Alec Baldwin Has Viral Run-In With Protester Ahead Of ‘Rust’ Trial

Actor Alec Baldwin is making headlines again, but this time, it's not in connection to his "Rust" criminal trial, which is scheduled to begin in July.

Instead, the “30 Rock” actor got into a confrontation with an anti-Israel protester in New York City who got in his face when he refused to say “Free Palestine!”

The 66-year-old actor was spotted talking on his cell phone inside a Manhattan coffee shop when a pro-Palestine protestor started recording him with her phone. She was clearly trying to get his attention in the New York City coffee shop, as she threw it in his face that he is facing criminal charges in connection with the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

The protestor repeatedly asked the actor why he killed Hutchins and why he hasn’t served any prison time for his role in her death. Although the actor keeps his cool and tries to ignore her, fans can see that he is getting more annoyed by the minute when she demands that he say “Free Palestine” and “F--- Israel.”

The “Supercell” actor finishes up his phone call and goes to the front door, asking the protestor to leave. However, his request is ignored. The protestor then goes on to call Baldwin a “f---ing criminal” while the actor asks an employee to call the police.

The woman continues to badger the actor, demanding that he say “Free Palestine just one time.” It looks like he had enough and slaps the phone out of her hands. The video cuts out after that.

It’s unclear if the NYPD took any action in this case. The footage has been going viral on social media and YouTube, with one person saying, “You totally deserved that!” and another adding, “I’m afraid I’d do much worse than Alec to you.”

Alec Baldwin’s legal team filed a motion last month to have his criminal trial dismissed; however, legal expert Emily D. Baker told People magazine that it is “unlikely” that he will be able to get the case thrown out.

Baker, a lawyer and former L.A. Deputy District Attorney, went on to say, “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.”

Baker explained that the “strongest argument” that Baldwin’s legal team can use to get the case against him thrown out is “the argument that the state did not present the instructions to the grand jury accurately.”

“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 explained, adding:

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.”

“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,” Baldwin’s legal team explained.

On April 5, the "Rust" special prosecutors, including Morrissey and Jason J. Lewis, filed a response to Baldwin's motions, calling the "prejudicial" instructions allegation "patently false." They claimed that they “did not deviate from [uniform jury instructions], we simply filled in the language that was required to be filled in and did so in accordance with the instruction and the facts presented to the jury.”

Baker says that, ultimately, “it comes down to a very narrow question of whether that jury instruction was proper or whether that jury instruction violated what the court ordered about the grand jury,” and noted that Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer will make the final call.