'Rust 'Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed Released from Prison
Rust film armorer was released from prison on Friday, May 23
She served the maximum 18-month prison sentence for committing involuntary manslaughter
She additionally faced another firearm charge after she brought a gun to a bar in New Mexico in 2021Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the film armorer convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting on the set of Rust, was released from prison on Friday, May 23.
Gutierrez-Reed, 27, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in March 2024. She was acquitted of an additional charge of tampering with evidence.
She was responsible for weapons and firearms used on the Western film set, when a loaded prop revolver was supplied to Alec Baldwin, resulting in the shooting death of Hutchins in 2021. Baldwin's case was dismissed in July 2024.
A spokesperson for the New Mexico Department of Corrections confirmed she was released in Arizona to a region near the Nevada and California borders, per NBC News. PEOPLE reached out to the NMDC for further comment but did not immediately hear back.
In 2023, a grand jury indicted Gutierrez-Reed on a felony charge of bringing a firearm into a New Mexico bar on Oct. 1, 2021. This conviction resulted in 18 months of probation.
She served 18 months in prison for the involuntary manslaughter conviction in the Rust shooting following her 2024 sentencing. Gutierrez-Reed was held at Western New Mexico Correctional Facility in Grants, N.M.
Gutierrez-Reed was released under the condition of dual supervision under probation and parole authorities to take place concurrently, spokesperson Brittany Roembach told the outlet. She will be on parole in the manslaughter case for a year, through May 23, 2026.
She is required to follow the conditions set forth by the board, some of which include electric monitoring, following a curfew, and either getting a job or enrolling in school, per her certificate obtained by CBS News.
Gutierrez-Reed received the maximum sentence for her role in Hutchins' death, during which Baldwin fired five rounds from a loaded prop gun that would kill her and injure director Joel Souza.
In January 2023 ahead of her trial, her defense attorneys Jason Bowles and Todd J. Bullion said in a statement, "Hannah is, and has always been, very emotional and sad about this tragic accident. But she did not commit involuntary manslaughter."
Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases.
"These charges are the result of a very flawed investigation, and an inaccurate understanding of the full facts," they added. "We intend to bring the full truth to light and believe Hannah will be exonerated of wrongdoing by a jury."
Reed has yet to comment on her release.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TechCrunch
25 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
Rippling calls Deel ‘a criminal syndicate' and claims 4 other competitors were spied on, too
The fight between HR tech startups has heated up another notch this week as Rippling on Thursday filed an 84-page amended complaint in its lawsuit against Deel. The complaint accuses Deel of targeting, infiltrating, and compromising four other competitors, in addition to Rippling. The revised complaint doesn't name all of the four other alleged victims, except cryptocurrency-based tax and payroll compliance company, Toku. Toku is suing its competitor LiquiFilegal also alleging corporate espionage, and that Deel was involved. The complaint alleges that 'Victim-3 is a startup accelerator that previously partnered with Deel.' The complaint doesn't name, or even imply, who that is. (Y Combinator backed both Rippling and Deel but there's no indication this refers to the VC firm. YC has not yet responded to our request for comment.) The complaint also vaguely says that there are one or more additional victims who are 'one or more major competitors of Deel' in the employer of record market. A source familiar with the investigation believes that more witnesses will soon come forward at these other companies to offer details. (Deel did not immediately comment. We will update this story with its response once it does.) Rippling's amended suit also alleges that Deel's CEO Alex Bouaziz was the direct mastermind of it all, sharing screenshots of messages as its evidence. And, although this is a civil suit, Rippling is now implying that this could be a criminal matter. 'This case is about a criminal syndicate that operated from the shadows of a multibillion-dollar technology company – Deel,' the complaint reads. Rippling's amended lawsuit is now suing Deel under the federal RICO statute, as well as the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and California state law. The lawsuit directly names Alex Bouaziz, his father Philippe Bouaziz who is chairman and chief financial officer, and Deel's chief operating officer Daniel Westgarth. It's important to note that the lead attorney for Rippling is Alex Spiro of white-shoe law firm Quinn Emanuel. Spiro is a former prosecutor for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. (He's well known in the legal world, and has his own Wikipedia page.) Using words like 'criminal syndicate' in a civil case would be a deliberate choice. According to the source familiar with the case, federal prosecutors are now actively looking into the allegations against Deel as well. An investigation, however, is not a conviction. But should charges be filed, Rippling is doing its best to set up Bouaziz himself as one of the people responsible. The complaint even goes so far as to repeatedly use the colorful language 'the Bouaziz Racketeering Enterprise.' Other than that, much of the amended complaint reiterates what Rippling has already alleged. To recap: a Rippling employee confessed to being a paid spy for Deel in an Irish Court, in an affidavit that reads like a Hollywood movie. The employee admitted in court to taking sales leads, product roadmaps, customer accounts, names of superstar employees, and whatever other information was asked for. The employee was caught in a Rippling-set honeypot, both he and Rippling say. Rippling is suing Deel, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition, and more, largely based on the spying allegations. Deel has counter-sued in a case that is less about denying Rippling's charges and making a bunch of its own claims about Rippling. For instance, earlier this week, Deel filed an amended lawsuit that claimed that Rippling was spying on Deel by having an employee 'impersonate' a customer to obtain non-public product information. Grab some fresh popcorn. This battle between arch rivals shows no sign of slowing.
