Woman who stops on road for ducks is found guilty.

[EagerBeaver]

I simply find that our media exploitation of the criminal justice system seduces prosecutors into bringing charges against those who do not have criminal intent, because the prosecutor gets to try a highly publicized case and gets to be on TV and might get a more lucrative job later at a law firm that would not have hired him or her out of law school.

OK I have to tell you what really happens in the US Criminal Justice System and it is often the opposite.

One of my best buddies is an FBI Agent in NYC. His main gripe to me is that the younger US attorneys are pussies and afraid to try cases. Why? The money in private practice is with DEFENSE firms, white collar criminal defense- they are billing $750-$1000 an hour in NYC. The US attorneys develop cozy relationships with these firms. They hope to work there once they cut their teeth on a few trials but they do not do anything crazy with those big firms where cushy high paying jobs await them. That means negotiating out some cases where a trial may gain attention and the defense could get egg on their face. When attorneys talk in their offices we often have a joint opinion that the case sucks or not when we are talking off the record. When we are in court it is like two boxers in the ring and all backroom bets are off. We all know this, but we still talk to each other like men in the backroom, and sometimes both sides agree on how a case will shake out but it gets tried anyway.

So sometimes these prosecutors will plead cases out even when it's a win on the more serious charge. They save defense attorney egg on face, and the prosecutor files that favor away for future, personal use. What goes around comes around. There are many attorneys in CT who owe me favors, and one day I will call them on it when I need it. Same thing with prosecutors, they do favors and then call on them one day.

There are also a few attorneys they will not try against because they know they will lose. The big trial guns. So they will plead out a big case instead of trying it because they do not want to have their asses kicked in a high profile case. And this pisses my buddy off in a big way because he thinks they are a bunch of pussies.

It's true that certain high profile cases (and I smell that this is one of them) the prosecutors are not daunted by the defense attorney, they offer an outrageous deal where the client has to do a lot of time and he and his client have no choice but to try their luck with a jury. In a situation like that, if you don't ask for a trial you are a pussy, and everyone in the legal community knows you are pussy. So you do what you gotta do.

 

[HornyForEver]

And you base this on what? Do you know anything about the prosecutor? Maybe he is just doing his job prosecuting someone who was criminally negligent in her actions. The jury seems to have agreed.

Oh yeah, the jury seems to have agreed. What are the qualifications of the members of this jury? Juries is something that I fail to understand in this North American "justice" system. Obviously, the jury is always the weekness of this whole system.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Oh yeah, the jury seems to have agreed. What are the qualifications of the members of this jury? Juries is something that I fail to understand in this North American "justice" system. Obviously, the jury is always the weekness of this whole system.

Juries are totally unpredictable, although in this case they were unanimous in their verdict. When I pick juries I prepare my voir dire and the responses to specific questions are important but I often have a gut feeling that someone is good or bad. You only get 4 peremptory challenges and once they are used up, if you have a bad feeling about someone, you are in trouble.

 

[HornyForEver]

Unanimity seldom means anything. I am regularly involved in voting processes, we often reach a unanimous vote, not because we agree, but because we more or less know what the vote of the person sitting next to us will be and we just vote accordingly to get out of the meeting room asap.

 

[EagerBeaver]

The prosecutor always drives the process. The ambivalence of the victim's family will only come into play at sentencing. Victims and their families always have the opportunity to address the court (or not) at sentencing. It sounds like the defense may speak to them and screen them, and if they do not want the defendant to serve time, they can give statements to that effect to the sentencing judge on their own or at the prodding of the defense.

Their ambivalence about the prosecution, however, is irrelevant. The prosecutor has a duty to all of the citizens, not just the direct victims of the alleged crime. In this case the crime was committed on a public highway and he is responsible to and for all the taxpayers who pay to safely operate their vehicles on that highway.

 

[Siocnarf]

The defense will try to get a suspended jail time, or week-end jail time, or something. I agree this deserved a sentence, but I think prison would not be helpful here. I would go with a long probation and community work with victims of traffic accidents (and a restraining order to stay away from ducks.) In my opinions, prisons should be used only for people who are a present danger for society.

The financial analyst parked her car on the road with the driver's door open and no hazard lights on...

Aren't these people supposed to be good at risk assessment?? I would not trust her with my finances!

