Everything We Know About the Rust Shooting
A grand jury will reportedly consider refiling involuntary-manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin.
www.thecut.com
************Alec Baldwin: Shooting on the Set of His Movie Kills One, Injures Second During Scene**********
- Thread starter OutlawR.O.C.
- Start date
www.thecut.com
'Rust' Ranch Owners Try To Dismiss Lawsuit Filed By Medic Who Treated Halyna Hutchins
The owners of the ranch where "Rust" is filmed are trying to get a civil lawsuit filed by the on-site medic dismissed.
theblast.com
‘Hot Bench’ Judges on Jonathan Majors, Gwyneth Paltrow and What’s Wrong With ‘Law & Order’
The stars of the 'Judge Judy' spinoff talk about Hollywood's biggest legal dramas of the year.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
Click to expand the Mega Menu
The Hollywood Reporter homepage
SUBSCRIBE
THR, Esq
BY WINSTON CHO
Plus Icon
DECEMBER 26, 2023 7:35AM
'Hot Bench' COURTESY OF CBS
Logo text
The Hot Bench judges are no strangers to conflict.
Every week, the three-judge tribunal presides over small-claims cases ranging from tame disputes over property damage to wild clashes over accusations of sabotage between longtime friends.
Judges Michael Corriero, Rachel Juarez and Yodit Tewolde earned a wide variety of legal bona fides before joining the CBS series that hails from Judge Judy Sheindlin. Corriero served as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, a criminal defense attorney and a judge for 28 years; Juarez worked at biglaw firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan prior to founding a family law practice specializing in the representation of high net worth individuals; and Tewolde boasts extensive experience in criminal law from her years as an Assistant District Attorney in Dallas County and criminal defense attorney.
GENERAL NEWS
The most recent episode of the series featured a woman suing a car shop owner for refusing to return new tires and rims she installed on the vehicle, which was repossessed. Ultimately, the judges ruled in favor of the defendant.
ADVERTISEMENT
“It’s hard for us to believe that you met your burden of proof, given your failure to produce in this courtroom receipts — just simple receipts that you paid the payments on time and that you paid them in full,” said Corriero. “Therefore, your case is dismissed.”
While no case is too small or too outlandish for the judges, they’re also familiar with high-profile litigation and closely monitor matters in off-camera courtrooms. The panel sat down with The Hollywood Reporter for a wide-ranging conversation on Hollywood cases including Jonathan Majors’ conviction, Danny Masterson’s chances on appeal and Alec Baldwin’s potential criminal liability over the shooting on the set of Rust — and share why criminal procedurals like Law & Order are warping jurors’ expectations.
ADVERTISEMENT
Whose lawyers in a high-profile civil or criminal case this year impressed you?
Rachel Juarez: One of the things that stood out to me this year was how in Gwyneth Paltrow‘s trial, she got what appeared to be some excellent legal advice to be herself when she testified. I think there was a general sense that the jury might not like Gwyneth Paltrow. They might see her as privileged. They might see her as unrelatable. Instead of trying to make herself relatable, or be something she wasn’t, it seemed pretty clear that she was told to ‘just be yourself.’ When it comes to credibility, I think that was huge because that was a case that depended on evaluating two different people’s account of an event. I think the jury believed hers and, in part, that was because she came off as authentic, even if not perhaps relatable, and truthful.
Gwyneth Paltrow testifies during her trial on March 24, 2023, in Park City, Utah. RICK BOWMER-POOL/GETTY IMAGES
Yodit Tewolde: Juries are perceptive. They can pick up on disingenuous energy. It doesn’t matter if you won an Oscar or not. That’s been tried before with celebrity cases where a celebrity who’s an actor will go up on the stand and think that they can act their way into making a jury believe their version. It’s just not going to work. Not when you have several of your peers watching every single thing that you’re doing. You can’t get away with it.
ADVERTISEMENT
What are your thoughts on Jonathan Majors’ conviction?
