STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF SANTA FE
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
ALEXANDER RAE BALDWIN III,
DEFENDANT.
No. D-0101-CR-2024-0013
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer
Motion In Limine No. 1
DEFENDANT ALEC BALDWIN’S MOTION
I
N
L
IMINE
TO PRECLUDE
IMPROPER PROSECUTORIAL CONDUCT AND REQUIRE AN ORDERLY TRIAL
LEBLANC LAW LLC
Heather M. LeBlanc
823 Gold Ave. SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Tel: 505-331-7222
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Luke Nikas (admitted pro hac vice)
Alex Spiro (admitted pro hac vice)
Michael Nosanchuk (admitted pro hac vice)
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Tel: 212-849-7000
Fax: 212-849-7100
Sara Clark (admitted pro hac vice)
700 Louisiana St., Ste. 3900
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: 713-221-7000
Fax: 737-667-6110
Counsel for Alec Baldwin
FILED 1st JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
Santa Fe County
6/24/2024 11:42 PM
KATHLEEN VIGIL CLERK OF THE COURT
Mayra Mendoza-Gutierrez
1
Defendant Alec Baldwin, by and through his attorneys, submits this motion in limine to
preclude argument, testimony, evidence, and statements that violate courtroom rules and
prosecutorial standards of conduct, including, by way of example, disguised or subtle remarks
about Baldwin’s fame or wealth, improper burden shifting, vouching for the opinion of the State,
urging the jury to reach a verdict based on anything other than the evidence, and coaching
witnesses.
ARGUMENT
Special Prosecutor Kari Morrissey, a veteran criminal defense lawyer, now represents the
State of New Mexico. Accordingly, she must now adhere to the ethical responsibilities and
standards of conduct that accompany that role. “[A] prosecutor is not simply acting as counsel for
one of two parties in a dispute; [she] is acting on behalf ‘of a sovereignty whose obligation to
govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all.’” State v. Torres, 2012-
NMSC-016, ¶ 17, 279 P.3d 740 (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)). “While
a prosecutor may strike hard blows, [she] is not at liberty to strike foul ones.” State v. Cooper,
2000-NMCA-041, ¶ 15, 3 P.3d 149 (quoting Berger, 295 U.S. at 88). Because of the “inherent
confidence an average jury will likely have in an agent of the government, ‘improper suggestions,
insinuations and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much more weight
against the accused when they should properly carry none.’” Torres, 2012-NMSC-016, ¶ 17
(quoting Berger, 295 U.S. at 88).
Morrissey, who may be overly accustomed to the leniency granted to counsel for criminal
defendants, fell well short of these standards throughout the trial of Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. And
there is no indication from the State that it intends to approach Baldwin’s trial any differently.
This Court has a critical role to play in upholding principles of prosecutorial integrity to protect
Baldwin’s due process rights. The Court should be particularly mindful of the following concerns.
2
1. Improper Burden Shifting
It is improper for the State to “distort[] the burden of proof” in any manner, State v. Duran,
2006-NMSC-035, ¶ 19, 140 P.3d 515, or to make arguments and statements that improperly
“lower[] the State’s burden of proof.” State v. Garvin, 2005-NMCA-107, ¶ 15, 117 P.3d 970. One
way a prosecutor can do this is to “suggest that the jury should determine the facts from the
evidence not produced.” State v. Diaz, 1983-NMCA-091, ¶ 17, 668 P.2d 326.
Yet the State did exactly this during the Gutierrez-Reed trial. See, e.g., Ex. A (HGR Trial
Tr., Day 9), at 143:24-144:19 (BOWLES: “What evidence do you have?” . . . MORRISSEY: “Has
the Defense filed any kind of motion in this case to try to get to the full contents of his phone?”
. . . MORRISSEY: “Okay. And you agree with me that Defense Counsel is free to issue subpoenas
and file Motions to Compel and do all of those things in a case if they feel that they’re missing
evidence.”); Ex. B (HGR Trial Tr., Day 10), at 73:1-6 (MORRISSEY: “But this man is not a mystery
to the State or the defense. I made him come in and sit down for a 1 1/2 hour interview so that the
defense could ask him any questions they wanted and they asked him none. Not a single question.
So what that means is that this is just all smoke and mirrors and deflection.”). Comments like
these, which impermissibly shift the burden onto the defendant, are patently improper as they
violate the sacrosanct rule that every criminal defendant remains innocent until proven guilty.
The State has already signalled that it intends to pursue similar tactics at Baldwin’s trial.
For example, in a pretrial interview of one of the State’s witnesses conducted by Baldwin’s
counsel, Morrissey ended the interview as follows: “[Y]ou haven’t been asked any questions today
about Mr. Baldwin’s conduct on the movie set of Rust. Is that right?” Ex. C (Tr. of 4/25/24 PTI
of Lane Luper), at 30:16-18. And: “So no one has made any inquiry to you today of what you may
testify to in trial regarding Mr. Baldwin. Is that right?” Id. at 31:5-7 When comments like these
3
are made in front of a jury, jurors can easily be misled into thinking that the defense must put on a
certain type of case—or any case at all—to be entitled to the presumption of innocence. Attempts
to improperly shift the burden in this manner are particularly dangerous where the State has
repeatedly reminded jurors and/or the public at large how many lawyers the defendant can afford
to hire for his defense. See, e.g., Ex. D (6/21/24 Hr’g Tr.) at 65:4-8 (“There are two lawyers on
the State’s side. There are ten lawyers on the defendant’s side and they have at least one
investigator. So if they can’t get that under control relatively quickly, I’m – I’m not sure what to
say.”). The Court should enter an order precluding the State from engaging in any improper burden
shifting, including when it involves comments about Baldwin’s defense strategy or Baldwin’s
counsel.
