What the ‘Rust’ Trial Says About the Case Against Alec Baldwin

The trial of the armorer on the film “Rust,” who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter this week for putting live ammunition into a gun that went off on the set and killed the cinematographer, offered a preview of the criminal case prosecutors are building against Alec Baldwin, who was handling the gun when it fired.

A grand jury indicted Mr. Baldwin in January on a charge of involuntary manslaughter, which carries up to 18 months in prison. He pleaded not guilty; his trial is set for July.

Mr. Baldwin was practicing drawing an old-fashioned revolver when the gun fired on Oct. 21, 2021, killing the film’s cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, and wounding its director. He has denied responsibility from the beginning, telling investigators that he had been told the gun did not contain live ammunition, and noting that live ammunition was supposed to be banned on the set. He also denied pulling the trigger, saying that the gun went off after he pulled its hammer back and released it; a forensic analysis commissioned by prosecutors found that he must have pulled the trigger for it to go off.

Prosecutors have argued that Mr. Baldwin failed to observe firearms safety measures.

“Alec Baldwin’s conduct and his lack of gun safety inside that church on that day is something that he’s going to have to answer for,” Kari T. Morrissey, the lead prosecutor in the case, said during the closing arguments in the trial of the film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. “That’ll be with another jury on another day.”

Some of the evidence and testimony presented at the trial of Ms. Gutierrez-Reed could help Mr. Baldwin’s case; other things that emerged in court could undermine it. Here’s a look at evidence that could play a role at his trial.