wondering how hard this case is going to be. you can see it shaping up here. there s a disagreement on the fact and is the law. the theory is that baldwin had an obligation to check the gun himself, open it up and make sure there were no live rounds there. baldwin said he was told there were no live rounds on set and he relied on the expertise on those around him who were gun safety experts. there s going to be a battle of the experts, if you will, that s a phrase our viewers are going to hear. both sides are going to have testimony on what he was obligated to do. the prosecutors think they have testimony from other experts in the field who say he was supposed to have done that and he didn t. there s the issue of baldwin saying publicly that he pulled back the hammer, but didn t pull the trigger. how much of is that going to weigh? it s a real factual dispute and part of the pickle for
optics. it can help the prosecution sway them to not bring charges because after all, if you don t have a complaintent, it makes it harder to bring a criminal case. but settling with a victim does not absolve you from criminal responsibility. the prosecution can go forward and prosecute. you see it all the time in domestic violence cases where the victim doesn t want to go forward, but state law may require the prosecution to go forward. look for alec baldwin to start amassing experts. this is going to be an expert case. and ultimately a battle of the experts. they re going to get an armorer, somebody who knows stunts, they re going to get a prop expert. they re going to need experts to educate the jury while alec baldwin is the last person who should have known he was handling a live firearm that other people should have known. you might see a motion by baldwin to sever his case, to split it off from the armorer so they re tried separately. i m not so sure he would want to
statute, there are only two situations that could apply to this case. one, of course, is traditional involuntary manslaughter, which is recklessness. the doing of a lawful act, operating a firearm on a movie set, but doing it with criminal negligence, which is a misnomer. it s the conscious disregard of a known risk. the other option and probably easier for a conviction is another subsection that says, if you use a firearm and use it with ordinary negligence, you can be guilty. there s a huge difference. that ordinary negligence standard just asks whether or not your conduct fell below the applicable standard of care, which is why this case is going to ultimately be a battle of the experts. you will see firearms experts, stunt experts, prop experts, all kinds of experts to educate this jury. there s the possibility baldwin isn t being charged as the
it s the only means to be able to help somebody. and there is no way, given everything that we know now, that there aren t other ways of helping her if she needs help, to function in any way, whether it s financially or with her medical or what have you. is it a psychiatrist battle? what happens next? a hearing? yeah. so first of all, that is typically the way it goes, that we have a battle of the experts to say whether or not she has the ability to be able to function, but it involves all kinds of other evidence and doesn t even necessarily need to be a psychiatric evidence. show that she s able to function and that she s able to make decisions, and if there are other ways to help her that she s got the means and the resources to get that help. counselor, thank you very much. i ll come back to you to make sense of it for us in the entire sequence of getting some finality here. appreciate you. speaking of freedom, cuba. keep it on your mind.
cuomo about what comes next for spears. i would expect a petition immediately to be filed that this conservatorship should be terminated. and keep in mind conservatorship can only exist and should be terminated unless it is the last possible resort, the only means to be able to help somebody. and there is no way given everything that we know now that there aren t other ways of helping her if she needs help to function in any way, whether financially or with her medical a psychiatrist battle, what happens next? so first of all, you know, that is typically the way it goes that we have a battle of the experts to say whether or not she has the ability to be able to function. but it involves all kinds of other evidence and doesn t even necessarily need to be a psychiatric evidence. hey, show that she is able to function and that she is able to make decisions. and if there are other ways to help her, that she has got the mines and resources to get that