亞歷克·鮑德溫想要撤銷(xiāo)他的過(guò)失殺人罪，一位法律專(zhuān)家指出了他“最有力的論點(diǎn)”

As Alec Baldwin’s July trial for involuntary manslaughter approaches, the actor’s legal team is seeking to have his case dismissed.
隨著亞歷克·鮑德溫 7月份因過(guò)失殺人罪受審的臨近，這位演員的法律團(tuán)隊(duì)正在尋求駁回他的案件。

That is “unlikely” to happen, explains legal expert Emily D. Baker, a lawyer and former L.A. Deputy District Attorney. “It is very rare for grand jury indictments to be dismissed. The prosecution has very, very wide latitude at how they conduct a grand jury.”
律師、前洛杉磯地區(qū)副檢察官、法律專(zhuān)家艾米麗·D·貝克解釋說(shuō)，這種情況“不太可能”發(fā)生。“大陪審團(tuán)的起訴被駁回是非常罕見(jiàn)的?？胤皆谌绾谓M織大陪審團(tuán)方面有非常非常大的自由。”

But Baldwin, 66, who was indicted in January for his role in the accidental shooting death of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the New Mexico set of the Western movie in 2021, could find some hope in one of the arguments his legal team made in their March 14 motion, says Baker.
但貝克說(shuō)，現(xiàn)年66歲的鮑德溫可能會(huì)從他的法律團(tuán)隊(duì)在3月14日的動(dòng)議中提出的一個(gè)論點(diǎn)中找到一些希望。鮑德溫今年1月被起訴，原因是他在2021年的西部電影《Rust》的新墨西哥州拍攝現(xiàn)場(chǎng)意外槍殺了攝影師哈利娜·哈欽斯。

“The strongest argument is the argument that the state did not present the instructions to the grand jury accurately,” she says. 
“最有力的論點(diǎn)是，州政府沒(méi)有準(zhǔn)確地向大陪審團(tuán)提供指示，”她說(shuō)。

“Those are the types of potential errors that can get things overturned. So if there was error in the way the grand jury got the grand jury instructions, that can be an issue that warrants an indictment getting thrown out,” she continues. 
“這些都是可能導(dǎo)致事情被推翻的潛在錯(cuò)誤。因此，如果大陪審團(tuán)得到大陪審團(tuán)指示的方式存在錯(cuò)誤，這可能是一個(gè)保證起訴書(shū)被駁回的問(wèn)題，”她繼續(xù)說(shuō)道。

Baker is referring to Baldwin’s lawyers’ claims in their motion to dismiss that special prosecutor Kari T. Morrissey gave “prejudicial” instructions to the grand jury.
貝克指的是鮑德溫的律師在駁回特別檢察官卡里·莫里西向大陪審團(tuán)發(fā)出“有偏見(jiàn)的”指示的動(dòng)議中聲稱(chēng)。

Baldwin’s attorneys claimed in the motion that Morrissey told the grand jury “it must find probable cause as to each of the following elements: (1) “The target discharged a firearm during the production of the movie without first verifying the firearm contained no live ammunition and while the firearm was pointed in the direction of another,” (2) “the target should have known the danger involved from the target’s actions,” (3) “the target acted with a willful disregard for the safety of others,” and (4) “the target’s act caused the death of Halyna Hutchins.” 
鮑德溫的律師在動(dòng)議中聲稱(chēng)，莫里西告訴大陪審團(tuán)，“必須就以下每一個(gè)因素找到合理的理由:(1)“在電影制作過(guò)程中，目標(biāo)在沒(méi)有事先核實(shí)槍支是否含有實(shí)彈的情況下開(kāi)槍?zhuān)覙屩侵赶蛄硪粋€(gè)人的，”(2)“目標(biāo)應(yīng)該知道目標(biāo)的行為所涉及的危險(xiǎn)”(3)“目標(biāo)的行為是故意無(wú)視他人的安全”以及(4)“目標(biāo)的行為導(dǎo)致了哈欽斯的死亡”。

“Morrissey included the italicized language even though she had successfully argued to the Court that Baldwin’s requested instruction concerning subjective knowledge was improper because it ‘assumes that the factual basis of negligent act [sic] was failing to check the firearm for live rounds,’ and that any deviation from the UJI [uniform jury instruction] by inserting such language was unwarranted,” the lawyers continued in the motion.
律師們?cè)趧?dòng)議中繼續(xù)說(shuō)道:“莫里西在法庭上成功地辯稱(chēng)，鮑德溫要求的關(guān)于主觀知識(shí)的指示是不恰當(dāng)?shù)?，因?yàn)樗?lsquo;假設(shè)疏忽行為的事實(shí)基礎(chǔ)是未能檢查槍支的實(shí)彈’，而插入這種語(yǔ)言對(duì)UJI(統(tǒng)一陪審團(tuán)指示)的任何偏離都是沒(méi)有根據(jù)的。”

“The prosecution,” Baker notes “very much disagrees” with the way lawyers for Baldwin—who has maintained that he did not pull the trigger and that he did not know the gun accidentally contained live ammunition—has characterized the scenario. 
“控方，”貝克指出，“非常不同意”鮑德溫律師的說(shuō)法，鮑德溫堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為他沒(méi)有扣動(dòng)扳機(jī)，也不知道槍里意外裝了實(shí)彈。