Michael Corriero: I thought the verdict is a clear example of the jury’s role as sacrosanct. There was an incredible amount of publicity from both sides on what happened and what didn’t. The jury was able to cut through all of that and made some very crucial distinctions. For example, he was charged with intentional assault as the top count — intending to cause a physical injury of his accuser — and was found guilty of reckless assault, meaning that the jury felt that whatever he did it was not intended to cause a physical injury. The jury really took the time to cut through both the prosecution’s theory and defense theory to come up with a solution which they felt was fair just under the circumstances.
Juarez: I agree with Michael. The jury really looked carefully at the charges and the evidence and carefully decided that the evidence matched one of the charges but not the others.
Actor Jonathan Majors and his girlfriend, Meagan Good, flanked by his lawyer Priya Chaudhry (R). ALEXI ROSENFELD/GETTY IMAGES
Text messages from a previous alleged incident were shown to the jury and it seemed that Mr. Majors’ attorney opened the door to that on cross-examination. What are your thoughts on what happened there, and what impact do you think those texts had on the jury?
Tewolde: I think she opened the door, if I’m not mistaken, when she was cross-examining the accuser and was really pressing her on her vague answers to law enforcement. “Well, didn’t you say this, but then you meant this or why did you not say this?” And the judge allowed the prosecution to provide more context for the jury as to why she was so vague. That’s when the older text message came through about her not wanting to really tell the truth.
Corriero: Probably the worst thing a losing criminal defense lawyer would want to hear — and I was a criminal defense lawyer for seven years before I became a judge and after I left the prosecutor’s office — is that you opened the door to incriminating evidence. So, I’m not going there because this question of the parameters of cross-examination goes directly to the skill level of an experienced trial lawyer. Sometimes we walk a razor’s edge in cross-examination. This is a very delicate area, and I don’t know how it played out. I wouldn’t be comfortable in saying that she opened the door. It may very well have been part of her strategy to get it all out there.
Juarez: I know the big takeaway was he was convicted on two of the counts, but he was also exonerated on two of the accounts. That would suggest that these text messages didn’t sow anger and offend the jury [to the extent that] they just threw the book at him. So, again, it’s kind of hard to know if this opening the door type situation was deliberate. Did she know that these would probably come in but felt that the trade-off on cross-examination was worth it? Or perhaps it wasn’t part of a broader strategy because the defense wasn’t entirely unsuccessful. We can’t ignore that.
Danny Masterson’s appeal is likely to focus, in part, on the introduction of uncharged bad acts witnesses and prosecutors being allowed to directly argue that he drugged his victims. What do you make of those arguments and what do you think his chances of success are?
Juarez: There’s going to be a lot of interesting issues on his appeal because you have the very unusual circumstance of a trial, a mistrial, and then a retrial where there were significantly different evidentiary decisions made by the judge. That’s not particularly common. The notion of these bad acts and also the testimony and the evidence about Scientology, both of which were far more limited in the first trial and came into play in the second trial. For that reason, one could assume that they were a key reason for the difference in verdicts. It would be a decent assumption that they bore at least some weight on that.
The evidence of the drugging of the victims, clearly that is prejudicial in the sense that it makes him look worse, but when you’re evaluating these things, the question is unfair prejudice. Is it unfairly prejudicial? The evidence, as I understand it, is that he was drugging the victims in connection with the assaults. That type of evidence would seem to be closely related enough to the actual offenses that it would not be the type of unfairly prejudicial character testimony, or uncharged prior bad act testimony, that would only paint them in a bad light and not shed any light in a probative and relevant sense.
Danny Masterson stands with his lawyers Thomas Mesereau and Sharon Appelbaum as he is arraigned on rape charges at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on September 18, 2020 in Los Angeles. LUCY NICHOLSON – POOL/GETTY IMAGES
Corriero: From a judicial perspective, these kinds of questions about whether or not to admit evidence of uncharged similar bad acts are fundamentally difficult, especially in the context in which they arrived in the trial. For example, in the [Harvey] Weinstein case this is a major issue on appeal. He was convicted, in part, on evidence that there were other women who were preyed upon in a similar fashion. He was never convicted for those prior acts. Some of them are due to the statute of limitations, yet the evidence came in during the course of the trial. Now the trial judge at that point has to [deal] with the balancing act because, generally speaking, evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible. Why? Because you can’t attempt to prove that the person is guilty of this crime because he did something bad in the past. However, if that evidence explains in some way what happened then it could be relevant. But these are very, very difficult issues to resolve, and the appellate courts have always had issues with them, as well as judges.
