Dad acquitted in drunk drivers death

[tigra 0]

No confession, no witness, no weapon, no gunshot residue on the hands, no real evidence- just a strong motive? Honestly, if I was on the jury I would probably acquit also. But IF he did go to his house, retrieve a gun, return to the crash scene and shoot the driver then discard the weapon in such a manner that it could not be found? That would show premeditation and a knowledge of right and wrong. That's murder, not temporary insanity or extreme mental/emotional distress. The prosecution still needs to prove their case.
Honestly, to me it sounds like everyone on the scene either participated in the cover up and/ or someone else did it.

[Rick 67]

normiss

Having had pushed a vehicle with a dead electrical system, shit happens.

We try to get home.

and I have broken down on the side of I-4 in the middle of the night. My wife and child were way off the side of the road well behind the guard rail while I worked on the car.

we have a responsibility to not put our loved ones in a dangerous position

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[dpreguy 14]

The defendant, now acquitted, better be looking over his shoulder. Funny thing about "vigilante justice". Works both ways.

[normiss 633]

Can't argue with that either!

[billvon 2,442]

>My wife and child were way off the side of the road well behind the guard rail while
>I worked on the car.

That's wise. But your wife may still have felt the same way this father did if you were killed by a drunk driver.

[dpreguy 14]

"Drunk driver?" How does one instantly determine that a driver is drunk? Only after a blood test, breath test... Smelled like alcohol maybe? Everyone is assuming that somehow, the dad was able to walk up in the heat of the moment, and determine that the driver was, in fact, drunk. Looks to me like the dad was so pissed his boys got killed that he felt it was OK to seek his own version of self righteous rage/revenge by executing the the driver. I doubt the "drunk" part/excuse had anything to do with it.
Apparently, after the fact, there was a medical determination that the driver was indeed drunk. The dad didn't know that when he came back with a gun; and looks like he didn't care anyway.

Google this dad's name and put a date timer on it for a year. See if HE is still alive a year from now.

[Shotgun 1]

You bring up a good point. The guy may have been visibly drunk, I don't know, but it's irrelevant at this point. For all we know, the crash may have occurred whether the guy had been drunk or not. And now there won't likely be an investigation to make that determination. No doubt the media focus on the "drunk driver" has swayed a lot of people into thinking the guy got what he deserved.

[jclalor 12]

lawrocket

******
ALL the evidence.

I think likely that statement is untrue.

All the admissible evidence. Of which I understand there was not much. No murder weapon. No witnesses to ID him. Not even any gunshot residue on the guy.

The prosecutors, I think, wanted the jury to just infer his guilt.

It's my understanding, that even if every member of the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy was guilty, they still have the option to acquit him. I'm sure you would know much more than I would, but don't juries have the right to acquit based on nothing more than their disagreement with the law, or their feeling that the defendant does not deserve to be punished?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[Skyrad 0]

The drunk got what he deserved no sympathy for him whatsoever. Plenty for the father.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Shotgun 1]

jclalor

It's my understanding, that even if every member of the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy was guilty, they still have the option to acquit him. I'm sure you would know much more than I would, but don't juries have the right to acquit based on nothing more than their disagreement with the law, or their feeling that the defendant does not deserve to be punished?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

In the murder trial I served on, that was not an option. During the jury selection, they asked a lot of questions about whether we agreed with the laws and whether we could base our decisions strictly on the laws and the instructions given to us. There was no room for how we "felt" about the defendant or the law when it came to the question of conviction.

It's possible you could get some people who wouldn't follow through with such instructions, but I imagine that would end up in a hung jury rather than 12 people unanimously agreeing that guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[wolfriverjoe 1,357]

Skyrad

The drunk got what he deserved no sympathy for him whatsoever. Plenty for the father.

What if he hadn't been drunk?

Honest question. I drive truck for a living, and I'm required to put out warning markers (flares or reflective triangles) if I'm on the side of the road (day or night).

If I don't, I can get a ticket.

These guys were pushing a dark car down a dark road.

If a driver had come along and hit them, but wasn't drunk, who would be at fault?
Who would be to blame?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[dpreguy 14]

Short answer. No. Jury nullification amounts to a destruction
of our form of government.

