn't treat. Someone who was underqualified for a job on a set with guns? Change the industry go get a RN license.
Love how Cari Morrissey tries a case , her control of the courtroom, her brilliant knowledge of the law and her closing of her case in terms that the jury “gets”. BRILLIANT and so much FUN watching her sorry case had to come to a close. Kari swept the floor with defense attorney. SORRY but the truth sometimes hurts or isn’t nice.
Bowles cherry picked the Taylor opinion, and Morrissey did a great job in pointing it out (nicely). Then he has the nerve to request her release pending appeal. Of a decision that she doesn't feel was improperly adjudicated.
Obviously this was a premeditated avenue of pursuit prior to issuing the jury's instructions. "And/or" language. It'll be interesting to see if the appeal is predicated on this or the many trial errors. Never knew it was the prosecutor's job to explain the jury instructions to the jury. Always thought that was the judge's purview.
And their crimes weren't even a mistake in a jungle of animals. Who's idea was it train Sarah for assistant armorer? "Single Action revolver loads different. It doesn't flip out." And Bowless doesn't even follow that up after HIS witness scared the dog crap out of everyone by holding up a DEMIX pointed up in the air 😂😂😂😂. OMG. Don't let anyone in the courtroom near a gun. Except Hannah. She's the only safe one there 🤣🤣🤣. What a joke.
Once you are found guilty, you are guilty. It's normal to remand the defendant to custody after they have been found guilty. The only reason not to remand them to custody, is if it's a minor crime and the defendant is not likely to be sentenced to serve time. This is an indication that the judge intends to sentence her to prison, probably the maximum 18 months.
The maximum sentence is 18 months. She will not get the maximum as a first-time offender, but she will get some jail. I would guess about 12 months. She should stay in jail and get it over with now.
What a brat! She's done NO therapy. Has ONLY worked with Step Daddy's industry AND there's NO WAY that SHE is her famous millionaire Hollywood industry fathers CAREGIVER??!!! Yeah right!!!
So, in other words, the judge just did not listen to the defense attorney at all--that the jury instructions did not require a unanimous verdict. The Judge said the jury found her guilty so she denies the motion. Aren't we going in a circle? The Judge needs to address the arguments being made, not just recite history. The Judge should ask the State if they agree that the Constitution requires a unanimous verdict. In most states, if a defendant has a viable appeal, the state is REQUIRED to release them pending the appeal.
I don’t understand all this. Who brought live rounds on a movie set? And why? That is the only question. No matter who pulled or pulled not any trigger.
Jason Bowles is an excellent attorney, doing his job. It’s remarkable and admirable advocating for his client. It’s just a shame she’s a reckless individual and it cost a young mother her life.
The prosecution offered a very strong, clean case against HG and rightfully won. HG is guilty of negligence and mismanaging weaponry on the set. Bowles is not reading the room at all, the judge will likely release HG at sentencing with time served; yet he wanted to push sentencing out longer!
I don’t think HGR Is a threat to society. It was involuntary manslaughter, not premeditated murder, nor murder. It was a sad accident due to negligence.
Exactly, I don't even know why they call her Gutierrez-Reed. She has never even legally changed her name to that. It was just a screen name to help her get jobs.
It's probably not a correct decision based on the length of her possible sentence. Meaning, were the conviction to be reversed, defendant would have already served the sentence unnecessarily.
if Hannah was getting rushed or bullied, she could have quit her job. Nobody told Hannah to assume all the prop bullets were fake. She was either lazy or high (maybe both), and skipped the most important gun safety protocols.
We all agree that Hannah would never put a live round or hand a loaded gun to Alec on purpose, but her proven drug use on set, as well as messy careless handling of guns, which was her responsibility, makes guilty the only correct verdict. A tragedy for all involved, especially Halyna.
Nobody proved that she was using drugs in the set. They proved (word of a drug addict that probably got paid $100 to testify) that Hannah handed someone a antistatic bag that had some powder which was probably gunpowder or primer in it. Nobody testified that they watched her toot a line or smoke a bowl. Nobody!
The nerve she has .. that’s exactly why prosecutors charged her , because she takes NO responsibility for her actions, she misfired on another set, handed a 11 year old unsafe weapon . It’s really not surprising this motion to be set free while waiting on appeal . She’s right where she belongs.
