The widow of the former University of Southern California football player Matthew Gee believes her husband died due to repetitive head trauma suffered while playing for the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) in the 90s. She sued the organization in what many sports attorneys believe could be a landmark wrongful death suit.

Ehline Law and our wrongful death attorneys have helped protect the rights of grieving families and get them the compensation they deserve in pro and semi-pro sports accidents. If you lost a loved one due to negligence, contact us to learn more about your rights.

Matthew Gee Dies, and Widow Files Wrongful Death Suit in Los Angeles Superior Court

Gee was the team captain and played in the NCAA college football game. Soon, he led USC to many victories with his tackles and explosive head blows. After graduating, the Los Angeles Raiders replaced Gee with another player forcing him to quit the game. He married Alana and started his insurance business in Southern California, where he lived a normal life for two decades.

According to Alana Gee, in 2013, Gee lost control of his emotions and would get angry or depressed. He turned to alcohol and would see a doctor for his condition, telling him he also suffered from memory loss as he couldn’t recall incidents for days.

In 2018, Matthew Gee died on New Year’s Eve, with the hospital listing his cause of death as drugs and alcohol combined with health issues. However, Alana Gee, his wife, did not believe the diagnosis of the former University of Southern California football player because Matt’s behavior changed drastically in the last few years before his death.

Alana Gee donated his brain to Boston University’s CTE center, where they studied the brain and reported severe signs of CTE, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease caused by repeated blows to the head. Following the diagnosis, she decided to sue NCAA as they were responsible for protecting her husband but failed to do so.

Lawsuit Against NCAA in Los Angeles Superior Court Leads to Trial

According to the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by Alana Gee, Matt died from permanent brain damage resulting from continuous blows to the head while playing for the Rose Bowl-winning team in 1990.

In the past, there have been many lawsuits against the NCAA by college football players, but Alana Gee’s is the second lawsuit that will be trialed and perhaps the first that could reach a jury.

The lawsuit alleges that the NCAA has kept a dark secret for years and did not warn the players about the severe effects of head blows, slowly killing college athletes.

However, according to court documents, the NCAA stated that they are not responsible for the death of the former University of Southern California football player, blaming his demise on drugs, alcohol, and health problems.

The NCAA lawyers created a story out of Matt Gee’s last few years alive, stating that he turned to alcohol to fill the void left behind after his playing days were over. Lawyers representing the governing body of college athletics said that Gee consumed drugs and alcohol to numb the pain he was experiencing from his numerous health conditions.

In recent years, the issue of concussions occurring from blows to the head in sports, especially football, has taken center stage as more research revealed the serious long-term effects of repeated head blows. Many researchers reported the range of symptoms of those who suffered repetitive brain injuries, from minor headaches to major issues such as depression, Parkinson’s, and many others.

In 2018, the widow of former defensive player for Texas in the 60s, Greg Ploetz, went to trial, and after several days of witness testimonies, she settled the case. In 2016, the NCAA settled a class action lawsuit pertaining to concussions by paying $70 million toward monitoring the health of former college athletes and $5 million for medical research. The organization also had to pay $5,000 to individual players claiming injuries.

The National Football League also faced similar lawsuits in recent years, agreeing to cover 20,000 retired players by paying up to $4 million for wrongful death resulting from CTE. Besides CTE, it also agreed to pay for five other qualifying conditions, and many estimate that it will cost the National Football League over $1.4 billion in payouts across 65 years.

For years, NFL kept denying the association of CTE with football but eventually accepted the research conducted by Boston University’s CTE center in 2016, which found that repetitive head trauma in football led to memory loss, depression, and other brain-related issues.

What’s startling is that the CTE center studied the brains of 111 deceased former NFL players and 53 former college players and found CTE in the brains of 110 former NFL players and 48 college football players.

Five linebackers from the 1989 Trojans squad died before age 50, and Gee was one of them. In the recent NCAA wrongful death suit, the defendants are seeking to exclude testimonies of former teammates, stating that there is no medical evidence Gee suffered concussions during his time at USC.

