What’s Going to Happen to Alec Baldwin

Voiceover:

After an accident, minutes matter. Your words and actions matter even more. You need help and you need it now. This is David vs. Goliath, brought to you by Dolman Law Group accident Injury Lawyers, a boutique firm with a reputation for going head-to-head with the insurance company giants and putting people over profits.

Stan Gipe:

Hey, I'm Stan Gipe and here with my partner Matt Dolman on another episode of the David and Goliath podcast. Today we've got attorney Bryan Hannan with us and we're going to discuss a little bit about something that's been in current events and in the news lately. Alec Baldwin just recently got charged criminally for his involvement in that onset shooting during the filming of Rust.

And I think most people are familiar with it, but for those that are not, Rust was a Western film. Alec Baldwin was starring in. Like many westerns, it involved the use of prop guns and supposedly blank ammunition. While rehearsing for a scene and getting ready it turned out that one of those prop guns had a live round in it. It discharged killing one of the assistants on set while Alec Baldwin was holding the gun.

Been a lot of stories about this and we wanted to get a little deeper into the facts and talk about the different moving parts of this incident. But Alec was charged with involuntary manslaughter as a result of this and could face some time in jail.

Matt, I know we talked about this a little bit earlier, but Matt and I don't really have a lot of experience with guns, okay? So if you handed me a gun, really other than pulling the trigger, I wouldn't know what else to do with it. I really don't know how to get bullets in, get bullets out, stuff like that. What about you, Matt?

Matt Dolman:

Yeah, I don't have a lot of experience with guns. I've shot a gun a once in my entire life, so I'm not a big gun guy. Having said that though, and maybe we're going to ask Bryan in a second. We have our esteemed guest, Bryan Hannan, experienced criminal defense lawyer. The fact that he pointed it and the question was whether it's a cold gun or not, and the cold gun means there's no bullet in there. It's just, it's a normal prop gun, correct?

Stan Gipe:

Yes.

Matt Dolman:

In this case it was obviously loaded, but there's no criminality though. There was no criminal intent. So how does it go where? How does he get charged for this is what I don't understand? Cause again, we're civil lawyers. We handle civil cases. I've never handled, the next criminal case I handle will be my first one. I'm certainly am experienced at talking about legal issues, but, Bryan, walk us through why was he charged? Was it overreach by the prosecutors, and what does this case look like?

Bryan Hannan:

Well, when you look at involuntary manslaughter, it's a little bit different than the murder or anything like that, that you would typically think of. For murder, you need premeditation, you need intent, all those types of aspects or elements to a crime. For involuntary manslaughter, you're really looking at was there a willful and want and disregard for human life? So it's more of like a culpable negligence type issue or question. So basically, did Alec Baldwin demonstrate behavior that was reckless and wanton disregard for the other individual's life?

Stan Gipe:

And this is kind of where I was getting at. My understanding is this has to do almost with a negligent conduct or a reckless conduct in an unreasonably dangerous situation. And this is where I was getting at. Matt, for someone like Matt or I who do not hold guns on a regular basis, if you hand me one, okay, my heart rate's jumping. I almost am touching it with two hands and I am incredibly uncomfortable because I know this thing can kill me and I'm not comfortable with it.

Okay. There are certain people that are so comfortable with guns, they pick them up twice, three times a day, a hundred times. They don't even think about it. And I think they lose focus to the fact that no matter what, no matter how often you do it, there is never a time when you can say, I can handle a gun carelessly. I can be careless with it or I don't have to pay the utmost attention.

And I think what happens is people get familiarity with these things and lose focus of the fact of how dangerous this weapon actually is. So is that kind of part of it, Bryan? Can just, do you have to have intent or can it just be sort of you're just careless with something that's unreasonably dangerous?

Bryan Hannan:

Well, careless is kind of a different word. Reckless is the word that I would use because reckless is really what the standard is on this. And it could come in a couple different aspects. Number one on the movie set, there's not supposed to be live rounds, period. So is that taking into account also his producer role because he was also just not only an actor but a producer on the film?

Matt Dolman:

Yeah, that's what makes this whole thing interesting because that's what we were going to jump off that is, what's his duty? Does he have a duty to check the round or check the gun to see if there is a live round? Because when you're handed a gun, it's generally, one would presume that's what you're going to do, but is that someone else's job on this set? But then he also has a heightened duty because he is a producer on the very set that he's performing the stunt.