2. Vouching for the Opinion of the State
A “prosecutor’s vouching for the credibility of witnesses and expressing his personal
opinion concerning the guilt of the accused pose two dangers: such comments can convey the
impression that evidence not presented to the jury, but known to the prosecutor, supports the
charges against the defendant and can thus jeopardize the defendant’s right to be tried solely on
the basis of the evidence presented to the jury; and the prosecutor’s opinion carries with it the
imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the Government’s judgment rather
than its own view of the evidence.” United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18 (1985).
During closing argument in the Gutierrez-Reed trial, Special Prosecutor Morrissey violated
this principle by expressing her personal views on various elements of the case. She told the jury,
“We know the truth. You have seen it throughout this trial. And I will remind you that during
one of the heated objection exchanges between myself and Mr. Bowles, you heard Mr. Bowles cry
out that he was looking for truth. Listen, I can bring a horse to water, but I cannot make him
drink.” Ex. B at 73:6-12. She further told the jury that her job is to tell them her opinion on critical
4
elements in the case: “If you think that person would have done a satisfactory safety check if she
had been called back to the church, I am here to tell you that I strongly disagree.” Id. at 77:9-12.
“There can be no excuse for such conduct.” State v. Vallejos, 1974-NMCA-009, ¶ 15, 519 P.2d
135; see also State v. Baca, 1995-NMSC-045, ¶ 38 (recognizing as improper comments that
“essentially used [the prosecutor’s] position to express a personal opinion on [the defendant’s]
guilt or innocence”).
1
For the same reasons, a prosecutor may not use their role or their ability to object to interject
their own opinions as to the true answers to defense counsel’s questions. Morrissey did this
regularly at the Gutierrez-Reed trial, using her role to testify to the jury, impede the defense
examination, speak up about her own role in the case, and interject her own opinions where they
do not belong. See, e.g., Ex. E (HGR Trial, Day 3), at 82:21-22 (MORRISSEY: “Objection. That
misstates the facts that are already in evidence.” THE COURT: “Let him answer the question.”);
Ex. F (HGR Trial, Day 5), at 67:19-24 (MORRISSEY: “I will object to the form of that question. It
is completely contrary to the evidence that the jury has heard and Mr. Bowles knows it.”); id. at
76:16-24 (MORRISSEY: “Well, if he’s mentioning me, I don’t know what he’s talking about.”).
Indeed, the prosecution’s objections became so heated that the Court had to admonish the
prosecution that it’s not “advisable to get that upset in front of the jury,” urging the prosecution to
approach for objections rather than to “yell it out from counsel table.” Ex. E at 248:14-18,
249:11-17.
1
Likewise, it is improper for an investigative agent to be seated at counsel table throughout the
trial to bolster the prosecution’s credibility or authority. At minimum, if an investigative agent
who is a witness in the case is permitted to sit at counsel table throughout the trial, that witness
should be required to testify first. See, e.g., State v. Chavez, 1983-NMCA-120, ¶ 12, 676 P.2d 257
(“When an exception is granted to the rule of exclusion the trial court . . . can order that the police
officer be called first in order to avoid giving the prosecutor an unfair advantage or the appearance
that the State is being favored.”) (citing United States v. Frazier, 417 F.2d 1138 (4th Cir.1969)).
5
The State must not be permitted to use its role, and the heightened credibility that carries
with the jury, to vouch for its own opinions on the witnesses, the evidence, or the ultimate issues
the jury must decide, nor may it be permitted to undermine the norms of courtroom decorum that
allow each side to present its own evidence. Doing so fundamentally undermines the Defendant’s
constitutional right to a fair trial.
3. Coaching Witnesses
It is improper for any attorney—particularly an attorney representing the State to “advise
a witness to testify falsely or to phrase a witness’[s] testimony.” State v. Lopez, 1986-NMCA-094,
¶ 42, 734 P.2d 778. The prosecution crossed these lines at times during the Gutierrez-Reed trial.
See, e.g., Ex. F at 106:14:-22 (MORRISSEY: “And when you met with me, did I tell you what to
say?” CPL. HANCOCK: “We talked about what was going to be discussed.” MORRISSEY: “Did I tell
you what testimony to give? CPL. HANCOCK: Yes.”). And it has crossed the line on numerous
occasions throughout these proceedings. See, e.g., Ex. D at 217:13-220:4.
2
To protect Baldwin’s
fundamental due process rights, the Court should preclude the State from engaging in similarly
improper conduct at trial.
2
The disturbing revelations of the State’s improper witness coaching during Friday’s cross
examination of FBI Agent Ziegler reinforce the need for the relief sought in this motion. As the
Court will recall, cross-examination revealed that Ziegler met with the Special Prosecutors and
their paid expert witness last week, something Ziegler had never done in his entire career, so they
could come up with new, fabricated testimony about Ziegler’s gun testing that could explain the
contradictions between Lucien Haag’s false testimony in the pre-trial interview that there were no
modifications to the gun (as well as the State’s similar misrepresentations to the Court that the
FBI’s testing caused any and all perceived modifications) and Haag’s third (belatedly disclosed)
expert report stating that the FBI’s testing did not cause the modifications of the working surface
of the hammer/sear. Baldwin reserves all rights to pursue other relief related to this wildly
unacceptable misconduct. See United States v. Ganadonegro, 854 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1097 (D.N.M.
2012) (“The State's duty to its citizens does not allow it to pursue as many convictions as possible
without regard to fairness and the search for truth.”); Lopez, 1986-NMCA-094, ¶ 42 (coaching
witnesses “improper”).
