Baldwin Trial - Correct Legal Theory, But Wrong Explanation

WASHINGTON - July 10, 2024 - PRLog -- In the criminal trial of Alex Baldwin, prosecutors have adopted a legal theory which is legally correct, says law professor John Banzhaf, who has been called "a Driving Force Behind the Lawsuits That Have Cost Tobacco Companies Billions of Dollars,"  "a King of Class Action Lawsuits," and an "Entrepreneur of Litigation, [and] a Trial Lawyer's Trial Lawyer."

However, several TV commentators have incorrectly explained to viewers one of the key elements of the trial - the "But For" or "Sine Qua Non" test of causation.

To prove his guilt, prosecutors must not only show that he was negligent, but also that his negligence was a cause of the death - what lawyer's call "causation-in fact" or "actual causation" and which is a legal issue, to distinguish it from "proximate cause."

To establish Baldwin's culpability for involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutors must prove two elements: that he was negligent, and that his negligent act was a cause-in-fact of the shooting death of Halyna Hutchins under the but-for legal test or standard.

The but-for test is a test commonly used in both tort law and criminal law to determine actual causation. The test asks, "but for the existence of X, would Y have occurred?"

In this case the issue of actual causation appears to be clear; if Baldwin has not pointed the gun at a woman, she would not have been shot dead.  In other words, but for his aiming the gun, there would not have been a death.

But some commentators have incorrectly explained the test; at the very least suggesting or implying that prosecutors must prove that Baldwin is THE cause in fact of the death, and not simply one.

The beauty of the "but for" test is that it recognizes that there can be several causes of any injury, and that each and every cause can be found guilty (in a criminal trial) or liable (in a civil trial).

For example, the causes of an automobile accident might include the negligence of Driver X who was distracted and did not act quickly enough, and Driver Y who suddenly crossed in front of him and was hit.

Similarly, Baldwin's pointing of the gun was A cause of the death in a but-for sense, but the negligence of the armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed armorer was also A cause of the death in a but-for sense.

If there was someone else (e.g. an assistant director) whose negligence also caused the death (in a but-for sense), he would also be classified as A cause, and subject to being found guilty.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf