亞歷克·鮑德溫想要撤銷他的過失殺人罪，一位法律專家指出了他“最有力的論點”

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月份因過失殺人罪受審的臨近，這位演員的法律團隊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、法律專家艾米麗·D·貝克解釋說，這種情況“不太可能”發(fā)生。“大陪審團的起訴被駁回是非常罕見的。控方在如何組織大陪審團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，現(xiàn)年66歲的鮑德溫可能會從他的法律團隊在3月14日的動議中提出的一個論點中找到一些希望。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. 
“最有力的論點是，州政府沒有準確地向大陪審團提供指示，”她說。

“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誤。因此，如果大陪審團得到大陪審團指示的方式存在錯誤，這可能是一個保證起訴書被駁回的問題，”她繼續(xù)說道。

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·莫里西向大陪審團發(fā)出“有偏見的”指示的動議中聲稱。

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.” 
鮑德溫的律師在動議中聲稱，莫里西告訴大陪審團，“必須就以下每一個因素找到合理的理由:(1)“在電影制作過程中，目標在沒有事先核實槍支是否含有實彈的情況下開槍，而且槍支是指向另一個人的，”(2)“目標應(yīng)該知道目標的行為所涉及的危險”(3)“目標的行為是故意無視他人的安全”以及(4)“目標的行為導(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.
律師們在動議中繼續(xù)說道:“莫里西在法庭上成功地辯稱，鮑德溫要求的關(guān)于主觀知識的指示是不恰當?shù)?，因為?lsquo;假設(shè)疏忽行為的事實基礎(chǔ)是未能檢查槍支的實彈’，而插入這種語言對UJI(統(tǒng)一陪審團指示)的任何偏離都是沒有根據(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”鮑德溫律師的說法，鮑德溫堅持認為他沒有扣動扳機，也不知道槍里意外裝了實彈。