亚历克·鲍德温想要撤销他的过失杀人罪，一位法律专家指出了他“最有力的论点”

As Alec Baldwin’s July trial for involuntary manslaughter approaches, the actor’s legal team is seeking to have his case dismissed.
随着亚历克·鲍德温 7月份因过失杀人罪受审的临近，这位演员的法律团队正在寻求驳回他的案件。

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.”
律师、前洛杉矶地区副检察官、法律专家艾米丽·D·贝克解释说，这种情况“不太可能”发生。“大陪审团的起诉被驳回是非常罕见的。控方在如何组织大陪审团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.
但贝克说，现年66岁的鲍德温可能会从他的法律团队在3月14日的动议中提出的一个论点中找到一些希望。鲍德温今年1月被起诉，原因是他在2021年的西部电影《Rust》的新墨西哥州拍摄现场意外枪杀了摄影师哈利娜·哈钦斯。

“The strongest argument is the argument that the state did not present the instructions to the grand jury accurately,” she says. 
“最有力的论点是，州政府没有准确地向大陪审团提供指示，”她说。

“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. 
“这些都是可能导致事情被推翻的潜在错误。因此，如果大陪审团得到大陪审团指示的方式存在错误，这可能是一个保证起诉书被驳回的问题，”她继续说道。

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.
贝克指的是鲍德温的律师在驳回特别检察官卡里·莫里西向大陪审团发出“有偏见的”指示的动议中声称。

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.” 
鲍德温的律师在动议中声称，莫里西告诉大陪审团，“必须就以下每一个因素找到合理的理由:(1)“在电影制作过程中，目标在没有事先核实枪支是否含有实弹的情况下开枪，而且枪支是指向另一个人的，”(2)“目标应该知道目标的行为所涉及的危险”(3)“目标的行为是故意无视他人的安全”以及(4)“目标的行为导致了哈钦斯的死亡”。

“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.
律师们在动议中继续说道:“莫里西在法庭上成功地辩称，鲍德温要求的关于主观知识的指示是不恰当的，因为它‘假设疏忽行为的事实基础是未能检查枪支的实弹’，而插入这种语言对UJI(统一陪审团指示)的任何偏离都是没有根据的。”

“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，”贝克指出，“非常不同意”鲍德温律师的说法，鲍德温坚持认为他没有扣动扳机，也不知道枪里意外装了实弹。