We’re still waiting on the grand jury’s decision on whether to indict Alec Baldwin. Do you think his conduct on the set of Rust rises to the level of manslaughter?
Juarez: This one is really tough. I think this case is an excellent snapshot of how we don’t know all the evidence and how we don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes, because this was a case where the prosecution initially dismissed the charges without prejudice and then discovery came to light many, many months later that appears to show other things. From what I have seen in the public, I have a hard time finding him criminally responsible.
Corriero: What I think is very significant about this trial is that he’s not being charged with intentionally causing the death. He’s being charged with reckless behavior. What is crucial here are the facts of what he was aware of, or not aware of, when he acted.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
The Hollywood Reporter homepage
SUBSCRIBE
THR, Esq
‘Hot Bench’ Judges on Jonathan Majors, Gwyneth Paltrow and What’s Wrong With ‘Law & Order’
The stars of the 'Judge Judy' spinoff talk about Hollywood's biggest legal dramas of the year.BY WINSTON CHO
Plus Icon
DECEMBER 26, 2023 7:35AM
- Share this article on Facebook
- Share this article on Twitter
- Share this article on Flipboard
- Share this article on Email
- Show additional share options
'Hot Bench' COURTESY OF CBS
Logo text
The Hot Bench judges are no strangers to conflict.
Every week, the three-judge tribunal presides over small-claims cases ranging from tame disputes over property damage to wild clashes over accusations of sabotage between longtime friends.
Judges Michael Corriero, Rachel Juarez and Yodit Tewolde earned a wide variety of legal bona fides before joining the CBS series that hails from Judge Judy Sheindlin. Corriero served as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, a criminal defense attorney and a judge for 28 years; Juarez worked at biglaw firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan prior to founding a family law practice specializing in the representation of high net worth individuals; and Tewolde boasts extensive experience in criminal law from her years as an Assistant District Attorney in Dallas County and criminal defense attorney.
Related Stories
GENERAL NEWS
Jonathan Majors Unlikely to Get Jail Time, Could Appeal on Use of Texts, Lawyers Say
The most recent episode of the series featured a woman suing a car shop owner for refusing to return new tires and rims she installed on the vehicle, which was repossessed. Ultimately, the judges ruled in favor of the defendant.
ADVERTISEMENT
“It’s hard for us to believe that you met your burden of proof, given your failure to produce in this courtroom receipts — just simple receipts that you paid the payments on time and that you paid them in full,” said Corriero. “Therefore, your case is dismissed.”
While no case is too small or too outlandish for the judges, they’re also familiar with high-profile litigation and closely monitor matters in off-camera courtrooms. The panel sat down with The Hollywood Reporter for a wide-ranging conversation on Hollywood cases including Jonathan Majors’ conviction, Danny Masterson’s chances on appeal and Alec Baldwin’s potential criminal liability over the shooting on the set of Rust — and share why criminal procedurals like Law & Order are warping jurors’ expectations.
ADVERTISEMENT
Whose lawyers in a high-profile civil or criminal case this year impressed you?
Rachel Juarez: One of the things that stood out to me this year was how in Gwyneth Paltrow‘s trial, she got what appeared to be some excellent legal advice to be herself when she testified. I think there was a general sense that the jury might not like Gwyneth Paltrow. They might see her as privileged. They might see her as unrelatable. Instead of trying to make herself relatable, or be something she wasn’t, it seemed pretty clear that she was told to ‘just be yourself.’ When it comes to credibility, I think that was huge because that was a case that depended on evaluating two different people’s account of an event. I think the jury believed hers and, in part, that was because she came off as authentic, even if not perhaps relatable, and truthful.
Gwyneth Paltrow testifies during her trial on March 24, 2023, in Park City, Utah. RICK BOWMER-POOL/GETTY IMAGES
Yodit Tewolde: Juries are perceptive. They can pick up on disingenuous energy. It doesn’t matter if you won an Oscar or not. That’s been tried before with celebrity cases where a celebrity who’s an actor will go up on the stand and think that they can act their way into making a jury believe their version. It’s just not going to work. Not when you have several of your peers watching every single thing that you’re doing. You can’t get away with it.
