On the correction of criminal charges, and courtesy between counsel.

Alec Baldwin,¹ the actor, was charged in the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of "Rust" in October 2021.²

One of the charges he faced was for something called a "firearm enhancement" - in short, there is a law that extends prison sentences when firearms are involved in the commission of a crime. Under this law, Baldwin would face a mandatory 5 years' imprisonment if convicted.

But his lawyers filed an application, pointing out that this particular law only came into effect in March 2022, about 6 months after the shooting took place.³

It logically follows that Baldwin should not have been charged under this law.

Which was, I suppose, somewhat embarrassing for the District Attorney ("DA"), who presumably signed off on the precise charges brought against Baldwin.⁴

As you might expect, that charge was dropped.⁵

---

What you might not have expected, however, were the accompanying statements made to the media:⁶

'“In order to avoid further litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys, the District Attorney and the special prosecutor have removed the firearm enhancement to the involuntary manslaughter charges in the death of Halyna Hutchins on the Rust film set,” Heather Brewer, a spokeswoman for Carmack-Altwies, wrote in an email Monday. “The prosecution’s priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys.”

The District Attorney’s Office declined to elaborate Monday on why Carmack-Altwies initially sought to apply the five-year firearm enhancement if doing so was not a necessary part of securing justice in the case.

“The statement sent earlier covers the prosecution’s reasoning for dropping the enhancement,” Brewer wrote in response to questions from The New Mexican.

Carmack-Altwies declined to answer questions about her decision when approached by a reporter Monday in the hallway at the First Judicial District Court, where she was trying a murder case.'

---

3 observations.

1) I'm obviously biased, but was it necessary to take that cheap shot ("billable hours for big-city attorneys")? In fact, one could argue that it was only necessary for Baldwin's lawyers to file the application (and incur billable hours) because of the DA's decision to charge Baldwin with an inapplicable law.

2) I agree that the prosecution's priority is securing justice. But isn't it part of securing justice to ensure that accused persons face the correct charges?

3) The statement referred to "litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys". But as a consequence of Baldwin's application, one of the charges was dropped, and Baldwin will no longer face a mandatory sentence of 5 years' imprisonment. Can this be said to be a mere distraction?