 

[Siocnarf]

Genarlow Wilson case ...

I just looked this up. Wow! If he'd had intercourse with the girl it would have been a misdemeanor with a few months in jail, but because it was a blowjob it was considered an aggravated felony with a 10 year minimum. This is more than a problem with minimum sentences, it's completely Alice-in-Wonderland-crazy.

 

[Kasey Jones]

You know when people say that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada? There are some fundamental reasons behind believing this. Our legal system is one of those. That so many here seem unaware of this (especially Quebecers!) is pretty sad...

 

[hungry101]

Hopefully the Canadian legal system allows this. A problem with the U.S. is the number of crimes requiring mandatory minimum sentences. For years conservative publications like the Reader's Digest scoured the nation for situations in which if felt that judges were too lenient and they posted stories about the cases with only the prosecution's viewpoint. Politicians soon picked up on this opportunity and when elected on "anti-crime" platforms proudly took discretion away from judges. So we end up in situations like the Genarlow Wilson case in which the jury was horrified that by finding him guilty he was sentenced to decades in prison under the mandatory minimum system for consensual sexual activity even though the jury thought he would just get a slap on the wrist.

Oh the unintended consequences of mandatory minimums. Once again Patron, you hit the nail right on the head.
http://www.uscourts.gov/news/TheThi...mums_at_Heart_of_Unintended_Consequences.aspx

 

[rocky69]

Merlot,

IMHO, I respectfully disagree. There was no criminal intent. I did not say what she did was not stupid or even careless. However, it was not an intentional act. Again, very sad that a father and his teenage daughter was killed. But, as the mother of the girl that died said, nothing will bring back her husband and daughter and she just wants to move on. This woman going to jail will serve no purpose. Considering that she has to live with the thought of having killed two people, I think that is a lot worse than doing jail time. Unless you believe that she is some sort of psychopath and really doesn't care about what happened that day. I think in this case community service and long probation and even ensuring that she is not allowed to drive for a very long time. You're absolutely correct when you say that she did what she did sober, but I personally know some cases where drunk drivers get off and that should never happen, as drinking and driving shows criminal intent.

 

[simonpaul]

Merlot,

IMHO, I respectfully disagree. There was no criminal intent. I did not say what she did was not stupid or even careless. However, it was not an intentional act. Again, very sad that a father and his teenage daughter was killed. But, as the mother of the girl that died said, nothing will bring back her husband and daughter and she just wants to move on. This woman going to jail will serve no purpose. Considering that she has to live with the thought of having killed two people, I think that is a lot worse than doing jail time. Unless you believe that she is some sort of psychopath and really doesn't care about what happened that day. I think in this case community service and long probation and even ensuring that she is not allowed to drive for a very long time. You're absolutely correct when you say that she did what she did sober, but I personally know some cases where drunk drivers get off and that should never happen, as drinking and driving shows criminal intent.

I totally agree,she had no criminal intent,it is just an error of jugment.She will have to live all is life with that tought of having by accident and lack of jugment killed two people.Here the facts are different if we compare the sentence Dr Turcotte received at his first trial for having killed is two children.

 

[EagerBeaver]

You can make the same arguments with drunk drivers who kill people and go to jail. They have no criminal intent either. They just wanted to have a few beers and relax. I had a client who was DUI and rear ended a taxi did not kill anyone and he went to jail for a year. Was not his first DUI though. This woman committed a first offense but there were two deaths and that is why she is likely facing doing some time. It is not solely about her criminal intent and regardless of that, she was already convicted so the liability issues are over and we should stop discussing liability as the jury has unanimously decided her liability. We are on to sentencing. She is likely to get a small amount of time, community service and probation. That is my guess. Her time will likely be months. Let's not forget the victims are dead permanently. She has a debt to society and it has to be paid. Sentencing will be in August.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

For sentencing I hope that there is no jail time for the reason that the motorcycle driver could have been speeding up to 130 Kph for the high end estimate ( earlier article ). Sad that the 2 people died but " if " they were not speeding the accident " may " not have happened. Plus jail time would do no good in this case. She was negligent yes, criminal intent no. Too bad there is no charge of being just plain fucking stupid in the books.
Just to exaggerate this somewhat, lets say I was driving my car at 200 Kph and someone was travelling 30 Kph in the left lane and I hit them from behind would they be charged?