ADVERTISEMENT
What are your thoughts on Jonathan Majors’ conviction?
Michael Corriero: I thought the verdict is a clear example of the jury’s role as sacrosanct. There was an incredible amount of publicity from both sides on what happened and what didn’t. The jury was able to cut through all of that and made some very crucial distinctions. For example, he was charged with intentional assault as the top count — intending to cause a physical injury of his accuser — and was found guilty of reckless assault, meaning that the jury felt that whatever he did it was not intended to cause a physical injury. The jury really took the time to cut through both the prosecution’s theory and defense theory to come up with a solution which they felt was fair just under the circumstances.
Juarez: I agree with Michael. The jury really looked carefully at the charges and the evidence and carefully decided that the evidence matched one of the charges but not the others.
Actor Jonathan Majors and his girlfriend, Meagan Good, flanked by his lawyer Priya Chaudhry (R). ALEXI ROSENFELD/GETTY IMAGES
Text messages from a previous alleged incident were shown to the jury and it seemed that Mr. Majors’ attorney opened the door to that on cross-examination. What are your thoughts on what happened there, and what impact do you think those texts had on the jury?
Tewolde: I think she opened the door, if I’m not mistaken, when she was cross-examining the accuser and was really pressing her on her vague answers to law enforcement. “Well, didn’t you say this, but then you meant this or why did you not say this?” And the judge allowed the prosecution to provide more context for the jury as to why she was so vague. That’s when the older text message came through about her not wanting to really tell the truth.
Corriero: Probably the worst thing a losing criminal defense lawyer would want to hear — and I was a criminal defense lawyer for seven years before I became a judge and after I left the prosecutor’s office — is that you opened the door to incriminating evidence. So, I’m not going there because this question of the parameters of cross-examination goes directly to the skill level of an experienced trial lawyer. Sometimes we walk a razor’s edge in cross-examination. This is a very delicate area, and I don’t know how it played out. I wouldn’t be comfortable in saying that she opened the door. It may very well have been part of her strategy to get it all out there.
Juarez: I know the big takeaway was he was convicted on two of the counts, but he was also exonerated on two of the accounts. That would suggest that these text messages didn’t sow anger and offend the jury [to the extent that] they just threw the book at him. So, again, it’s kind of hard to know if this opening the door type situation was deliberate. Did she know that these would probably come in but felt that the trade-off on cross-examination was worth it? Or perhaps it wasn’t part of a broader strategy because the defense wasn’t entirely unsuccessful. We can’t ignore that.
Danny Masterson’s appeal is likely to focus, in part, on the introduction of uncharged bad acts witnesses and prosecutors being allowed to directly argue that he drugged his victims. What do you make of those arguments and what do you think his chances of success are?
Juarez: There’s going to be a lot of interesting issues on his appeal because you have the very unusual circumstance of a trial, a mistrial, and then a retrial where there were significantly different evidentiary decisions made by the judge. That’s not particularly common. The notion of these bad acts and also the testimony and the evidence about Scientology, both of which were far more limited in the first trial and came into play in the second trial. For that reason, one could assume that they were a key reason for the difference in verdicts. It would be a decent assumption that they bore at least some weight on that.
The evidence of the drugging of the victims, clearly that is prejudicial in the sense that it makes him look worse, but when you’re evaluating these things, the question is unfair prejudice. Is it unfairly prejudicial? The evidence, as I understand it, is that he was drugging the victims in connection with the assaults. That type of evidence would seem to be closely related enough to the actual offenses that it would not be the type of unfairly prejudicial character testimony, or uncharged prior bad act testimony, that would only paint them in a bad light and not shed any light in a probative and relevant sense.