Bryan Hannan:

Correct. I think they're going to look at it twofold. Number one, they're going to look at it as the individual with the firearm in his hand and also the producer aspect. To my understanding, they also charged the other individual that is kind of responsible for those props on set. He was also charged with a lesser count, but he was also charged criminally in that matter.

And then one of the interesting things that I read with regards to this is Mr. Baldwin claiming that the trigger was never pulled and obviously reckless behavior, if it's a firearm that's malfunctioning would be a whole different thing than pulling the trigger and just acting reckless in regards to if there was a live round or not in there.

Matt Dolman:

Mm-hmm.

Stan Gipe:

And Matt and I discussed this a little bit earlier today. Myself, if you're talking about sort of the way I feel about the situation, the moment Alec Baldwin takes a path of denying responsibility as opposed to just complete sorrow for what's happened turns my feeling about it. Okay?

How does a gunfire if you don't pull the trigger? I mean that's my... I'm naive on this stuff, but I was always under the assumption that there's one way to fire a gun and you pull the trigger and if the trigger isn't get pulled, the gun doesn't fire and that's the purpose of a safety. A safety keeps the trigger from pulling.

Matt Dolman:

And the FBI forensic report said it was actually pulled, so that whole defense doesn't it go down the toilet?

Stan Gipe:

You would think.

Matt Dolman:

Yeah.

Bryan Hannan:

I would think that the fact that they tested it and that it was a working replica or working firearm, that defense would not hold water.

Matt Dolman:

Do him do himself any injustice by doing that or by stating that?

Bryan Hannan:

Of course, as a criminal defense attorney, the number one thing we tell our clients is to say nothing. Don't speak. Because the minute you say something or give a story, it now boxes us in to that exact story. And that might not be the angle you actually want to take at a trial or a different proceeding. You might not want to have to use that defense, but now it's already out there, it's spoken, it's there. So to go against it is basically killing your own client's credibility.

Matt Dolman:

Is his defense now going to be that he just grabbed what he thought was a cold gun?

Bryan Hannan:

Don't know. I think it's too early. But I think though they will probably try to go along with some extent that he never pulled the trigger because to back up your client's own words is basically to steal all his credibility with the whole issue. And I don't think that would boast well either at a sentencing or a trial.

Stan Gipe:

And I think his defense, I think, Matt, to some extent, you're correct that his defense will be, he thought it was a cold gun. My understanding and my understanding is very naive, but my understanding of the roles on a set is whenever a prop weapon is used, every person who comes in possession of that weapon is charged with confirming that it's cold or that it has no bullets in it.

Someone says, "This is a cold gun." You get it. You're supposed to open, determine, it's a cold gun. You've made that determination. Now you can hand it to someone else and tell them that. But my understanding is you're not just allowed to go, "Hey, someone told me this was unloaded, so I'm going to point it at you and pull the trigger." You can't be that careless on a set and I think that's where we start to get to the rub here.

Bryan Hannan:

And this is not something that's not foreseeable. Number one, you're using a gun and a firearm, but you've had other actors in the past killed on sets. I mean one of the most famous was Brandon Lee, Bruce Lee's kid.

Matt Dolman:

Yeah. How was he killed again? Was that, it was gunfire, correct?

Bryan Hannan:

It was gunfire while he was shooting The Crow movie.

Matt Dolman:

I'm remember. okay

Stan Gipe:

Now. I think some of those may have involved misfires of prop weapons. My understanding too, and I think where Alec Baldwin as the overall producer, where you really run into some problems is I've heard rumors and my rumors come from the news media like everyone else's here. Because of where this was, this western out in the middle of nowhere on a ranch that during their downtime casting crew would actually shoot real weapons, take target shots, shoot guns, things like that, which is what caused actual bullets to be on the set.

Because of this, they had live ammunition on the set because they were playing with it. They weren't using it for anything, they were just using it for entertainment. And I think it's that live ammunition out on the set that allowed this confusion to occur.

Bryan Hannan:

I'm by no means a movie star, but my understanding is that on any set, you're supposed to have a huge, well, it's my understanding, you're not supposed to have live ammunition on the movie set. Period. So just the fact that they were doing that could show a reckless disregard for human life.

