Two Alec Baldwin Jurors Were Leaning Towards Guilty Verdict When Case Was Dismissed

As a movie critic with a background in gun safety and a deep appreciation for the film industry, I find myself intrigued by the Alec Baldwin trial. Having grown up in rural areas where hunting was a way of life, I’ve spent countless hours handling firearms and understand the importance of safety measures.


Two jurors involved in the Alec Baldwin trial shared with EbMaster that they were inclining towards finding him guilty before the involuntary manslaughter charges were unexpectedly dropped.

Three other jurors expressed reservations about Baldwin’s innocence, which contrasts with the beliefs of Baldwin’s defense team.

On July 12, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer ended the case as prosecutors neglected to share with the defense crucial evidence regarding bullets. If found guilty in the October 2021 shooting incident at a New Mexico film ranch, Alec Baldwin could have been sentenced to spend up to 18 months behind bars.

When I spoke with Chris Montoya and Dennis Garcia, two of the jurors in the case, they both shared that they personally own firearms. They emphasized that it’s the handler’s duty to ensure the gun’s safety at all times.

“According to Garcia, a plumber, you should promptly check a firearm handed to you by friends, ensuring it’s unloaded.”

Montoya, an employee in New Mexico’s IT department, expressed his skepticism towards the defense’s argument that Baldwin’s firearm might have malfunctioned.

“Montoya expressed his belief that both ‘he didn’t pull the trigger’ and ‘the gun might have been faulty’ were unlikely explanations for what happened in their defense,” he stated.

The trial was planned to continue for eight days, but jurors heard just the lawyers’ opening statements and two days of witness testimonies before being dismissed. The prosecution hadn’t presented Baldwin’s police interrogations as evidence yet or invited experts on set safety procedures. Meanwhile, the defense hadn’t called any witnesses to testify.

An alternate juror named Jonathan Graboff shared with EbMaster that he was undecided about his vote since he hadn’t reviewed all the evidence presented in court. Despite being listed as one of four alternates on a court document, Graboff mentioned that no one had informed him whether he was an alternate or part of the jury panel of twelve.

Jurors Johanna Haag and Gabriela Picayo shared with The New York Times their belief that the case appeared weak to them.

As a film enthusiast, I’d put it like this: “I’m listening, I’m keeping an open mind. But honestly, I was beginning to think that this whole situation was rather absurd and that the trial shouldn’t be happening.”

Martina Marquez, another juror, expressed her view that it was unnecessary to bring charges against Baldwin to People.

Garcia expressed his confusion over the situation, acknowledging that Baldwin would likely be deeply regretful. However, he believed Baldwin should have taken the extra precaution of checking the weapon.

From a neutral perspective, ensuring safety is your responsibility as an individual on a film set. If I were to comment, I would simply state, “I regret to inform you that an accident occurred and someone has been hurt.”

The jurors were instructed not to talk about the case among themselves. However, Montoya felt that the jury seemed divided, with a few members favoring a guilty verdict.

He expressed his disappointment that they didn’t delve further into the topic. The prosecution’s additional points piqued his curiosity.

The prosecution claimed that Baldwin disregarded fundamental gun safety guidelines when he aimed his Colt .45 at Hutchins and fired.

Montoya explained, “I was raised with guns and have passed on this knowledge to my kids. They’ve learned from me to always be aware of what’s inside the gun, never aim it carelessly, and clearly identify their target before shooting.”

In their defense, it was argued that the safety regulations didn’t apply on film sets, making Baldwin, in his role as an actor, exempt from ensuring gun safety.

Graboff, who has long worked in TV and music, said the argument “resonated with me.”

Surprised by being selected for the jury, Graboff mentioned to the judge that his professional background might influence his perspective on the case.

He straightforwardly expressed his disappointment towards those responsible for ensuring safety, as two individuals neglected their duties in this case. In analogous scenarios, I assume that any gadget I receive will be in good working condition.

The judge was informed by him that without proof that Baldwin and the production team were aware of the incompetence of those handling the firearms, it would be challenging for the prosecution to win the case according to him.

He remained seated and expressed that the prosecutor’s opening statement didn’t fully address his doubts.

I replied, “They suggested that I was responsible for inspecting the firearm myself. But in reality, things don’t function that way.”

In summary, the jurors’ initial perspectives were not yet set in stone, making it uncertain if they would have held firm or been convinced otherwise once they had considered all the evidence and engaged in deliberation.

“Garcia admitted it was challenging for him to come up with a definitive judgment. He expressed uncertainty about the thoughts and considerations of his fellow jury members.”

I strongly believe that being a juror in a high-profile case is no small feat. The responsibility to deliver a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence presented is a daunting task. As such, it is crucial for jurors to avoid external influences that may sway their judgment.

On Monday, he arrived at court expecting to continue with his legal proceedings. However, he was informed instead that his duty had been fulfilled and he was free to leave.

Read More

2024-07-25 02:47