Danny Masterson stands with his lawyers Thomas Mesereau and Sharon Appelbaum as he is arraigned on rape charges at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on September 18, 2020 in Los Angeles. LUCY NICHOLSON – POOL/GETTY IMAGES
Corriero: From a judicial perspective, these kinds of questions about whether or not to admit evidence of uncharged similar bad acts are fundamentally difficult, especially in the context in which they arrived in the trial. For example, in the [Harvey] Weinstein case this is a major issue on appeal. He was convicted, in part, on evidence that there were other women who were preyed upon in a similar fashion. He was never convicted for those prior acts. Some of them are due to the statute of limitations, yet the evidence came in during the course of the trial. Now the trial judge at that point has to [deal] with the balancing act because, generally speaking, evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible. Why? Because you can’t attempt to prove that the person is guilty of this crime because he did something bad in the past. However, if that evidence explains in some way what happened then it could be relevant. But these are very, very difficult issues to resolve, and the appellate courts have always had issues with them, as well as judges.
We’re still waiting on the grand jury’s decision on whether to indict Alec Baldwin. Do you think his conduct on the set of Rust rises to the level of manslaughter?
Juarez: This one is really tough. I think this case is an excellent snapshot of how we don’t know all the evidence and how we don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes, because this was a case where the prosecution initially dismissed the charges without prejudice and then discovery came to light many, many months later that appears to show other things. From what I have seen in the public, I have a hard time finding him criminally responsible.
Corriero: What I think is very significant about this trial is that he’s not being charged with intentionally causing the death. He’s being charged with reckless behavior. What is crucial here are the facts of what he was aware of, or not aware of, when he acted.
‘Hot Bench’ Judges on Jonathan Majors, Gwyneth Paltrow and What’s Wrong With ‘Law & Order’
The stars of the 'Judge Judy' spinoff talk about Hollywood's biggest legal dramas of the year.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
'Rust' first-look photos show work of late cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
First-look photos have been released from 'Rust,' the troubled production lensed by late cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.
‘Rust’ Armorer Was Offered Leniency if She Explained Source of Live Bullet
The armorer in the 'Rust' case was offered a 'favorable' outcome in her criminal case if she explained how live bullets made it on set.
variety.com
I don't know the truth.
But there is just something evil about this whole thing
This thing shouldn't have happened and makes no
And since Alec was the boss he gotta take responsibility
He wasn't really the boss though from what I remember. He was a producer along with others but not to the point of controlling everything.
More in name only as I recall.
If anyone should be charged it should be the armorer who was responsible for the weapons on set.
An actor being responsible for a prop gun discharging is insane IMO.
The thing is that's because he IS Alec?
That's just the facts of life
It's always gonna be on him somehow someway and especially the way he fumbled handling the press around the incident.
Of course the gun wrangler is NUMBER ONE.
But if Alec was involved in hiring etc? Or if they can prove he knew or was involved in the rumored play shooting the night before?
I don't know.
I do not believe that man deliberately shot that woman.
But if there was ANY COST CUTTING in that department that lead to that woman's death?
Then yeah he is responsible.
I hear you.
But then the other producers, directors, etc. would also be responsible as well yet I've never heard anything about them being charged.
As you said he's being charged for who he is and IMO his political views.
^^^^^
YUP
but killing someone on YOUR film set
And months later there is still no real explanation?
Something is wrong.
Last edited:
Imagine had this been Jonathan Majors co-starring,and he fired the gun..theyd probably charge him with murder
Imagine had this been Jonathan Majors co-starring,and he fired the gun..theyd probably charge him with murder
you think he would have stood trial?
They would have shot and killed him during the arrest
With ‘Rust’ Legal Bills to Pay, Alec Baldwin Is Staying Busy With Gigs
Baldwin, who was indicted Friday, has booked convention spots, and appeared this week in a video promoting the sale of his Hamptons home, which was relisted for $10 million under its previous asking price.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
With ‘Rust’ Legal Bills to Pay, Alec Baldwin Is Staying Busy With Gigs
Baldwin, who was indicted Friday, has booked convention spots, and appeared this week in a video promoting the sale of his Hamptons home, which was relisted for $10 million under its previous asking price.
Net Worth $60 Million.
Is the Embattled Young ‘Rust’ Armorer Getting a Fair Shot?