However, two former teammates testified during depositions that head blows were routine during football, and the management would encourage players to deliver blows with their heads.

Mike Salmon, one of Gee’s teammates, recalled how the linebackers, including Gee, would be “out of it” during hard-hitting practices. He recalled how Matthew would hit with his dead and show signs of a concussion while heading back to the huddle.

Another former teammate, Gene Fruge, stated how it was the player’s job to explode into another player without asking second questions; helmet-to-helmet contact was pretty common.

The NCAA defended itself by stating that head injuries were not well understood back then, and the organization was unaware of the long-term effects of helmet-to-helmet contact.

However, Gee’s lawsuit referred to past studies of boxers suffering from the severe effects of repeated concussions and traumatic brain impacts and also mentioned other studies pertaining to contact sports, especially football.

It stated that the organization knew about the devastating consequences of such sports actions, even during the time Gee played, but refused to warn or protect their athletes. The NCAA put profits above everything else, above the lives of the players who generated revenue for the organization.

Alcohol Use Following Brain Injuries

Some individuals face drinking problems following their brain injury. In a 30-year follow-up study conducted by Bombardier et al., the findings suggested that about one-third of individuals suffering from brain disease start to drink heavily. Drug and alcohol abuse is the second most common symptom after a traumatic brain injury (TBI), next to a major depressive disorder.

In a 2000 study, Alcohol and Traumatic Disability by Bombardier, the findings reported that alcohol use and TBI might have an additive effect, further worsening cognitive recovery. Alcohol consumption following a TBI can lead to an increased risk of injuries and seizures, making it difficult for the injured person to return to work.

A 1997 study by Corrigan revealed that people consuming alcohol after their injury suffer from higher levels of depression and have lower life satisfaction than those without substance abuse difficulties. It identifies post-injury depression as a significant risk factor for alcohol dependence.

The former Rose Bowl winning team member, Matthew Gee, experienced depression and turned to alcohol after suffering a progressive degenerative brain disease. There have been many similar lawsuits where NCAA and NFL settled the cases with the injured victims or their family members.

If the plaintiff’s lawyers can prove that Matthew Gee died of brain and head injuries from football, it can be a real game-changer. Many sports attorneys believe that the NCAA’s attempt towards character assassination is a distraction, and they would not be able to argue the evidence showing Gee had CTE before his death, a disease not caused by substance abuse.

In the event that the NCAA loses the case, they may have to protect their players from any such injuries going forward.

Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law

Losing a loved one due to another’s negligence can be a tragedy, but it is important to act fast if you wish to seek justice and obtain compensation for your loss.

If you lost a loved one because of someone else’s negligence, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation, as you may be eligible for compensation. Our experienced wrongful death attorneys will help assess your case and discuss your legal options.

Yes. With a San Diego jury and the District of Columbia’s Wrongful Death Act, they have a shot at a less “woke” outcome. Let’s face it: Judicial Watch is banking on a more conservative, pro-military jury. And San Diego, where I was stationed, is about as apple pie as you can get. Besides the D.C., “Administrative State” juries are known to crucify entrepreneurs, Republicans, and conservatives, with little love for vets. So, in a turn of events that continue to captivate, confound, and polarize the American public, the surviving husband of Ashli Babbitt – unarmed – is readying a wrongful death lawsuit in connection with the tragic events of January 6 near the House Chamber and Speakers’ lobby, shown here:

Some argue it was an insurrectionist mob; others argue a few protestors rioted. Still, others say that the U.S. government instigated it. They allege the Department of Justice worked with social media and the left to distract from significant voting irregularities as well as the Hunter Biden Laptop censorship. As facts speak the truth, countless lives have been harmed, and the suit claims department policy was not followed, and proper use of care over the use of force was violated.

But can the husband prevail in his quest for justice? I am an award-winning wrongful death attorney, Michael Ehline. I have practiced law in San Diego, California, and the entire state of Texas. I have traveled throughout the country. I can attest that many people do not trust the media narrative, especially the lawmakers who ran the so-called January 6 Committee. The more the government tries to label things as misinformation or misinformation, the more people see it as “Orwellian.” People look at journalists at NBC News and assume it is political propaganda.