Stan Gipe:

And that's one where I'll go with. The more you do something, the more comfortable you get with it. Okay? And no matter how comfortable you get with something, it doesn't change the level of danger that's inherent in that activity. It changes your level of comfort. And sometimes the level of comfort changes your level of care.

And I truly believe that you get to a point where they're using guns on the set for fun, they're shooting stuff on the side, we're handing guns around like their toys. You lose the serious implication of the fact that someone has put a weapon in your hand and you're next to someone because you're doing this for fun. You're doing it when it's not serious. Okay?

That's the producer's job. The producer's job is to maintain the set, maintain control over the set. This should have been a high level rule. Not only that he didn't violate, but that he instituted and ensured others did not violate. And I think that in and of itself is a major lapse, even if he wasn't the one pulling the trigger, I think he's responsible for the safety on the set.

Matt Dolman:

Yeah, at the end today you have a real bullet being used during a fictional gunfight. How does that play in front of a jury? What is a jury going to do with that?

Bryan Hannan:

In addition, they actually also mentioned, and again, this comes from the same rumor mill as far as the media, but they go into detail about how they were cutting costs on everything. So then how many safety checkers are you having? How many people are in that line to ensure that human life is valued and respected when using the firearms?

Stan Gipe:

Now let me ask you this. We get onto another question. Do you think Alec Baldwin's celebrity status is going to have any impact on his sentencing?

Bryan Hannan:

Of course. When I read an article briefly, it talked about him looking at 18 months in jail. I can't speak knowledgeably of New Mexico law, but in Florida you're looking at a 15-year sentence, or a maximum. So to talk about that, he's looking at 18 months in jail, I think it's already taken into account his celebrity status.

Stan Gipe:

I think when I read that the standard was an 18-month maximum penalty for involuntary manslaughter, but then I think out there, there's also another statute that can put up to five years of additional time on that if the involuntary manslaughter involves use of a firearm.

So I think there's a potential to hang up to six years, but do any of us really believe we're going to see Alec Baldwin do a year in jail as a result of this? I mean myself, I don't know why, but I can't bring myself to be convinced that a celebrity like Alec Baldwin's going to jail for this.

Bryan Hannan:

Well, here's where it kind of gets a little complex because the state attorney or the district attorney is going to go to the family as well. And though it's the state of New Mexico versus Mr. Baldwin, they're going to take their thoughts and their feelings into any type of sentencing or possible plea arrangement. And it's my understanding that there was a monetary settlement that was agreed upon in regards to financial compensation for the loss. So then again, how much is that going to have into play on how the family feels about sentencing as well?

Stan Gipe:

I've not delved into that aspect of things in person, but I know Matt's probably dealt with this, Bryan, you've dealt with this. We've all at some point in time represented people who were hit by a drunk driver and that drunk driver is facing a criminal penalty. My client, the injured party is the victim. And I can tell you when someone is sitting there and they've got unpaid medical bills, they've been out of work because of an accident and they're suffering financially, not paying their mortgage, having trouble with kids' school, stuff like that, they're a heck of a lot less forgiving about their situation and what's been done to them then when someone's actually made them whole.

There's a certain element of that that relieves the suffering, and at that point almost relieves the vengeance or the desire to get your pound of flesh when you've been made whole. So I absolutely think that that will go into the families desire to see punishment.

Bryan Hannan:

Yeah. And basically again, it's the prosecutor's job to decide how much they weigh what the family feels and wants because technically they're representing the state. But I would be a fool to say that isn't usually a high consideration when coming to any kind of plea or deal agreement.

Matt Dolman:

How do you see this working out?

Bryan Hannan:

Right now I think it's a little too early. I think more facts need to come to light. Right now all we have really is the media reports and, no offense to the media, but I see it through a different lens sometimes as a criminal defense attorney and sometimes some of the little facts are left out that make huge differences.

I would foresee this being a plea deal or a plea arrangement. I would not foresee this going to trial. That's something just based upon the fact of the exposure of prison time. The fact that even though judges in the system don't claim it to be true, there's what we call trial tax. So if you go to trial and you lose, you go to jail. Any offers that were previously done are now off the table.

So there is a huge and inherent risk in going to a trial in a criminal proceeding. That's why so many people plead out to lesser offenses all the time. I would foresee in this case a deal being struck and that this case never ever reaches a trial level.