As the first criminal trial over the film’s tragic shooting gets underway, prosecutors look to paint Hannah Gutierrez-Reed as a druggie whose mistakes led to calamity. Defenders say she’s a scapegoat for penny-pinching producers and a blundering investigation. New details reveal both may be true.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
'Rust' A.D. breaks down in trial testimony
The first assistant director of the Alec Baldwin western 'Rust' got emotional during his testimony in the involuntary manslaughter trial of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins when recalling the moment she told him, 'I can't feel my legs.'
Rust A.D. breaks down in trial testimony, recalls Halyna Hutchins telling him 'I can't feel my legs'
David Halls was previously charged with negligent use of a deadly weapon and served six months probation as part of a plea deal.By
Lester Fabian Brathwaite
Published on February 29, 2024
David Halls, the first assistant director of the Alec Baldwin western Rust, broke down during his testimony on Thursday recalling his last interaction with shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.
Halls was testifying in the involuntary manslaughter trial of armorer Hannah Gutierrez when he described the moments leading up to and after Hutchins was fatally shot with a gun being held by Baldwin.
David Halls testifies in the involuntary manslaughter trial of Halyna Hutchins.
COURT TV
Halls said he recalled being one of the first people to reach Hutchins, who was lying on the floor, and asked her if she was all right.
"She said, 'I can't feel my legs,'" Halls said, in tears. Baldwin had been told the gun did not contain live ammunition and has maintained that he did not pull the trigger. Director Joel Souza also sustained non-lethal wounds.
Halls testified that he did not properly check the gun that Baldwin had been using. Halls had conducted the safety check on the Colt .45 revolver and had given it to Baldwin. He and the actor were discussing with Hutchins where to point the gun when it went off.
Halyna Hutchins. MAT HAYWARD/GETTY IMAGES
Halls was charged with negligent use of a deadly weapon and sentenced to six months probation, as part of a plea deal, in March 2023. Halls admitted he accepted the plea because he "was negligent in checking the gun properly." When asked why he agreed to testify, he replied because it was important to him that "the truth be known."
"That Halyna's husband and son, her family, know the truth of what happened," Halls said. "It's important that the cast and the crew, producers of Rust know what happened. And it's important that the industry, the motion picture and television industry, knows what happened so that this never happens again."
Gutierrez pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter charges and evidence tampering. Though her fitness as an armorer was called into question by the prosecution, Halls testified that he did not have any concerns about her in the role and that the set of the movie was relatively safe.
Baldwin, the star and a producer of Rust, has also been charged with involuntary manslaughter in Hutchins' death and has pleaded not guilty. His trial is scheduled to start in July.
Rust trial testimony is getting genuinely, upsettingly intense
Dave Halls, who pled guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon in the Rust shooting, testified that he heard Halyna Hutchins say "I can't feel my legs"
www.avclub.com
‘Rust’ First Assistant Director David Halls Tells Jury About His Negligence On Day Of Fatal Shooting, Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed’s “Not Acceptable” Conduct
Rust's David Halls testified he was “negligent” in not checking the prop gun properly after armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed ahead of the fatal shooting.
deadline.com
'Rust' director recounts the moment he was shot on set, during testimony in trial of armorer
'Rust' first assistant director Dave Halls on Thursday testified that the movie's armourer was diligent in her work and he was ultimately to blame for the 2021 fatal shooting of the film's cinematographer as he did not do a final check on a gun.
Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is found guilty of manslaughter
The armorer for the Alec Baldwin movie Rust has been found guilty in the shooting death of the film's cinematographer.
Rust armorer found guilty of involuntary manslaughter over fatal 2021 film set shooting
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed convicted over death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on New Mexico movie set
'Rust' armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed guilty of involuntary manslaughter
The New Mexico jury deliberated for about 2.5 hours, she faces up to three years in prison.
www.nbcnews.com
It wouldn't surprise me if they not only convinct him but hit him with more time.
I wonder if they would have bothered indicting anyone if he weren't involved.
‘Rust’ armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed struggling in jail as she awaits sentencing: attorney
By Dana Kennedy
March 9, 2024
nypost.com
By Dana Kennedy
March 9, 2024
‘Rust’ armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed struggling in jail as she awaits sentencing: attorney
Her legal team said in court that she had been overworked by the production and that the shooting was not her fault.
nypost.com