 

[EagerBeaver]

Negligent homicide and manslaugter are punishable by jail time in most jurisdictions. I do not know if the concept of comparative negligence exists in Quebec but if so the negligence of the victims would be considered at sentencing. In Connecticut a few years ago a police officer went to jail for negligent homicide. He was driving 93 miles per hour on US 1 with no headlights at 2 am and two kids who were drunk and high turned left in front of him, likely not seeing his car and both were killed. Their negligence was considered but the cop ended up getting jail time. No criminal intent there either and the kids he hit were also extremely negligent and impaired.

 

[EagerBeaver]

This guy actually got 5 years:

http://www.nhregister.com/general-n...s-in-crash-that-killed-two-orange-teens-video

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

Negligent homicide and manslaugter are punishable by jail time in most jurisdictions. I do not know if the concept of comparative negligence exists in Quebec but if so the negligence of the victims would be considered at sentencing. In Connecticut a few years ago a police officer went to jail for negligent homicide. He was driving 93 miles per hour on US 1 with no headlights at 2 am and two kids who were drunk and high turned left in front of him, likely not seeing his car and both were killed. Their negligence was considered but the cop ended up getting jail time. No criminal intent there either and the kids he hit were also extremely negligent and impaired.

I understand what you are trying to say but the 2 cases are not remotely close in negligence. A cop is driving at 50% over the speed limit at night with no lights on, even if the kids were sober they would not have seen him and the accident would have occurred. In this case if the motorcycle was driving 30 Kph less ( the speed limit ) he may have stopped in time or been able to swerve around, the car ahead of him was able to.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Actually the biggest difference is that the jury saw video of the crash which was taped by another police car behind Anderson's. Here is the video of the crash that sent Jason Anderson away for 5 years:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=63Hi0EKO3pQ&feature=kp

Read the commentary after the video. Many of the same arguments in this thread. Cops are in fact held to higher standards as drivers than anyone else.

 

[EagerBeaver]

By the way, just to give some perspective to Montreal residents on the video I posted: US 1 in Orange, Connecticut is very similar to Newman Boulevard in Lasalle. It's a commercial district, lots of businesses, high traffic and many traffic lights. It is absolutely insane to travel 94 mph without lights at 2 am down that road, it is inviting disaster. US 1 is the main road that runs between the cities of New Haven and Bridgeport and the area where this accident occurred is known as a shopping district servicing both New Haven and Bridgeport area residents as it is in between the two cities.

 

[Kasey Jones]

For sentencing I hope that there is no jail time for the reason that the motorcycle driver could have been speeding up to 130 Kph for the high end estimate ( earlier article ). Sad that the 2 people died but " if " they were not speeding the accident " may " not have happened.

Blame the victim?

Plus jail time would do no good in this case. She was negligent yes, criminal intent no. Too bad there is no charge of being just plain fucking stupid in the books.

There is no law against being stupid, but there is a law about immobilizing your car ON A HIGHWAY for no reason.

Just to exaggerate this somewhat, lets say I was driving my car at 200 Kph and someone was travelling 30 Kph in the left lane and I hit them from behind would they be charged?

Yes, they could very well be given that 60km/h is the minimum speed you are allowed to be driving ON A HIGHWAY.


She will undoubtedly do some jail time. She refused a plea deal that included jail time and took her chances with a jury. Now, she is at risk of doing more time than was probably offered in the deal. (Another poor decision on her part, IMO.)

Here are a few other questions to ponder:

1. Does the fact that she feels that she does not deserve jail time indicate that she has not accepted her responsibility in causing this accident? "Yes I caused the death of 2 people but I was trying to save some baby ducks so its ok."

2. Where the ducks in actual danger? They got to the median uninjured, so who is to say that they could not have gotten off the median uninjured.

 

[gan]

Lack of criminal intent doesn't mean shit.

If I'm playing with a loaded gun and shoot my son accidentally, that's a crime. If I forget my baby in a closed car and the baby dies of suffocation, that's a crime too. This girl was criminally negligent. I agree with EB. Depending on whether she activated the hazard lights, this lady should get anywhere from a few months to a few years. Let her care about all the rats/insects in the prison. Personally, I think 6 months + community service + life time ban on driving should be enough.