6
4. Urging the Jury to Reach a Verdict Based On Anything Other than Evidence
Because “[t]he sole duty of a prosecutor is to see that justice is done, . . . [p]rosecutorial
commentary that urges a jury to convict for reasons other than the evidence defies the law and
undermines the integrity of a verdict.” State v. Cooper, 2000-NMCA-041, ¶ 15, 3 P.3d 149.
Arguments urging the jury to send a message with their verdict or to protect people like the victim
fall squarely into this category. “[T]his kind of pandering is at best unprofessional; at worst, it
places in jeopardy an otherwise just verdict.” Id. The State should be precluded from making any
such arguments here. Id. at ¶ 14.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court should preclude argument, testimony, evidence, and
statements that violate courtroom rules and prosecutorial standards of conduct, including, by way
of example, disguised or subtle remarks about Baldwin’s fame or wealth, improper burden shifting,
vouching for the opinion of the State, urging the jury to reach a verdict based on anything other
than the evidence, and coaching witnesses.
Date: June 24, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
By: /s/ Luke Nikas
Luke Nikas (admitted pro hac vice)
Alex Spiro (admitted pro hac vice)
Michael Nosanchuk (admitted pro hac vice)
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Tel: 212-849-7000
Sara Clark (admitted pro hac vice)
700 Louisiana St., Ste. 3900
Houston, TX 77002
7
Tel: 713-221-7000
John F. Bash (admitted pro hac vice)
300 W. 6th St., Suite 2010
Austin, TX 8701
Tel: 737-667-6100
LEBLANC LAW LLC
Heather M. LeBlanc
823 Gold Ave. SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Tel: 505-331-7222
Counsel for Alec Baldwin
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 24, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing brief was
emailed to opposing counsel.
/s/ Heather LeBlanc
Heather LeBlanc
EXHIBIT A
Page 1
HEARING: TRIAL DAY 9, TIME 8:34:18 AM
THE COURT: All right. The State has rested. So does
the Defense wish to make a motion? We're on the record.
MS. BARRERAS: Yes, Your Honor.
[Inaudible.]
THE COURT: Sure.
[Inaudible.]
THE COURT: Whatever you want to do.
[Inaudible.]
MS. BARRERAS: I'll just plug this in here. Okay. Your
Honor, at this time, the Defense moved for a directed
verdict on both counts, including the alternative count
of involuntary manslaughter. And I put on the screen
for the Court the legal standard. It's, of course, Rule
5607E that the Court's very well familiar with, which is
the sufficiency of the evidence determination. There's
case law defining sufficiency, which can be, of course,
direct or circumstantial. In this case, I don't think
there's a dispute that there is a lack of direct
evidence that's been provided. Even the case agent
testified that the case is based on distinct components
of circumstantial nature evidence to support. And at
this juncture, even though it is a sufficiency and even
though inferences are in the State's favor, the Court
still has to determine whether this circumstantial, in
Page 143
1 they should have detained him?
2 MR. ELLIOTT: I do.
3 MS. MORRISSEY: And do you believe that they should have
4 put him in a police car and taken his phone away?
5 MR. ELLIOTT: Not necessarily placed in a police car,
6 but he should have been segregated from the other
7 witnesses, and his phone should've been taken to
8 preserve evidence.
9 MS. MORRISSEY: Don't you agree with me that there has
10 to be probable cause that there may be evidence on the
11 phone before the phone can be taken?
12 MR. ELLIOTT: But they wouldn't know if there was going
13 to be evidence on the phone without interviewing him.
14 There was no other way to know whether there was
15 evidence on that phone or not. But he was on the phone
16 when Law Enforcement arrived, so who was he talking to?
17 MS. MORRISSEY: Well, did you look at his call logs?
18 MR. ELLIOTT: That's after the fact. I'm talking about
19 when deputies arrived at the scene.
20 MS. MORRISSEY: Okay. I appreciate that, but what I'm
21 trying to figure out is what about your concerns
22 actually turned out to be real issues with the
23 investigation? What evidence was missing or hidden by
24 Mr. Baldwin? What evidence do you have?
25 MR. ELLIOTT: We don't have the full contents of his
Page 144
1 phone.
2 MS. MORRISSEY: Has the Defense filed any kind of a
3 motion in this case to try to get to the full contents
4 of his phone?
5 MR. ELLIOTT: That, I don't know.
6 MS. MORRISSEY: And you understand, though, that a full
7 extraction of Mr. Baldwin's phone was done in New York,
8 but we were given a limited report. You understand
9 that?
10 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I do.
11 MS. MORRISSEY: And you also understand that,
12 originally, the same thing happened with Ms. Gutierrez?
13 A limited report was generated from a full extraction.
14 Correct?
15 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes.
16 MS. MORRISSEY: Okay. And you agree with me that
17 Defense Counsel is free to issue subpoenas and file
18 Motions to Compel and do all of those things in a case
19 if they feel that they're missing evidence.
20 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I'm aware of that.
21 MS. MORRISSEY: So do you think that it would have been
22 appropriate then for Law Enforcement to take Ms.
23 Gutierrez's phone away from her and not let her make a
24 phone call to her mother?
25 MR. ELLIOTT: That could be monitored also. I've --
EXHIBIT B
Page 1
HEARING: JURY TRIAL - DAY 10, 3/6/2024, 8:34 A.M.
THE COURT: Okay. So we're on the record. Can I have
the copies I requested?
MR. LEWIS: Yes. Copies requested.
MR. BOWLES: Oh, thanks.
THE COURT: Do you have yours?
MR. BOWLES: I don't have a copy, Your Honor. If
there's an extra copy, if possible.
MR. LEWIS: So, yes, I've got an extra copy.
MR. BOWLES: Okay.
MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, last evening, Ms. Barreras and I
worked on a combined --
THE COURT: Give me a second. I need Defendant's. Did
you put them in here?