This case commands our attention. As a lawyer, I will approach this with an evidence-based approach. As we delve into this intricate and dynamic matter, we must address myriad intertwining factors, from political figures and law enforcement authorities’ controversial actions—or inaction—to the intense polarization of views on election legitimacy. You had better believe that civil discovery will be the hill this case if fought over.

It appears there were vast numbers of undercover informants and law enforcement involved in guiding protestors, as well as rowdy people there for an unlawful or nefarious purpose. As time went on, we saw the Twitter Files and newly released footage of that fateful day. As months go by, it has become clear we were spoon-fed a political narrative that failed to tell all sides of the story.

“In a multilayered, post-truth era, establishing a clear-cut cause and effect becomes a monumental task. Yet, it’s through this maze that we must navigate to explore the potential outcome of the Ashli Babbitt case.”

The Broad Strokes 

Before we plunge into the meat of our analysis, it’s essential to outline the key events and figures linked to this legal quandary involving our Washington, DC, Justice Department.

These include: 

• Ashli Babbitt: A 35-year-old Air Force veteran who was fatally shot during the January 6 Capitol Riot.
• The Babbitt Family: Asserting that Ashli’s death was needless and unlawful, they are gearing up for a wrongful death lawsuit.
• Nancy Pelosi: Critics claim the Speaker of the House allowed the Capitol Riot to happen, redirecting blame from allegations of election manipulation to MAGA extremists.
• Capitol Police Lt: Shoots/Kills Babbit after she purportedly tried to climb over a barricaded door through the broken window.
• D.C. Police Chief: Interviewing the top cop sheds light on law enforcement preparedness and actions on that fateful day.
• National Guard: Debate continues to stir over why they weren’t deployed at the Capitol and House Floor during the riot.
• The Lawsuit

With these players on the chessboard, let’s unravel the twists and turns of this complex case. Throughout our journey, we will draw from the rich experience of the Ehline Firm, a leading player in wrongful death, and its impact on other personal injury matters within law courts.

Let’s examine the credentials of The Ehline Firm, at its staff, a stalwart in the arena of wrongful death and personal injury cases. They are reputed beings who transform the difficulty into a comprehensible narrative, which helps to scrutinize each narrative frame more precisely. We are not handling this case, but it’s the type of case we would file on behalf of you or your loved ones.

Dissecting the Ashli Babbitt Case 

Apparently, this case is being run by the best, Paul Orfanedes and Robert Patrick Sticht, based on the pleadings. I know Paul is a legit litigator, so I look forward to seeing his briefs. To briefly recap, Ashli Babbitt, as facts speak the truth, an Air Force veteran, died during the Capitol Hill riot on January 6 when she was struck by a bullet fired by a plain-clothed law enforcement officer at close range. Her death was a tragic one. 

Pics courtesy of Ashli’s mom @michellewittho1 Ashli is an American hero and patriot just like her mom. God bless Ashli and her mom micki. Ashli is loved and remembered always #SayHerName #JusticeForAshli pic.twitter.com/wSypJkWLZc

— Jack painter (@Jackpainter0811) January 4, 2024

The crucial question we ponder is, can her family win a wrongful death case? 

Typically, deciding this involves cut-and-dry evidence that the defendant’s actions caused the death and if these actions were negligent or indicate a deliberate disregard for human life. In Babbitt’s case, the challenge lies in proving that the officer’s response was not a consequent reaction to the perceived threat but one that encapsulates negligence or ill intent. 

Weighing Nancy Pelosi’s Role 

Many critics lay substantial blame on Speaker Nancy Pelosi, alleging that she failed to call in the National Guard to prevent the riot’s escalation. They speculate her inaction was a strategic move to shift public discourse from alleged election fraud to labeling the rioters as right-wing extremists. 

Capitol Police Officer Shoots Decedent in the Chest?