Stan Gipe:

My guess, and I would put an over under, and this is just throwing it in the wind, I put an over under at three months. I don't think, three months is my guess right there. I don't see him doing more than that, but I don't see how they let him off without sending a message to the community as a whole, because, sorry to back up.

There's several different purposes to punishment and Bryan got into it. It's not the family, the injured family that presses criminal charges. They bring civil charges, they go to collect money. It's the state that brings the criminal charges and there's several different purposes.

One purpose is to punish them for what's done, one purpose is to provide a little satisfaction to the victim, and another's purpose is to provide a deterrent aspect to society as a whole. Well, if this happened under a rock, no one would know what happened to Alec Baldwin, right? This didn't happen under a rock. And I can assure you the next involun... the guy who is in a situation similar to this is going to be pointing to Alec Baldwin's punishment when it's time for him to get punished.

Matt Dolman:

Won't this set a chilling precedent though that we're going to charge performers and performers now have a duty to check the very gun that they're given in a movie set? Don't they have firearm experts on the set? And I read that there were firearm experts on this set to help load the gun or help load the, what they thought were props. How is the actor responsible?

Bryan Hannan:

There could be definitely a chilling effect that, and as much as do action heroes now want to play in these big action movies where there's grenades, firework, all these different things going on when firearms and machine guns. And it could definitely have a chilling effect, but I really haven't determined how, I don't think they've really set forward how they're actually charging him.

Are they charging him as the actor and pulling the trigger? Are they charging him as a producer? What aspects are they really looking at as far as going forward with this? And I think a lot of that, and a lot of the facts that play out will kind of set a line as to what's reasonable and what's not on a set. And depending on how unreasonably they acted and steps they didn't take is whether or not that chilling effect really comes to life.

Matt Dolman:

Mm-hmm.

Stan Gipe:

If we want to get into this again on another podcast, I completely forgot. One of my best friends growing up, I've known him forever, he works in the special effects industry in movies and TV and this is what he does because I've talked to him about, I mean he does blow stuff up. He shoots guns. I've played with his special effects stuff when we go to New Orleans. I should have thought of bringing him on to discuss some of this stuff, but I know I've talked to him because I was somewhat surprised that in this day and age we still use real guns on movie sets.

You got fake plant... In a movie, you can produce anything fake. You just need a picture of something, they can create a whole avatar background behind them. In this day and age, why are we still using real guns? Okay? Why are we still using any type of anything that creates an explosion? I mean, these can be adequately recreated in a special effect setting with a zero danger to the participants. And it boggles my mind that we would still be doing this in today's day and age.

Matt Dolman:

What Stan just said, I think is the reason why this is what weakens Alec Baldwin's defense. He's the producer of this very movie. Shouldn't he have the responsibility of making sure that the actors and all individuals that are participating in this movie, including those on and off camera, are protected and are safe?

Bryan Hannan:

Well, I think absolutely. And that's where I said, are they charging him as the actor using the gun and pulling the trigger or are they looking at it more deeply as a producer role too and the safety measures or mechanisms that he should have had in place?

But as far as the question of using real guns versus fake guns, I don't know if you've seen the newest Avatar. Looks great, colors are great, but I don't believe the Avatar world really exists. When you use real weapons, real things, they're hard to distinguish that they're... They look real. That's the basic effect of them versus sometimes the green screens and the different things, even though it might look beautiful, it doesn't look real.

Stan Gipe:

Well. I think to that extent, we can create a real looking weapon that just doesn't have a real bullet in it.

Bryan Hannan:

Well, a lot of times too on these weapons and stuff that they use, firing pins and different things that will be taken out of the firearm to ensure that they can't actually fire. But again, does that go to who checked to see if firing pins are removed and certain components of the gun to see if it is operational? And I believe in this instance they were trying to use a replica firearm which shouldn't actually be able to fire. Obviously it wasn't a replica firearm because it did fire.

Matt Dolman:

Yeah, it's shocking.

Stan Gipe:

So yeah, sounds like there's a lot of moving parts. And as we get some testimony, as trials move forward, we'll probably get to know a little bit more about the facts, and I think as the facts come out, they kind of color everyone's opinion on stuff. I mean, all of us have our initial takes on it, our feeling of what was right, what was wrong, but we do it based on what we've been fed from the media. And I tend to believe most of what I've read about it, but I got a feeling there'll be a few more facts we don't know that come out and maybe change a few things here and there.

