I like to know what his line of defense will be? Assuming he doesn't plea bargain which could be the case. Any legalize-thoughts on what his defense would be if he pleads innocent to the charges?
I will reserve judgment on this case until it is presented at trial. It is very possible that more may come up that may not be publicly known right now that will make a guilty verdict more likely. This is, however, a little bit of an unusual application of involuntary manslaughter law and I think it may be difficult to get a conviction, especially for Baldwin, on these facts. Involuntary manslaughter is usually a willful act that the person has knowledge that they are committing. For example, the classic example is a drunk driver. Someone chooses to drink, chooses to drive, knows they have drank, is aware that that could pose a threat to other motorists, and chooses to act anyway. If someone is killed, they may not have intended that, so it can be considered accidental, but the act itself is known and is freely chosen and willfully done. Another example would be texting while driving, hitting someone and killing them. The person knows they are texting and that texting could present a danger if they are not keeping their eyes on the road, and chooses to act recklessly anyway. Another case is Conrad Murray, who prescribed medication to Michael Jackson that killed him when the use of the medication, to sleep, was not an appropriate indication. He knew he was prescribing the medication. He knew that that propofol can be deadly, he knew that prescribing it for sleep was not an approved medical use, as its used as an anesthetic for surgeries. He may not have intended to kill Jackson, but the acts were entered into knowingly and volitionally, and the danger was known and obvious. This case presents very different facts.
In the case of Baldwin, he is alleging that he didn't actually know that the gun had live rounds in it. There is no evidence that he was aware of that that has been presented. Yes, he willfully used the gun and willfully pointed it at Hutchins, but he may argue that he wasn't aware that doing so posed a danger, since he thought the gun had dummy bullets in it. It is an interesting legal question that this case presents--can involuntary manslaughter be applied under facts such as these, where the act is willful, but the danger may not actually be known? The question is here, should it have been known? Did Baldwin have a duty to check so that he would know? That's a different question.
I think Baldwin's defense may be that he didn't know, that it wasn't his responsibility to check the gun himself, because that is the job of the armorer. That he had in fact been told the gun did not have live rounds by David Halls, and that he relied on that. Given his reliance on that, he didn't know there was a danger posed by him using the gun in the scene. I think he may argue that although he was a producer, he likely wasn't involved with the hiring decisions of who the armorer was going to be, who turned out to be unqualified. That he didn't make decisions around the safety protocols on the set, and that he was likely unaware of the extent of the safety infractions that had occurred previously on the set. That he was totally unaware that live rounds were on the set, or that they had been put into the gun, and that he doesn't know why the armorer didn't check for that before the gun was handed to him. That his role as a producer focused on other aspects of the production, or it was a role in name only that is sometimes given to actors as a fringe benefit and that he really didn't operate in a producing capacity on this film, though he may not want to admit that he was paid money to not act as a producer, so he may or may not say that.
Another thing that I will be very interested in learning from this case is, how much is Alec Baldwin's role as a producer emphasized? I suspect that the prosecutors may lean more on that than his role as an actor, and say that his non-actions to check the gun has to be viewed in context of a set that had very lax security protocols, that there were decisions made to cut costs, that previous safety incidents were not taken seriously and dealt with, which would have likely prevented this tragedy, and that as a producer, Baldwin should be held accountable for that. I think that might be what they mean by the charges being filed due to the "totality of the circumstances." This is a very interesting and thought provoking case that I will likely follow because of the issues it presents.