MR. LEWIS: Yes. That --
THE COURT: They're --
MR. LEWIS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Perfect.
MR. LEWIS: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. So the one thing, as I
was looking through these -- let me just -- on the
general intent and the -- what did you determine?
MR. LEWIS: So, after speaking with Ms. Barreras, we
have determined to not include the general intent
instruction. And the reason is because, as to the
Page 73
1
But this man is not a mystery to the State or the
2
defense. I made him come in and sit down for a 1 1/2
3
hour interview so that the defense could ask him any
4
questions they wanted and they asked him none. Not a
5
single question. So what that means is that this is
6
just all smoke and mirrors and deflection. They don't
7
want the truth. We know the truth. You have seen it
8
throughout this trial. And I will remind you that
9
during one of the heated objection exchanges between
10
myself and Mr. Bowles, you heard Mr. Bowles cry out that
11
he was looking for the truth. Listen, I can bring a
12
horse to water, but I cannot make him drink. If you
13
want the truth, I'll bring the guy in. I'll make him
14
available for you to talk to. Ask him some questions.
15
Not a single one. It must have been that disgruntled
16
camera crew. You mean the people who believed that
17
safety on set was being compromised to such a degree
18
that they left? That decision may very well have saved
19
their lives.
20
So the $60,000 question in this case, who brought
21
the live rounds on set? You know the answer to that. I
22
know the answer to that. I'm not telling you that
23
Hannah Gutierrez intended to bring live rounds on set.
24
I'm telling you that she was negligent. She was
25
careless. She was thoughtless. She brought them on
Page 77
1
blood. So the first lethal injury that comes from the
2
gunshot is blood loss associated with it. And the
3
second one, if you recall from Dr. Jarrell, the wound to
4
the lung was also a lethal wound. Keep in mind, that
5
bullet went into her body, it went through her rib, it
6
severed her spinal cord, it punctured her lung. It came
7
out the back of her shoulder. And a few hours later,
8
Ms. Gutierrez is telling Corporal Hancock that she's
9
worried about her career. If you think that person
10
would have done a satisfactory safety check if she had
11
been called back to the church, I am here to tell you
12
that I strongly disagree.
13
The astonishing lack of diligence with regard to
14
gun safety is without question a significant cause of
15
the death of Halyna Hutchins. Did Mr. Baldwin also
16
contribute when he pointed the gun at people and pulled
17
the hammer back, and regardless of what he said to
18
George Stephanopoulos, pulled the trigger? Yes, he is.
19
And again, we'll deal with that another time. You don't
20
escape accountability when you load a live round into a
21
prop gun, tell the crew that it has dummy rounds in it,
22
hand it off to an actor, and leave the room because he
23
manipulated it. That's the whole point. That was the
24
whole point to him having it. Of course he was going to
25
manipulate it. It's foreseeable. Everything is so
EXHIBIT C
"+1/
%#'((% &"#%
$!##$$)</+>%2+85C9?
$#!5+C1</+>99.79<8381>=+7
9?8>+38%37/98:<36>2%23=3=>2/:</><3+6
38>/<@3/A90+8/?:/<38$>+>/@/<=?=6/B+8./<#+/
+6.A38C8+7/3=$+<+6+<5-9?8=/609<<
+6.A38+8.A3>27/3=7C-966/+1?/3-2+/6 9=+8-2?5
+<3A9?6.C9?635/>938><9.?-/C9?<>/+7
$!##$$)+<39<<3==/C+8.<638.+928=9898
,/2+6090>2/$>+>/90 /A/B3-9+8.A/+</4938/.,C
9?<38@/=>31+>9<9889<#3-/+8.9?<:+<+6/1+6
6/B+8./<+7/=
$#</+><?:/<-+8C9?=//+8.2/+<7/
95+C
#&"#=?</-+8 3-/>97//>C9?$+<+ 3-/
>97//>C9?3-2+/6+8.<638.+
$#%2/A296/1+813=2/</66<312>=9<
?:/<66,/.9381>2/;?/=>398381>9.+C98,/2+6090
<+6.A38@/,//8><C381>91/>,/>>/<+,9?>3>
,?>=97/>37/==:/+5>99;?3-56C0C9?.98>
?8./<=>+8.9<.98>2/+<=97/>2381=+C:6/+=/4?=>
+=57/>9-6+<30C+8.A366A366><C>9.9,/>>/<
A9?6.+=5+6=9>2+>30+=5C9?>9-6+<30CC9?+6=9
><C>9-6+<30C+8..98>>+5/3>+=+8900/8=/?=>
A+8>>97+5/=?</A/2+@/+-6/+8</-9<.9<>2/
Page 30
1
interacted with Halyna before I left -- before I left
2
for the day when I was picking up my things. And I
3
think that's it. That's what kind of stands out in my
4
mind.
5
MS. CLARK: Okay. And I'm going to apologize for having
6
one more, which is just have you had any interactions
7
with Mr. Rice without Ms. Morrissey present?
8
MR. LUPER: No, no, actually, no.
9
MS. CLARK: Okay. All right. I think that's all we
10
have for today, Kari. Do you want to ask any questions?
11
MS. MORRISSEY: Sure. Mr. Luper, the dailies that were
12
shown to you in the meeting that you had with me, those
13
haven't been shown to you today by Ms. Clark. Is that
14
right?
15
MR. LUPER: That's right.
16
MS. MORRISSEY: And you haven't been asked any questions
17
today about Mr. Baldwin's conduct on the movie set of
18
Rust. Is that right?
19
MR. LUPER: That's correct.
20
MS. MORRISSEY: And the majority of your contact with me
21
has been my inquiries about Mr. Baldwin's conduct on
22
Rust. Is that right?