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
30 Years Later, the Terrors of ‘Safe' Are Just as Alarming
Todd Haynes' exploration of ecological and existential horrors features a stellar early-career performance by Julianne Moore. The eco-horror genre can often take a high-energy, high-action approach. We've seen animals and/or insects transformed by an environmental shift that makes them want to attack every human in their midst. We've seen nature twisted into spawning vicious monsters both giant and microscopic. We've also seen the weather go haywire and spiral into an ice age in act three after ripping Los Angeles with tornados in act one. But not every eco-horror film speaks in such a loud voice. In 2011, Jeff Nichols' Take Shelter explored the fragmenting domestic life of a construction worker whose apocalyptic visions soon become an obsession; as he prepares for doom, his increasingly exasperated loved ones assume he's completely nuts. In 2021, Ben Wheatley's In the Earth investigated a story obliquely about the covid-19 pandemic, set in a forest where the plants have launched an offensive against all human invaders. Even earlier, Todd Haynes' Safe—released in theaters 30 years ago this month after debuting at the 1995 Sundance Film Festival—dug into maybe the eeriest sort of eco-horror of all. You can't see it, hear it, or even feel it, unless you're Safe's main character: Carol White, a housewife played by then-emerging star Julianne Moore. Safe takes place in 1987 in the suburbs of Los Angeles, where Carol, clad in pastels and pearls, spends her days running errands, ordering her housekeeper around, and attending aerobics classes. It's a comfortable yet dull life; what passes for drama is a new couch being delivered in the wrong color, or a friend suggesting they try out a faddish all-fruit diet. Carol doesn't smoke or drink—she describes herself as a 'milkaholic'—and her personality is quite passive. She doesn't seem to have much of an interior life. Her lack of expressiveness matches perfectly with the style Haynes uses to tell his story: it's very reserved, almost to the point of feeling airless and sterile. We're peering in on Carol almost like she's a figure in a diorama that tells her story. But if Carol seems like someone who must have a rebellion bubbling within, Safe–released at the height of the AIDS epidemic, a crisis it references both overtly and symbolically—turns that idea on its head. While in some senses it is a feminist comment on how stifling gender roles can be, Safe is also a movie about a woman whose body begins to break down in response to her otherwise unremarkable environment, imperiling both her physical and mental health. If you watch Safe already knowing where Carol is headed, it's easy to pick out the clues. The first thing we hear from her is a sneeze—a gentle harbinger of the coughing fits, vomiting, nosebleeds, hyperventilation, skin eruptions, and seizures that eventually come along. Her McMansion existence, untaxing as it seems, is full of toxic triggers and pollutants: wall-to-wall carpet that's constantly being vacuumed, kitchen cabinets that must be re-varnished, car exhaust from LA's perpetual traffic jams, planes flying overhead, humming appliances, phones ringing, TVs and radios blaring, and looming electrical towers. We see Carol visit the dry cleaner on multiple occasions, including a disastrous attempt to pick up clothes while the place is being fumigated, and at one point she decides to add a perm and a manicure to her beauty salon routine. But everyone else in her life who dwells in this San Fernando Valley bubble is seemingly fine. It's just Carol who starts having violent reactions, and the initial response—particularly from her husband, who's continuously disbelieving though he does become somewhat more supportive—is that it's all in her head. She's just 'overexerted.' 'A little run down.' 'I really don't see anything wrong with you,' her regular physician scolds, while advising her to stay off dairy and forget the fruit diet, too. A litany of allergy tests prove inconclusive. A psychiatrist, perched behind a massive desk, looks at her quizzically, asking 'What's going on in you?' As Carol downshifts from delicate to fragile to frail, her illness becomes her entire identity, and she finally finds—not answers, but a community of people suffering from similar symptoms. (She finds them through a flyer posted on her health club's bulletin board that very pointedly asks: 'Are you allergic to the 20th century?') Treatment requires moving to a communal-living retreat in the desert, which takes Carol away from a life it seems she'll hardly miss, despite at least one emotional outburst as she's settling in. Exactly how Carol has fallen victim to this debilitating condition is something we never learn. The way Haynes frames her weakening existence is extremely effective, implying that it's an ambient ailment that could seep into anyone, anywhere, even in cushy surroundings. Safe is also remarkable in the way that it takes Carol's illness very seriously—the audience believes her, even if other characters don't—while also satirizing a New Age industry eagerly profiting off its patients. Carol and her fellow residents are wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for residential treatment, but naive enough not to question why the program's founder lives in a mansion that looms over the property. The most chilling part of Safe, though, is its ambiguous ending. Even amid her new home's isolated location, where everyone observes rules about chemicals, eats organic food, and undergoes regular therapy, Carol doesn't recover. Eventually she moves from a rustic cabin to an igloo-like structure that completely encloses a 'safe room,' free from contaminants as long as Carol is the only one who goes inside. Even then, and despite continuing to insist that she's feeling so much better, Carol is clearly deteriorating. Steadily. As Safe concludes, the audience is openly invited to wonder if she will ever get better—and if the choice she's made, to live in isolation in a place completely structured around environmental illness, was even worth it. After 30 years, the answers still don't come easily. Most haunting of all, environmental illnesses still lurk among us—as quietly insidious, inviting of skepticism, and enigmatic as ever.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Natasha Lyonne Sparks Backlash After Quoting David Lynch