GSW to the chest

The legal action, coinciding with the three-year mark of the Capitol incursion by Trump loyalists, caused a few homes to think they could halt the certification of Biden’s victory. The survivors demand $30 million in compensation. Babbitt was fatally shot in the chest by Lt. Michael Byrd, a Capitol Police Officer who was allegedly part of a task force safeguarding Congress members in retreat. 

Here is Video of Byrd (Capitol Police Lt) Killing Babbitt

Reportedly, Babbitt was hit when she hoisted herself into the shattered window frame of a door under siege by the insurgents. But the video shows that Babbitt was shot by the plain-clothed capitol police near the Speaker’s lobby through a barricaded door. Byrd’s side claims Trump supporters are dangerous MAGA, based on their imminent threat assessment.

The lawsuit states deadly force was unnecessary, as demonstrated in the video evidence of how she was shot and killed on behalf of Babbitt’s estate.

At issue are Byrd’s actions, but discovery could blow much of the official U.S. government narrative off the hinges. Based on the D.C. chief and others, it appears that standards were not followed and that lives were risked to create a political narrative if Judicial Watch proves correct in its facts.

The DC Police Chief Interview: A Thread to Unravel 

Throwing fresh light on the developments of the case, an interview with the D.C. police chief mentioned Pelosi denying the National Guard’s deployment earlier. One could guess this potentially supports the theory of Pelosi’s role in letting matters exacerbate, but remember; this does not impeach her legally. 

Imagine being inside a movie-style conspiracy thriller, one where the authorities had prior knowledge of an impending attack but turned a blind eye. Sounds shocking, right? That’s the chilling belief of ex-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund. He alleges that the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol insurrection was no surprise to the top brass of the government, and yet it was allowed to happen. A vague sense of foreboding that could have, and should have, been averted. So what does this potentially mean for the events that unfolded that day and their ongoing legal repercussions? It’s a winding path, so let’s navigate it step by step. 

“If I was allowed to do my job as a chief, we wouldn’t be here,” Sund said in the interview. “This didn’t have to happen. Everything appears to be a cover-up.”

Twisting Threads of the Cover-Up Theory 

Suppose Sund’s allegations are found to be true. In that case, it shines a disturbing light on the deep-rooted problems and secret understandings true within the system, potentially undermining the ongoing trials related to that fateful January day. 

• The previously unaired interview, leaked by The National Pulse, points fingers towards people in power, raising questions about potential cover-ups and negligence.
• Potential fallout for the Babbit wrongful death case – a controversy that is already under heavy scrutiny and brimming with tension.
• Ex-President Donald Trump’s ongoing, contentious legal battle involving four criminal charges directly tied to the January 6, 2021, riot could see unforeseen developments.

So, where does this leave us? Stay with us as we delve deeper into these revelations and their possible implications.

The legal action, coinciding with the three-year mark of the Capitol incursion by Trump loyalists intending to halt the certification of Biden’s victory, demands $30 million in compensation.

Conclusively, the onus is on Ashli Babbitt’s family to prove that her death resulted from actionable negligence leading to her wrongful death. Ehline Firm’s proven track record in managing similar cases could provide essential insights into their legal battle. Remember, understanding the prospects of winning a lawsuit involves lots of variables, and this disentangles a few of these.

In an incredibly revealing interview, the D.C. Police Chief highlighted several intricate aspects of the harrowing incident. The pivotal points raised in the discussion provide additional layers to our understanding of the complex dynamics. 

Recall the mention of the delayed deployment of the National Guard. Let’s delve a bit deeper into this.  

The Dilemma of Deploying the National Guard 

In the interview, the stark reasoning on why the National Guard was not immediately deployed becomes evident. The DC Police Chief stated that law enforcement was reticent about an excessive military presence, worried it could inflame the already charged atmosphere. It was a classic catch-22: leave the Capitol relatively undefended or risk escalating tensions with a massive military show. 

Distilling the Pelosi Angle 

For those looking to unmask what many perceive as ‘Nancy Pelosi’s plot,’ the situation requires a meticulous examination. The theory holds that Pelosi enabled, or perhaps even instigated, a riot to distract from potential election fraud accusations. The subsequent chaos successfully diverted attention and cast MAGA supporters in an intensely negative light. 