23
MR. LUPER: That's correct.
24
MS. MORRISSEY: And is that generally what you testified
25
to in the grand jury?
Page 31
1
MR. LUPER: Yes.
2
MS. MORRISSEY: And you haven't been asked any questions
3
about Mr. Baldwin today?
4
MR. LUPER: No, no.
5
MS. MORRISSEY: So no one has made any inquiry to you
6
today of what you may testify to in trial regarding Mr.
7
Baldwin. Is that right?
8
MR. LUPER: Right.
9
MS. MORRISSEY: All right. I don't have anything else.
10
MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, guys. Have a good
11
day.
12
MR. LUPER: Thank you. Nice to meet you, Sara. You
13
have a wonderful day.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EXHIBIT D
Transcript of Proceedings
Date: June 21, 2024
Case: State of New Mexico v. Alec Rae Baldwin, III
Case Number: D-0101-CR-2024-0013
Maricopa Reporting, Inc.
Phone: 1-844-667-8366
Scheduling@MaricopaReporting.com
https://www.maricopareporting.com/
Transcript of Proceedings - June 21, 2024
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
Page 1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF SANTA FE
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
)
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, )
)
Plaintiff, ) No.
) D-0101-CR-2024-0013
vs. )
)
ALEC RAE BALDWIN III, )
)
Defendant. )
)
TRANSCRIPT OF REMOTE PROCEEDINGS
JUNE 21, 2024
9 A.M. MOUNTAIN TIME
SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
REPORTED BY: MARICOPA REPORTING, INC.
Sommer E. Greene, RPR, CRR 701 Camino de la Familia
New Mexico Court Reporter #214
Certificate No. 504 Santa Fe, New Mexico
1-844-667-8366
Page 3
1
I N D E X
2
3
Defendant's Expedited Motion For 4
Court Order Excluding Defense
4
Witnesses
5
State's Expedited Opposed Motion 44
For Use Immunity
6
State's Motion For in Camera 70
7
Inspection of Joint Defense
Agreement
8
Motion to Dismiss the Indictment 72
9
For Failure to Allege a Criminal
Offense
10
11
EXAMINATION PAGE
12
CORPORAL HANCOCK
13
EXAMINATION BY MS. JOHNSON......................121
14
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SPIRO..................141
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. JOHNSON.............170
15
16
BRYCE ZIEGLER
17
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. JOHNSON...............176
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SPIRO..................207
18
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. JOHNSON.............245
19
LUCIEN HAAG
20
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. MORRISSEY.............252
21
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK..................299
22
* * *
23
24
25
Page 2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
For the Plaintiff:
3
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
4 LUKE NIKAS, ESQ.
ALEX SPIRO, ESQ.
5 JOHN BASH, ESQ.
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
6 New York, New York 10010
212.849.7000
7 lukenikas@quinnemanuel.com
alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com
8 johnbash@quinnemanuel.com
9 SARA CLARK, ESQ.
700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3900
10 Houston, Texas 77002
saraclark@quinnemanuel.com
11
LEBLANC LAW LLC
12 HEATHER M. LEBLANC, ESQ.
823 Gold Avenue SW
13 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
505.331.7222
14 heather@leblanclawnm.law
15
16 For State of New Mexico:
17 LAW OFFICE OF KARI MORRISSEY
KARI MORRISSEY, ESQ.
18 1303 Rio Grande Boulevard NW, Suite 5
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104
19 505.361.2138
20
LAW OFFICE OF ERLINDA OCAMPO JOHNSON
21 ERLINDA JOHNSON, ESQ.
620 Roma Avenue NW
22 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
505.792.4048
23
24
25
Page 4
1
JUNE 21, 2024; 9 A.M.
2
SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
3
4
5
JUDGE MARLOWE SOMMER: Good morning.
6
Okay. I'm just making sure that the people that are
7
trying to get on are viewed.
8
Okay. So good morning. Let's have
9
counsel state their appearance.
10
D-0101-CR-2024-00013, State of New Mexico versus
11
Alexander Rae Baldwin.
12
Parties state their name.
13
MS. MORRISSEY: Kari Morrissey and
14
Erlinda Ocampo Johnson on behalf of the State of New
15
Mexico.
16
MR. SPIRO: Alex Spiro and
17
Heather LeBlanc on behalf of Mr. Baldwin again.
18
JUDGE MARLOWE SOMMER: All right. Thank
19
you.
20
So we'll start with the defendant's
21
expedited motion for court order excluding defense
22
witnesses.
23
Go ahead.
24
MR. SPIRO: We have just one technical
25
issue, which is Mr. Bash has not been allowed into
Transcript of Proceedings - June 21, 2024
17 (Pages 65 to 68)
Page 65
1
jail calls were provided weeks ago. I know how long
2
it takes to listen to the jail -- the jail calls
3
because I've had to pay my investigator to do it.
4
There are two lawyers on the State's
5
side. There are ten lawyers on the defendant's side
6
and they have at least one investigator. So if they
7
can't get that under control relatively quickly,
8
I'm -- I'm not sure what to say.
9
We are not -- I want to make clear, we
10
are not asserting that Ms. Gutierrez has a whole
11
bunch of additional information that nobody's ever
12
heard of. She is specifically being called by the
13
State so that she can simply give the jury the
14
information that she already provided to law
15
enforcement and to OSHA with her lawyer's advice to
16
waive her Fifth Amendment privilege.
17
So those are the things that we're asking
18
to get in through her testimony. There's one other
19
statement that she made in a jail call that was
20
specifically provided to the defense. They don't
21
need to go listen to 300 and some of them to find
22
that. We gave them the number. We showed them
23
exactly where it was.
24
Now, at the end of the day when the
25
defendant comes to court and says, Judge, we don't
Page 67
1 of those videos were duplicative.
2 So what was happening is two police
3 officers were conducting an interview. The defendant
4 didn't have the lapel camera from one of the
5 officers, but they did have the lapel video from the
6 other officer who was present for the interview.
7 So a lot of their complaints about this
8 stuff was coming in late. They're -- they're really
9 overexaggerating any potential prejudice that they
10 could have possibly had from any of that.
11 And, again, they asked for a June trial
12 over -- because of my objection, the Court gave them
13 a July trial when we were intending to have an
14 October trial. So if they don't have enough time,
15 there's a remedy. They can ask for a continuance.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE MARLOWE SOMMER: All right. The
18 Court makes the following ruling to be followed up by
19 an order of the Court to be filed next week.
20 The State denies the State's amended
21 opposed expedited motion for use immunity for
22 Hannah Gutierrez. It's pretty clear that she does
23 not intend to cooperate.
24 The Court may grant use immunity pursuant
25 to Rule 5-116 if the Court finds the testimony may be
Page 66
1
have enough time, we're prejudiced because we don't
2
have enough time, I want to take the Court back to
3
the hearing that we had on February 20th where we
4
were talking about scheduling. And the Court
5
suggested that the trial be scheduled in October, and
6
the State suggested that the trial also be scheduled
7
in October, and it was Mr. Spiro, it was the
8
defendant who said, no, no, no, we need to have a
9
trial in June. They wanted a trial last month.
10
They got a trial this month, and they
11
continue to come to court and say, Judge, we don't
12
have enough time. They don't have enough time
13
because they asked to have the trial set too soon in
14
a case that has massive discovery.
15
With regard to any of their complaints
16
about all of these documents that -- that have been
17
provided, I have to tell you, Judge, you know, when
18
they indicate in their arguments that they received
19
this massive amount of discovery.
20
What happened was we realized that not
21
all of the lapel videos were in our possession, and,
22
therefore, were not in the defendant's possession.
23
So as soon as we realized that, we got those videos
24
from the sheriff's department, we uploaded them, we
25
provided them, and we realized that the vast majority
Page 68
1
necessary to the public interest, and the person has
2
refused or is likely to refuse to testify. So it's
3
really the public interest portion that I'm going to
4
address because she has indicated that she won't
5
testify.
6
You've indicated that she possesses
7
information about what she already told the
8
investigators. I don't think that there is anything
9
that -- I mean, I haven't heard of anything that she
10
might testify to that someone else could not testify
11
to. Even about her observations, maybe -- I mean,
12
maybe the only thing is -- the only portion is that
13
talking about how Mr. Baldwin didn't -- you know,
14
didn't want to be trained, things like that, which
15
she could probably answer without the use immunity.
16
But, you know, the State says, well, the
17
simple solution after she refuses to answer, even
18
though she's been given immunity, is that you can
19
hold her in contempt. I'm not going to do a mini
20
trial within a trial, and I think that when all is
21
said and done, if she's going to be an unavailable
22
witness, then we're at the 11-804 evidence rule on
23
available witnesses. So I think -- I think you
24
should prepare accordingly.
25
MS. MORRISSEY: If I could just ask a
Transcript of Proceedings - June 21, 2024
55 (Pages 217 to 220)
Page 217
1
only in that manual with the hammer and a -- one
2
particular setting.
3
Q. Sure. Thank you for that clarification.
4
But it is true that the manual discusses
5
that this firearm can go off without pulling the
6
trigger; true?
7
A. Specifically with the hammer at rest,
8
you're correct.
9
Q. And you've said this isn't some
10
phenomenon, this is something that's known about the
11
design of these firearms; true?
12
A. With the hammer at rest, you're correct.
13
Q. And -- well, in the -- in the -- the
14
owner's manual also says that a blow to the hammer
15
resulting from a fall dropping of the gun can also
16
cause the gun to discharge; true?
17
A. With the hammer at rest, you're correct.
18
Q. Okay. Or if the hammer slips from the
19
shooter's thumb; right?
20
A. I would have to see that line to see what
21
that is referring to.
22
Q. The manual also says that the person
23
should not even touch the trigger because of this
24
concern in sensitivity of the hammer falling; true?
25
A. I would attribute that to general firearm
Page 219
1
THE WITNESS: I do not know that -- the
2
answer to that.
3
Q. BY MR. SPIRO: If the trigger is held in,
4
okay, while you're cocking it, and the hammer falls,
5
that can set off this firearm; isn't that true?
6
A. Depending on how far the hammer is cocked
7
because you have to keep in mind as you're cocking
8
the hammer, the cylinder starts to rotate.
9
So, again, depending on the position of
10
the cylinder, if the hammer falls and does not make
11
contact with the primer, it won't fire.
12
However, you are correct, if I hold the
13
trigger in and I cock the hammer and I let it go, you
14
may fire cartridge in that method.
15
Q. And the manual says, and you know from
16
your own experience, that you shouldn't load every
17
single chamber on one of these revolvers because it's
18
at risk; fair?
19
A. And that is referring to the hammer being
20
at rest on a loaded chamber, yes.
21
Q. Now, I understand you keep saying that,
22
Mr. Ziegler.
23
Were you prepped on that point before you
24
testified here today?
25
MS. JOHNSON: Objection, Your Honor.
Page 218
1
safety.
2
Q. But it's in this manual; true?
3
A. I don't specifically know that.
4
MS. JOHNSON: Objection, Your Honor.
5
Calls for speculation. And if he's referring to the
6
manual, I'd ask that he give Mr. Ziegler an
7
opportunity to review the manual.