Matt Dolman:

Without kicking this subject to death, what about the, while we're on a subject of celebrity news. Flo Rida. We were talking about the Flo Rida, or the rapper knows Flo Rida and his verdict that you just got this week in Broward County in the tune of $82 million.

Stan Gipe:

Okay, well this could be a whole nother subject. There's a whole nother 15, 20 minutes we could get into on that because you got different moving parts. And this gets into a third sort of element of sight.

Like with Alec Baldwin, okay, we've got essentially two legal claims we'd be looking at. One would be a negligence claim on behalf of the families to get damages. One is a criminal claim to punish Alec for what he did. With Flo Rida we got neither of those. We got a standard breach of contract action and it's almost a great story of karma.

When you don't do the right thing initially, it can come back to bite you in the ass in a big way. And that's what happened to Celsius. I can just tell you that looking at it and it's a fun story to talk about.

Matt Dolman:

Well just let's give the 90 second version of how Celsius tried to fuck over Flo Rida. Take us through the whole story, Stan.

Stan Gipe:

The nutshell story is Flo Rida signed on to do a deal with Celsius when they were worth about $10 million overall. The deal was Flo Rida would get 1% of the company if the promotion was successful and certain goals were achieved. These goals were achieved and apparently Celsius decided that they did not want to give him 1% of the company and that was just too valuable at the time.

So to give you an idea of what happened, when the deal was signed, Celsius was worth about $10 million. Because this drug gone so long and went to litigation, by the time Flo Rida settled his suit Celsius was worth $8.2 billion, which made flow riders take $82 million. They had to pay him $82 million on a contract they initially thought was going to be a hundred thousand and they could have settled for much cheaper along the way, but they dug their heels in, they said, "We're not doing it," and karma came and bit them in the ass. I think their stock took a... That stock literally took a 10% dive when the verdict was reached. I mean, that's a huge, huge number to people.

Matt Dolman:

That's a nice fee too. I mean, after the attorney fees are paid, guy's walking away about $50 million. Not bad.

Stan Gipe:

Oh, absolutely. Nice fee for Flo Rida, a nice fee for everyone involved. The only losers here are Celsius. And if the findings in the court documents are correct, if in fact they did breach the contract as Flo Rida alleges, and that's what the court said, they deserve it. Okay? Pay someone what you owe. If you make a deal with someone, honor your deal. Don't try to get out of it. Don't try to say, "Oh wow, that worked out really well for you. I need to change the terms." We've all dealt with those kind of people.

Matt Dolman:

Yes.

Stan Gipe:

None of us like them, and every one of us wants to kick them in the ass if we can and the courts did. And you kind of like to see that. And it sends, like we say that, it sends a message to other people. Don't screw around, pay people what you owe them. If not, it's going to hurt you more. But a lot of these celebrity endorsements these days are like that. Shaquille O'Neal gets involved in these companies for a piece of the action, not just a check. And it's worked out very well for a lot of these people unless someone decides they don't want to honor the deal.

Matt Dolman:

Yep. Any other subjects you want to cover today, Stan?

Stan Gipe:

Well, I mean we're running on like 25 minutes and I got a feeling we're going to be hitting the attention span of a lot of viewers, so if we want to hit on something, I think maybe we wrap up. We can do another podcast on some entirely fresh subjects so as not to bore one group too much.

Matt Dolman:

I appreciate having you, Bryan.

Bryan Hannan:

Thank you so much for having me on today.

Stan Gipe:

Hey, Bryan, it's always great talking to you. I really do appreciate you coming on and helping us through this stuff. This has been another edition of our David and Goliath podcast with myself, Matt Dolman and our special guest Bryan Hannan today. We always enjoy this. I think you can tell it's a little lighthearted and as much as it is presenting the news, it's a fun exercise with us going through the facts of current events. So we appreciate you guys sitting out here listening to us, and we will catch you on the next podcast.

Matt Dolman:

Thank you.

Bryan Hannan:

Thank you.

Voiceover:

-: 6242

The information presented is not a substitute for consulting with an attorney, nor does tuning into this podcast constitute an attorney-client relationship of any kind. Any case result information provided on any portion of this podcast should not be understood as a promise of any particular result in a future case. Dolman Law Group, big firm results, small firm personal attention.