chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.

ARTICLE

A Newsworthy Lesson Regarding Obligations to Turn Over Evidence

Morgan Hubbard

A Newsworthy Lesson Regarding Obligations to Turn Over Evidence
Monty Rakusen via Getty Images

In State v. Alexander Rae Baldwin No. D-0101-CR-2024-0013 (D.N.M. Sante Fe Co. 2024) a case resulting from the discharge of a firearm on the set of the movie Rust, which fatally wounded cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, Judge Mary Marlowe-Sommer of the First Judicial District Court in Sante Fe County recently dismissed the case with prejudice.

Baldwin was charged with involuntary manslaughter by means of negligent use of a firearm for his role as the person who discharged the loaded gun on set in October 2021. The state’s legal theory was that Baldwin should have known the risk of live ammunition on set because the rounds were brought on set by the movie’s armorer, a young and inexperienced worker. One of Baldwin’s defense theories was that there was an intervening party involved with the ammunition, which disrupted the chain of causation for the alleged negligence.

Evidence was collected from the set following the incident that was used in both Balwin’s case and the related manslaughter conviction of chief weapons handler Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. Following the conclusion of the Gutierrez-Reed trial, retired police officer Troy Teske delivered a collection of live ammunition to the Santa Fe Sheriff’s Office. This collection of rounds belonged to a batch used by Seth Kenney, a known person of interest, for sourcing ammunition for the movie set. Among the rounds were some Starline brass casings with nickel primers—the type of casing and primer involved in the fatal discharge.

These rounds were taken into custody of the sheriff’s office, and they were later discussed in a pretrial interview of Officer Teske by Special Prosecutor Kari Morrissey. In that same interview, Morrissey concluded that she would work with law enforcement to collect the rounds of ammunition. She never followed through on her commitment to obtain the rounds for Baldwin’s case. Instead, the evidence was logged as “documented information” upon its arrival at the sheriff’s office, and the intake officer was instructed to log it under a separate case file so as not to be accessible by the defense counsel.

Morrissey knew that this evidence could have been crucial to argument ongoing in the case. The court found that concealing such evidence, which may have established that the chain of causation was different than previously stated, and purposefully or carelessly concealing that evidence, constituted gross misconduct. In a motion to dismiss, the defense counsel cited to Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) where the Supreme Court held that nondisclosure is the responsibility of the prosecutor whether it was done purposefully or negligently.

The parties were called for a special hearing where Morrissey was asked to take the stand and answer the allegations made about the concealment of evidence. Morrissey testified that the evidence had not been purposefully concealed, but the judge was not persuaded. Before Morrissey finished testifying, the judge dismissed the case with prejudice. The judge concluded that the late discovery of the concealed evidence created too large an impediment on Baldwin’s ability to construct a good defense and that a dismissal was the only way to right this wrong. This decision has also created a potential path for exoneration of Gutierrez-Reed.

Overall, the failure to turn over physical evidence and worse, taking steps to conceal it may likely lead to dismissal of the case and potential sanctions against prosecuting attorneys. Even where a prosecutor may argue that evidence was not concealed, they bear the responsibility for its identification and disclosure. Though classification of evidence may involve many parties throughout the process, from collection to admission into court, it is ultimately the responsibility of the prosecutors to ensure that relevant evidence is available to both parties for juries and courts to reach just conclusions.

While this case provides a noteworthy example in the criminal-litigation context, civil litigators too should remember their important obligations of turning things over in discovery. Neglecting to take discovery duties seriously could just lead to the dismissal of your case.