8
MR. SPIRO: I'm not required to do that
9
in cross-examination. He said he reviewed the
10
manual. I'm asking if he knows that.
11
JUDGE MARLOWE SOMMER: What was the
12
question that she's saying is speculation?
13
MR. SPIRO: I guess that I just asked
14
him. Does the manual say that don't even touch the
15
trigger because the hammer can slip in this firearm?
16
Q. BY MR. SPIRO: Does the manual say that,
17
do you know that?
18
THE WITNESS: May I answer?
19
JUDGE MARLOWE SOMMER: Yes. But you're
20
assuming that he remembers, so --
21
MR. SPIRO: If he doesn't remember, I
22
understand that he may not remember. It's in his
23
report and it's in the manual so I'm just asking.
24
JUDGE MARLOWE SOMMER: All right. Thank
25
you.
Page 220
1
Argumentative.
2
MR. SPIRO: I'm allowed to ask a witness
3
what their preparation was on a topic.
4
JUDGE MARLOWE SOMMER: Overruled.
5
Q. BY MR. SPIRO: Were you prepped on that
6
topic before today, Mr. Ziegler?
7
A. No, sir. I keep reiterating that because
8
you appear to be insinuating that this firearm can
9
fire with the hammer in every position, and you're
10
using direct quotes from the owner's manual when
11
those quotes refer to a specific hammer setting.
12
Q. So you were -- I'm asking you a different
13
question now, which is were you prepped on the issue
14
of whether or not this gun could fire without pulling
15
the trigger before today?
16
A. We certainly had trial prep.
17
Q. The mechanism that we're describing,
18
which you obviously can describe more artfully than
19
me, is not the same on every modern firearm. Not
20
every modern firearm can go off like what we're
21
describing; true?
22
A. That is correct.
23
Q. And there's actually examples of firearms
24
similar to this firearm; right? And you've said
25
you've disassembled very similar single-action
EXHIBIT E
Page 1
HEARING: JURY TRIAL - DAY 3, 2/26/2024, 8:19 A.M.
THE COURT: The case I'm calling is D-1010-202340, State
of New Mexico versus Hannah Gutierrez. Parties, state
their name.
MS. MORRISSEY: Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis on behalf
of the State of New Mexico.
THE COURT: Could you go get Counsel?
THE COURT: All right. Counsel, approach.
[Sidebar discussion.]
[Inaudible.]
MR. BOWLES: [Inaudible.]
MS. MORRISSEY: [Inaudible.]
MR. BOWLES: Right.
MS. MORRISSEY: [Inaudible.] I do agree [inaudible] to
get up to [inaudible] not coming from Mr. Bowles. This
is her choice. She understands [inaudible] Mr. Bowles
represents. She needs to [inaudible]. She needs to be
[inaudible].
MR. BOWLES: She [inaudible]. She isn't actually
[inaudible]. She has [inaudible] to be seen in trial.
[Inaudible] to make sure that she is represented
[inaudible].
THE COURT: I want her to come up.
MR. BOWLES: Yes.
THE COURT: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear,
Page 82
1
be in the paperwork that was submitted, but I don't know
2
that.
3
MR. BOWLES: Okay. And you have no idea where Seth
4
Kenney brought the rounds that he submitted?
5
MR. ZIEGLER: I do not.
6
MR. BOWLES: And he didn't submit them to you. Correct?
7
MR. ZIEGLER: No. We received evidence from the case
8
agents.
9
MR. BOWLES: Okay. And you didn't personally conduct
10
any fingerprint or DNA testing because that's out of
11
your specialty?
12
MR. ZIEGLER: That's correct. I did not.
13
MR. BOWLES: Earlier, you were talking about the
14
different types of ammo from 126 Monroe Street. Do you
15
recall that you were showing live, dummy, and blank --
16
all three types?
17
MR. ZIEGLER: Can you ask that question again?
18
MR. BOWLES: Sure. As part of your examination of the
19
rounds from 126 Monroe Street, you're aware that there
20
were live rounds, blank rounds, and dummy rounds?
21
MS. MORRISSEY: Objection. That misstates the facts
22
that are already in evidence.
23
THE COURT: Let him answer the question.
24
MR. ZIEGLER: Do you have specific item numbers that I
25
can reference?
Page 248
1
and they walked off the day before the shooting. Part
2
of that was their hotel situation. You were aware of
3
that, weren't you?
4
MR. ADDIEGO: I don't know about disgruntled, but I know
5
that they were promised hotels or housing and -- and
6
those promises never came to fruition.
7
MR. BOWLES: Okay. And so, they left, and the next day
8
when there had to be a new camera crew, they had to get
9
some more people, you were aware Video Village was down?
10
MR. ADDIEGO: I was not.
11
MR. BOWLES: You didn't know Video Village was down at
12
all?
13
MS. MORRISSEY: Asked and answered, Your Honor.
14
THE COURT: Counsel, approach.
15
[Sidebar discussion.]
16
THE COURT: I don't think it's advisable to get that
17
upset in front of the jury. So, if you want to
18
approach, approach.
19
MS. MORRISSEY: Mr. Bowles needs to stop asking the same
20
question over and over and over again because he's not
21
getting a response that he likes. He asks the question,
22
the witness answers, he moves on to his next question.
23
That's the way questioning of witnesses works.
24
MR. BOWLES: Judge, I'm --
25
THE COURT: Well, okay.
Page 249
1
MS. MORRISSEY: He's not doing it. He asked that
2
question twice and he's done it numerous times.
3
MR. BOWLES: I'm entitled to some cross, and I can move
4
on to another fact and time, but --
5
THE COURT: Okay.
6
MR. BOWLES: -- I understand what you're saying.
7
THE COURT: You can ask leading questions.
8
MR. BOWLES: Yes.
