Alec Baldwin: New Mexico Prosecutors Get Prosecutorial Immunity

• U.S. District Judge Kea Riggs dismissed most of Alec Baldwin's lawsuit against New Mexico prosecutors, citing absolute prosecutorial immunity.
• Baldwin had sued prosecutors Mary Carmack-Altwies and Andrea Reeb for misconduct, defamation, and civil rights violations after his criminal involuntary manslaughter charges were dismissed.
• The criminal charges, stemming from the 2021 'Rust' shooting that killed Halyna Hutchins, were dismissed due to the state's 'egregious discovery violations' and withheld ammunition evidence.
• Carmack-Altwies was denied immunity for claims related to her alleged involvement in the investigation and destruction of the gun, as these actions were deemed outside the judicial process.
• The ruling reinforces the broad scope of prosecutorial immunity, making it challenging to pursue civil claims against prosecutors, even amidst allegations of misconduct.

This decision underscores the broad scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity, even in the face of serious allegations of misconduct, and highlights the exceptionally narrow circumstances where such protection may not apply.

In October 2021, a tragic incident occurred on the New Mexico set of the film "Rust," where actor and co-producer Alec Baldwin was rehearsing a close-up shot. During this rehearsal, a pistol Baldwin was holding discharged, fatally wounding cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza. The firearm, which was supposed to contain dummy rounds, unexpectedly fired a live round when Baldwin cocked it.

Following an investigation, prosecutors charged Baldwin in early 2023 with two counts of involuntary manslaughter, including a firearm sentencing enhancement. However, the criminal case was abruptly dismissed in July 2024. This dismissal stemmed from the state's "egregious discovery violations constituting misconduct and the false testimony," specifically citing the withholding of ammunition evidence that could have been the source of the live round on set.

In early 2025, Alec Baldwin initiated a civil lawsuit against state and county prosecutors in New Mexico, alleging misconduct during the investigation and prosecution of his criminal case, as well as defamation and civil rights violations. He contended that the prosecutors were motivated by political agendas or personal ambitions. U.S. District Judge Kea Riggs, however, largely dismissed these claims, finding that the prosecutors were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Judge Riggs had previously dismissed claims against special prosecutor Kari Morrissey on similar immunity grounds. In her subsequent ruling, the judge concluded that District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies and former District Attorney Andrea Reeb, who also served as a special prosecutor and state legislator, were likewise protected by prosecutorial immunity for the majority of Baldwin's allegations. Despite expressing concern over the "allegations of misconduct by defendants Carmack-Altwies and Reeb," Judge Riggs affirmed their entitlement to this protection, noting that "sometimes, it is better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by an allegedly dishonest prosecutor than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation. This is one of those times."

Significantly, Judge Riggs did carve out an exception for Carmack-Altwies. Claims against her related to her alleged involvement in the investigation and destruction of the gun that killed Hutchins were not dismissed. The court determined that Carmack-Altwies' actions concerning the gun were "too far removed from the judicial process to entitle her to absolute prosecutorial immunity," distinguishing these actions from typical prosecutorial functions.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Kea Riggs in the Alec Baldwin malicious prosecution Rust case highlights the extensive scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity. This legal doctrine generally shields prosecutors from civil liability for actions taken within their official capacity, even when allegations of misconduct are raised. The rationale behind this broad protection is to allow prosecutors to perform their duties without fear of constant retaliation or frivolous lawsuits, which could otherwise impede the administration of justice.

However, the decision also clarifies the narrow boundaries of this immunity. While prosecutors like Mary Carmack-Altwies and Andrea Reeb are typically protected for their charging and advocacy roles, actions that fall outside the traditional judicial process, such as direct involvement in investigatory functions or the alleged destruction of evidence, may not be covered. This distinction underscores that immunity is not absolute in every conceivable scenario, particularly when a prosecutor's actions venture into areas more akin to law enforcement or administrative duties rather than core prosecutorial functions.

This decision underscores the broad scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity, even in the face of serious allegations of misconduct, and highlights the exceptionally narrow circumstances where such protection may not apply. For individuals pursuing malicious prosecution claims against prosecutors in New Mexico or elsewhere, this ruling reinforces the formidable challenge of overcoming immunity. Even with strong accusations of impropriety, such as those related to alleged New Mexico prosecutor misconduct in the Baldwin case, the legal system prioritizes the protection of prosecutorial discretion.

The outcome suggests that while courts may acknowledge concerns about alleged wrongdoing, the high bar for piercing absolute prosecutorial immunity remains largely intact. This makes it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in civil actions against prosecutors, unless the alleged actions clearly fall outside the established boundaries of their protected role, as was the case with the specific claims against Carmack-Altwies regarding the gun's handling.

This ruling underscores the broad scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity, even against allegations of misconduct, and clarifies the narrow circumstances (like investigatory actions or evidence destruction) where immunity might not apply. Lawyers should advise clients that overcoming prosecutorial immunity in malicious prosecution claims remains exceptionally difficult, even with strong allegations of impropriety.

Source: Original reporting via Court News Service