Judge, you are awesome!!! THANK YOU!!! Hannah appears to only be upset with her verdict and incarceration!!! Her mother appears to only be sympathetic to her daughter!!! How about the death of the LADY that won't ever be released from her grave!!! Hannah deserves 18 plus years..... hopefully she will have to serve 18 mos. the maximum sentence!!! Hannah shows no remorse!!!
It is interesting that the jury, as a trier of fact, is not required to provide unanimity in arriving st which, if any, facts fulfilled the required elements of the crime (s) being charged. As a trier of fact, that is exactly what they must find. Six say she did or didn't do this, six say she did or didn't do that, then in either case the elements of the crime have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant is not guilty.
Both this and that carry the same charge though so the charge is the same either way. They're still unanimous about the charge, even if not the route to getting to the charge.
@@amireallythatgrumpy6508then the jury must make an informed and unanimous decision, guided by separate instructions, as to the culpable act the defendant committed and for which he is being punished. concluding that when a verdict is supported on one ground but not another, and it is impossible to tell on which ground the jury relied, the verdict is invalid); see generally State v. Dowling, 2011-NMSC-016, ¶ 17, 150 N.M. I made the comment before I read the decision. Interesting that the court here strongly discourages the use of and/or constructs in jury instructions and the judge went ahead and allowed it anyway. And then let the prosecutor explain it to the jury. Like she didn't already have enough to say 😂😂😂. Gotta be the longest closing argument in American jurisprudence. Maybe she's practicing up for running for Senate? 😂. Idk. She is quite the little actress. "Wait just a minute, ah let me back up here... ..."
@@amireallythatgrumpy6508But, the point Bowles is making here is that the jury is required to agree on what exactly happened. According to the instructions she either had to load the weapon hot live and/or hand it off after SOMEBODY loaded it hot live without checking that it's NOT hot live. Or both. But, Hannah has had 10 days of shooting hot scenes without introducing a hot live scene (at least in front of everyone) or handing a cold one off without displaying it to the AD. Baldwin said in his interview that she always hands it to him after displaying it to Halls. So, she hands it to Baldwin but NOBODY sees her enter or leave the church?
@@amireallythatgrumpy6508The FBI DNA scientist said it didn't even look like Hannah touched the gun they sent to the FBI lab. Said it looks like Baldwin touched it, Sarah touched it, and Halls touched it. How'd Hannah load it without touching it? "Beam me up Scotty" moment?
But why oh why didn’t she check the gun? ( she had a legit reason to have live bullets because her step dad did have them on a set he was an armorer on and they would practice with guns and live bullets way off the set, in a safe place to train on how a ‘real’ gun/bullet feels like). So that makes sense, but again why so lax with checking the gun before handing it over. That’s the only issue.
@@marlbboro8091 could be possible some one slipped it in maybe. i dunno. im pretty sure there was supposed to be protocols for alec to check the gun also but he didnt either.
Hannah was free before and during her trial. And so is alec because he has not been found guilty of absolutely anything at this point. He has yet to go to trial, same as Hannah so what is the problem here
She needs to do her time.. Baldwin needs to be in jail for murder... He is arrogant and self-righteous..... He isn't above the law! Also for being a horrible actor!!
Since when is she taking care of her father who has leukemia? Since when has she been in therapy? Google says he was a federal prosecutor for years, how?? He seems to be so out of his league. He seems like a nice guy who is a living meme.
I'm no legal scholar but I think he should have given this objection about the amiguousness before jury deliberation. Aside from that, it appears as if he is trying to 'grandfather' a verdict, for which there is no precedent. Anyways, hannah looks fine, all the commissary she wants, I'm sure. Jail is not a hardship for her. she'll get an opportunity to stretch out a little more once she goes to the Big House
But, if it's a question of law that is going to be decided by a higher court, it probably isn't going to be filed until the appeal for a couple reasons. To file it now would allow the trial court to decide the question and tip off the prosecution the defense position which may change their arguments. If it's a precedent, then the higher Court will decide it, but either way it's going to delay trial proceedings until the question is decided. If you know that it's going to be appealed, which it will be if the trial court decides against you, no point in delaying the trial.
@@amireallythatgrumpy6508Do you think that he was bullied into not raising objections by the judge and prosecutor? Like, why bother? I thought he could have done a lot of crosses a lot better. It's like he didn't challenge anything of substance. Looked like he was setting Alec up for a suit (civil, not prison...) That was the wrong way to go in my book. Looks like he doesn't have a defense for Hannah. And the prosecutor was handing them to him right and left. She was the best attorney on his team..😂😂 I'm so confused 🤔. I'm going to have to watch it all over again.