Whether Pelosi’s actions or lack thereof, were intentional or grossly negligent remains shrouded in ambiguity. One thing is sure, though—the accusations have created political ripples and become a crucial subplot in Ashli Babbitt’s narrative. 

Husband of Ashli Babbitt files wrongful death suit against government

Judicial Watch came through for the husband, with attorney ROBERT PATRICK STICHT at the helm. The conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in a California federal court for Aaron Babbitt and his estate. Here are some powerful excerpts from the complaint:

“Lt. Byrd’s police powers had been revoked on more than one occasion prior to January 6, 2021, for failing to meet or complete semiannual firearms qualification requirements. In fact, Lt. Byrd had a reputation among peers for not being a good shot. Under USCP’s range management system, an officer who fails to meet firearm qualification requirements is given one week of remedial training. If the officer still fails to qualify after remedial training, police powers are then revoked until the officer qualifies.

Lt. Byrd’s police powers also were revoked for a prior off-duty shooting into a stolen, moving vehicle in which the occupants were teenagers or juveniles. The stolen vehicle was Lt. Byrd’s car. Lt. Byrd fired multiple shots at the fleeing vehicle in a suburban area. Stray bullets from Lt. Byrd’s firearm struck the sides of homes nearby. An official investigation found that Lt. Byrd’s use of force was not justified. Lt. Byrd also had one prior use of force matter that was originally sustained by the Capitol Police.”

Here is a copy of the federal complaint.

Causes of action include, among other things,

• ASSAULT AND BATTERY
• NEGLIGENCE
• NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
• DISCIPLINE AND RETENTION
• NEGLIGENT TRAINING
• SURVIVAL
• WRONGFUL DEATH.

The legal team leveled accusations against Byrd, claiming a breach of mandatory protocols related to firearm safety, application of force, and assessment of imminent threats. 

Moreover, they contended that during the incident, Byrd wasn’t in his uniform, made no declaration of his identity as an officer, and egregiously failed to provide any warning or directive to Babbitt before the fatal shooting. As the investigation and discovery unfold, we will give you a blow-by-blow.

In conclusion, I work with many First Amendment auditors, and based on what I see, failure to de-escalate and us versus them are often a facet of these cases. Yes, Babbitt’s survivors can win. It’s doubtful she will get the results in the George Floyd case, but the lack of riots and billions in property damage and deaths over her senseless killing honors her as a real American hero. Ultimately, I found it interesting that the D.C. Chief felt at least some DC activist insiders were trying to start a riot. So I am hoping discovery helps us understand if politics killed Ms. Babbitt, may God rest her soul.

Yes. General settlements can be unwound if the evidence is concealed to try and settle. In this case, Alec Baldwin and Rust Movie Productions needed to avoid the possibility of litigating a wrongful death lawsuit by survivor Matthew Hutchins so Baldwin’s legal team could focus on placating District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies. The bullet killed Halyna Hutchins, 42, and wounded director Joel Souza. Matthew Hutchins, 39, and their son, Andros, 10, ultimately settled their lawsuit with the actor. Though he was charged with involuntary manslaughter, he maintained he didn’t know the prop gun was loaded and that it was faulty, and the charges were dropped. Now they are set to be refiled, reports NBC News, following tests on the weapon. (Source – BoingBoing.Net.)

I am Los Angeles personal injury attorney Michael Ehline. I am an inactive US Marine, small arms expert, and excessive use of force expert. When I first saw this case go down, I knew immediately that Baldwin was criminally and civilly liable with ZERO defenses I could understand. I presumed the civil settlement was Baldwin’s effort to mitigate the expected murder prosecution over Halyna’s final work on this earth. Like clockwork, the anti-Second Amendment, far-left actor and his production company were accused of using his far-left political connections to get the criminal charges tossed, and they were tossed.

However, as I also believed, Baldwin’s B.S. defense that he never pulled the trigger, or there was some hair-trigger modification, would never pass legal muster, and it didn’t. This is why I wrote this article. And I presume the Hutchins settled their wrongful death lawsuit based upon this blatant falsehood and the risks of losing a civil trial.