Natasha Lyonne quoted the late director David Lynch in defense of her AI filmmaking. (Photo by Michael Buckner/Variety via Getty Images) Natasha Lyonne (creator and star of Russian Doll) sparked backlash after announcing that her directorial debut, Uncanny Valley, will utilize generative AI. Now, Lyonne has invoked the late director David Lynch in defense of her AI experiment. Many creatives working in film and entertainment are firmly opposed to the use of AI, and have criticized Lyonne for embracing the technology. Lyonne's memory of a private conversation she had with David Lynch, however, proved even more controversial. Lyonne claims that David Lynch gave her advice and encouragement regarding AI, comparing the technology to a pencil. 'Everyone has access to a pencil, and likewise, everyone with a phone will be using AI, if they aren't already,' Lynch reportedly said. 'It's how you use the pencil. You see?' This quote was included in the end of a lengthy piece by Vulture, exploring early uses of generative AI in Hollywood. While the piece is packed with interesting quotes and anecdotes, Lynch's quote struck many readers as distasteful. Several reckoned that it was unfair to quote the legendary director after his death. Some commentators outright refused to believe that Lynch actually said the quote to Lyonne, citing the director's love of practical effects. The wave of criticism even inspired a meme, as commentators joked about receiving Lynch's blessing. Others noted that Lynch may well have encouraged Lyonne to experiment with AI, but that his offhand comment should not be taken as gospel. After all, Lynch is no longer with us, and cannot expand upon the quote with more context or clarity. As strange as it might seem, Lynch has spoken positively about AI in the past. In an interview with Sight and Sound, Lynch described AI as 'fantastic.' 'I know a lot of people are afraid of it,' said Lynch.' I'm sure, like everything, they say it'll be used for good or for bad. I think it'd be incredible as a tool for creativity and for machines to help creativity.' However, Lynch also noted: 'I'm sure with all these things, if money is the bottom line, there'd be a lot of sadness, and despair and horror. But I'm hoping better times are coming.' Some commentators agreed with Lynch's opinion about using AI as a tool, but pointed out that the use of AI would not stop there, implying that the technology would be used against workers. AI-generated content has a reputation for being uncanny and incredibly derivative, often labelled as 'slop.' Critics are concerned about the rise of AI leading to shoddy filmmaking, heavy job losses and copyright violation on a mass scale, as the vast majority of models have been trained on the work of artists without permission or compensation. The Vulture piece contains hints that the adoption of generative AI is not going smoothly, as the output is incredibly difficult to control. Animator Joel Kuwahara described his efforts to create a storyboard using generative AI as 'terrible.' 'I was trying to prompt it to move the camera up ten degrees, and it gave me a whole new house,' he said. A filmmaker's precision is unlikely to be realized with prompts, as the 'generative' aspect of AI is imbued with unpredictability (not to mention, hallucinations). Lyonne makes it clear that she is attempting to use the technology as an artist, describing herself as a 'filmmaker who doesn't want the tech people deciding the future of the medium.' Lyonne's upcoming film, Uncanny Valley, is set to use the AI-based studio Asteria, which she founded alongside her boyfriend, filmmaker Bryn Mooser. Asteria's partner, Moonvalley, will use a model called Marey, which is claimed to have been trained 'ethically,' only using data that has been licensed for AI-training. Notably, a spokesperson for Moonvalley declined to share the details behind the training data to Vulture, claiming it was 'confidential.' Many of the Hollywood workers quoted in the article seem to view the mass adoption of AI as an inevitability. Notably, a quote from an anonymous VFX artist reveals that the output of the machine is faster, but sloppier. 'Oh, there's quality lost,' he said. 'But that's only lost on the people who appreciate it, like fine wine.' Few seem to view the output of generative AI as superior (or even equal) to the work of talented filmmakers, but the hope seems to be that the machine's output will be good enough to pass, unnoticed. Google's new video-generator, Veo 3, is capable of generating lifelike video. Is it good enough to create a film, beyond a few seconds? Are audiences actually interested in a performance delivered by non-humans? Do we want to watch content made by no one? As the technology is refined and filmmakers experiment, it will soon become clear if Lynch's pencil analogy holds true.