9
THE COURT: but that doesn't mean you can testify.
10
MR. BOWLES: Yes, I understand.
11
THE COURT: All right. So, if you want to get up every
12
single time, I think that's a better way to do it than
13
do what's happening.
14
MS. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry. I don't understand.
15
THE COURT: If you think that he's doing something wrong
16
on cross, I think you should approach rather than yell
17
it out from the counsel table.
18
MS. MORRISSEY: Okay. Obviously, the Court, to a
19
certain degree, agrees with me Mr. Bowles has been
20
trying to testify. He --
21
THE COURT: He has been, but you're not objecting.
22
MS. MORRISSEY: Well, I have been objecting and it
23
doesn't stop, so --
24
THE COURT: I'm not --
25
MS. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry. [Inaudible].
EXHIBIT F
Page 1
HEARING: JURY TRIAL - DAY 5, 2/28/2024, 8:51 A.M.
MS. MORRISSEY: Are we on the record? Okay, we'll go
ahead and resume the video at one hour and five minutes.
[State's Exhibit 68 video is played.]
MS. MORRISSEY: And I'm sorry, Corporal. I, myself,
couldn't hear what kind of an instructor you were asking
her about. Can you summarize that?
CPL. HANCOCK: Yeah. So I had asked her if she was a
certified firearms instructor.
MS. MORRISSEY: Okay. Thank you.
[State's Exhibit 68 video is played.]
THE COURT: Can I just ask you to stop? Are we good on
hearing okay? Okay. Thank you.
[State's Exhibit 68 video is played.]
MS. MORRISSEY: Corporal, based on your understanding of
dummy rounds and how an armorer would check dummy
rounds, based on your investigation, is it possible to
determine that every round in a box is a dummy round if
you just shake the entire box?
CPL. HANCOCK: No.
MS. MORRISSEY: Because if you just shake the box, how
can you tell?
CPL. HANCOCK: I mean, yeah, you could more than likely
hear some of them jingling, but it wouldn't be, you
know, feasible to point out that every single one of
Page 67
1 CPL. HANCOCK: Correct.
2 MR. BOWLES: And you never took his DNA. Correct?
3 CPL. HANCOCK: That's correct.
4 MR. BOWLES: And you also never took his phone to be
5 downloaded like the other phones that you took. Right?
6 CPL. HANCOCK: That's correct.
7 MR. BOWLES: So Mr. Kenney, I know you mentioned had
8 shown you certain text messages and other information,
9 but you never got the entirety of what was on his phone.
10 Correct?
11 CPL. HANCOCK: It wasn't a full extraction, if that's
12 what you're referring to.
13 MR. BOWLES: Yes, right. It was not a full extraction?
14 CPL. HANCOCK: That's correct.
15 MR. BOWLES: And in contrast, you get extractions of
16 phones for Ms. Gutierrez-Reed, Sarah Zachry, Mr. Halls,
17 and Mr. Baldwin. Correct?
18 CPL. HANCOCK: Yes, because they were on the set.
19 MR. BOWLES: Okay. And you had mentioned that before,
20 but actually, Seth Kenney was the primary source of
21 ammunition to the set. Correct?
22 MS. MORRISSEY: I will object to the form of that
23 question. It is completely contrary to the evidence
24 that the jury has heard and Mr. Bowles knows it.
25 MR. BOWLES: I -- actually, Your Honor, I don't. And
Page 76
1 CPL. HANCOCK: Yes.
2 MR. BOWLES: So your testimony that -- you've gone over
3 these exhibits, you've gone over what you're going to
4 say today?
5 CPL. HANCOCK: That's correct.
6 MR. BOWLES: So when you gave those answers earlier, in
7 fact, you knew what a particular exhibit number was. It
8 was 48. That was something you all had discussed,
9 wasn't it?
10 CPL. HANCOCK: I don't believe the specific exhibit
11 number, but again, she showed me when she would ask
12 about it.
13 MR. BOWLES: On a break?
14 CPL. HANCOCK: Just now when she --
15 MR. BOWLES: Right.
16 MS. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry. I don't know off the top of
17 my head what Exhibit 48 is, and I don't know that the
18 witness does. So in order for this to make sense for
19 her to --
20 THE COURT: She didn't ask for clarification.
21 MS. MORRISSEY: All right.
22 THE COURT: I think we're just going over this.
23 MS. MORRISSEY: Well, if he's mentioning me, I don't
24 know what he's talking about.
25 MR. BOWLES: Well, she does because she was the one that
Page 106
1 MS. MORRISSEY: You met with me on another occasion to
2 prepare on another case. Is that correct?
3 CPL. HANCOCK: Yes.
4 MS. MORRISSEY: Why is it important for you to meet with
5 the prosecuting attorney before you testify?
6 CPL. HANCOCK: A lot of it is to refresh myself with,
7 you know, parts of the case and what I need to focus on,
8 especially because this is such a big case. As you can
9 see, I have a large binder and a large box. So it helps
10 me to narrow down facts that I need to focus on.
11 MS. MORRISSEY: And have you given truthful testimony
12 today?
13 CPL. HANCOCK: Yes.
14 MS. MORRISSEY: And when you met with me, did I tell you
15 what to say?
16 CPL. HANCOCK: We talked about what was going to be
17 discussed.
18 MS. MORRISSEY: Did I tell you what testimony to give?
19 CPL. HANCOCK: Yes.
20 MS. MORRISSEY: But what did I tell you to give? Did I
21 tell you to tell a lie?
22 CPL. HANCOCK: No.
23 MS. MORRISSEY: You're telling the truth?
24 CPL. HANCOCK: Yes, I am.
25 MS. MORRISSEY: Did I tell you to tell the truth?