This article is not about the case filed by Gloria Alred on behalf of Ms. Hutchin’s parents, nor is it really about the entertainment community generally. My experience, knowledge, and skill in firearms and civil suits make me California’s pre-eminent shooting accident attorney. Let’s get into the facts and safety protocols as we pay tribute to Halyna Hutchins and further expose hothead movie actor Alec Baldwin.

pic.twitter.com/erik1dvRH3

— MaryCarmackAltwies (@MaryCarmackAltw) April 21, 2023

Could Baldwin’s Wrongful Death Settlement be Unwound for Fraud?

For this tragic accident, absolutely. First of all, to understand, we must ask whether the evidence warrants criminal charges. Special prosecutors said Tuesday they are seeking to re-file criminal charges against actor Alec Baldwin for his role as the triggerman in the 2021 fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins. Our viewers will recall Baldwin gunned her down on a Western movie set in New Mexico and blamed his grips, stagehands, and the gun for being modified.

The FBI concluded that the gun could not have been fired “without a pull of the trigger,” which contradicts Baldwin’s account of how he handled the weapon. (Source, USA Today.) Although assistant director David Halls, responsible for set safety, signed a guilty plea for negligent use of a deadly weapon since he “may” have mishandled the gun before giving it to Baldwin, I suspected this was an effort to protect Baldwin. In any event, Matthew Hutchins, the husband of deceased cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, entered into “The proposed settlement announced today in Matthew Hutchins’ wrongful death case against ‘Rust’ movie producers, including actor Alec Baldwin, in the death of Halyna Hutchins…” was approved by the court.

Expert Findings Change Everything?

New Mexico-based prosecutors Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis said they’ll present evidence to a grand jury within the next two months, noting that “additional facts” have come to light in the shooting on the set of the film “Rust” that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

Baldwin, a film’s coproducer, pointed a gun at Hutchins during a rehearsal on the film’s set outside Santa Fe when the gun went off on Oct. 21, 2021, killing her and wounding director Joel Souza. “Additional facts have come to light that we believe show Mr. Baldwin has criminal culpability in the death of Halyna Hutchins and the shooting of Joel Souza,” Morrissey and Lewis said in an email.

“We believe the appropriate course of action is to permit a panel of New Mexico citizens to determine from here whether Mr. Baldwin should be held over for criminal trial.”

The Fraud on the Court?

Baldwin has said he pulled back the hammer — but didn’t pull the trigger — and the gun went off. “Unfortunately, a tragedy has been turned into this misguided prosecution. We will answer any charges in court,” attorneys Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro stated in an email regarding their representation of Baldwin.

In the initial stages, special prosecutors dismissed an involuntary manslaughter charge against Baldwin in April, citing information suggesting potential modifications to the gun before the shooting, which may have led to a malfunction. Subsequently, they reconsidered the possibility of refiling a charge against Baldwin after receiving a new gun analysis.

This recent analysis of the firearm, conducted by ballistics and forensic testing experts based in Arizona and New Mexico, involved using replacement parts to reconstruct the gun that Baldwin had discharged. This was necessitated by prior damage to the pistol during earlier testing conducted by the FBI.

As a general principle, the potential to challenge or unwind the terms of a confidential civil injury settlement due to fraud, misrepresentation, or false statements about how Hutchins was shot and killed by the defendant exists. However, the complexity of this process hinges on various factors, including the case’s unique circumstances and Santa Fe, New Mexico law.

How Are General Settlements Invalidated?

Here are some key points to consider:

Fraud or Misrepresentation

If Matthew Hutchins can demonstrate Baldwin and his co-conspirators engaged in fraudulent activity (provided false information or deliberately concealed essential facts during the settlement negotiations), this could form the framework to challenge the settlement.

• Legal Recourse: Huthcins, as the injured party, would typically file a legal action to set aside the settlement with the court’s intervention.
• The burden of Proof: Since Hutchins would seek to set aside the settlement, we would have the burden of proof that his settlement was based upon misleading statements or previously unknown evidence. He would need to show evidence of fraud or misrepresentation.
• Court’s Discretion: The court would have to consider the evidence and circumstances surrounding the settlement to determine whether it should be set aside, considering the impact on justice and fairness in Santa Fe, N.M., and other jurisdictions.
• Confidentiality Agreements: Confidentiality clauses are common in settlement agreements, and if the settlement is unwound, the confidentiality obligations could be affected. In other words, once you sign on the dotted line, it becomes exponentially more difficult when cases involve financial awards such as this one does. So, the ultimate decision will lie with the judge who approved the settlement, likely after having evidentiary hearings scheduled with Baldwin’s defense attorneys.

New Criminal Charges Show Evidence of Deceit in Original Dismissal?

The most recent expert report examined the gun and markings on the spent cartridge. They concluded the trigger must have been pulled or depressed, as I said the very next day after I saw this on CNN.

The analysis, conducted under the direction of Lucien Haag from Forensic Science Services in Arizona, determined that despite Baldwin’s repeated denial of pulling the trigger, the available tests, findings, and observations strongly suggest that the trigger must have been pulled or depressed with sufficient force to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the revolver in question.

Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the weapons supervisor on the movie set, is facing charges of involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering and has pleaded not guilty. Her trial is set to commence in February. In March, David Halls, the assistant director and safety coordinator for “Rust,” entered a no-contest plea for unsafe firearm handling, resulting in a suspended six-month probation sentence. Halls also agreed to cooperate in the investigation of the shooting incident.

The shooting that occurred in 2021 led to a series of civil lawsuits, primarily centered around allegations that the defendants failed to uphold adequate safety standards.

Assuming the judge and prosecutors refile criminal charges or not, Matthew Hutchins, Halyna’s family, and others involved in the settlement may be able to invalidate the same and move forward with their civil case, as discussed above. But there is more to the story.

Alec Baldwin Loses Another Court Battle Against His Crew?

Alec Baldwin’s legal challenges continue to persist. A New Mexico judge has denied the actor’s motion to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed by production crew members of the film “Rust,” as reported by Fox News. Judge Bryan Biedscheid also rejected Baldwin’s request to postpone the resolution of the civil suit until the completion of the criminal proceedings related to the matter, according to Fox.

The three plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit served as contractors on the set of “Rust.” They have accused Alec Baldwin and his company, El Dorado Pictures, of fostering an unsafe working environment during the film’s production in New Mexico.

The plaintiffs have alleged damages that include hearing loss, temporary deafness, and vibrational shock resulting from their experiences on the film. They have claimed that the production took shortcuts in terms of safety measures, highlighting a shooting schedule that was initially intended to last only 21 days.

Three Crew Members Say Baldwin Engaged in Unsafe Firearms Practices

“He did not request that anyone verify or demonstrate the revolver’s safety before this exchange.”

“And he did not ask to see whether ammunition was present inside the revolver’s chamber — despite his knowledge of the observable differences between a live and dummy round, and a loaded and unloaded chamber.”

“Instead, Defendant Baldwin accepted the revolver without any verification that it was a ‘cold gun.'”

Baldwin attorney Robert Schwartz asserted the court’s refusal to dismiss the suit is a “real injustice” and “unnecessary.” He said 16 months between the shooting and filing the case was untimely. I am not a New Mexico lawyer, so I don’t know what the statute of limitations was in that matter. Do you know? Send us an email.

Conclusion

We just discussed the potential new criminal charges against Actor Alec Baldwin over false statements about never pulling the trigger on the single-action revolver that killed Halyna Hutchins. The New Mexico special prosecutor, Kari Morrissey, mentioned no final decision had been made in refiling criminal charges against Baldwin. Still, based on our research, assuming Matthew Hutchins settled based on a false story that Baldwin never pulled the trigger, we believe the court could unwind the civil charge and allow the family to pursue their wrongful death lawsuit for more money, even if the original statute of limitations may have run against the lead actor. We want to hear what you think. Contact us for retractions or to help provide context with additional information.