The LEGISLATURE creates the laws which define criminal conduct. The JUDICIARY provides due process= 1. The right of the defendant to know what he is accused of. 2. The right of the defendant to respond to the charges- 'to be heard'. 3. The right to have his case considered by a fair and impartial tribunal - judge or jury. The EXECUTIVE branch, who is tasked with the enforcement of the laws set forth by the legislature.

Jury nullification destroys the legislature's role to determine what is illegal. We would then simply have a natin of men, not laws. Think of the thief in Les Miserables. If the law is not enforced, the bakery guy will konk the guy over the head when the thief steals the bread. No need for policemen, judges or legislatures. Mad Max

[jclalor 12]

Shotgun

***It's my understanding, that even if every member of the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy was guilty, they still have the option to acquit him. I'm sure you would know much more than I would, but don't juries have the right to acquit based on nothing more than their disagreement with the law, or their feeling that the defendant does not deserve to be punished?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

In the murder trial I served on, that was not an option. During the jury selection, they asked a lot of questions about whether we agreed with the laws and whether we could base our decisions strictly on the laws and the instructions given to us. There was no room for how we "felt" about the defendant or the law when it came to the question of conviction.

It's possible you could get some people who wouldn't follow through with such instructions, but I imagine that would end up in a hung jury rather than 12 people unanimously agreeing that guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is my understanding, that every jury has the right not to follow the instructions of the court, and they may simply aquitt based on what they feel is best for this particular situation.

juries are never told by the court that they have this powers.

[rehmwa 2]

Skyrad

The drunk got what he deserved no sympathy for him whatsoever. Plenty for the father.

the process is important - he did NOT get what he deserved. If he was killed by the courts under due process, then he'd have deserved that.

Even if the end result is the same, it's not right

sympathy for the father - absolutely. does not change the fact that it's not the process

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,155]

Well put

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

It is my understanding, that every jury has the right not to follow the instructions of the court, and they may simply aquitt based on what they feel is best for this particular situation.

It is my understanding that your understanding is wrong. Juries can no more make up the law as they see fit than you or I can. Jury nullification is, of course, difficult to prove or prosecute. It also has a questionable history in this country, such as the long record (in the past) of white defendants being automatically acquitted of crimes committed against black victims.

In some jurisdictions, juries can make recommendations about the punishment, and judges are allowed to consider extenuating circumstances. That is the appropriate time to take into consideration the circumstances under which the crime was committed IMO.

Quote

juries are never told by the court that they have this powers.

That is because they don't legally have this power. In practice, exercising such a "power" would require everybody on the jury to agree to a criminal conspiracy.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[champu 1]

jclalor

It is my understanding, that every jury has the right not to follow the instructions of the court, and they may simply aquitt based on what they feel is best for this particular situation.

juries are never told by the court that they have this powers.

Juries have the right to return a verdict given the evidence, arguments, and instructions provided to them. There is no such thing as a " technically guilty, but let him go" verdict.

"Jury Nullification" isn't a process you would explain to a jury in much the same way that "deciding the guy is guilty judging from your experience" isn't. Because while the jury obviously has the capability to do those things and for those things to be unstated but underlying reasons for whatever verdict is returned, it's not how the system is supposed to work and it's not something to encourage.

[jclalor 12]

champu

***It is my understanding, that every jury has the right not to follow the instructions of the court, and they may simply aquitt based on what they feel is best for this particular situation.

juries are never told by the court that they have this powers.

Juries have the right to return a verdict given the evidence, arguments, and instructions provided to them. There is no such thing as a " technically guilty, but let him go" verdict.

"Jury Nullification" isn't a process you would explain to a jury in much the same way that "deciding the guy is guilty judging from your experience" isn't. Because while the jury obviously has the capability to do those things and for those things to be unstated but underlying reasons for whatever verdict is returned, it's not how the system is supposed to work and it's not something to encourage.

I'm not taking sides on this , it's just a fact that juries can do this. They just made it legal in New Hampshire for juries to be instructed on their right to nullification.

http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/new-hampshire-formally-recognizes-jury-nullification.html

[dpreguy 14]

I haven't looked it up. If your research says it is in NH, then it exists. Maybe in other states as well. It is a destructive practice. If I was prosecuting, I'd query each juror to see if they would use this, even though all elements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If they would, then I'd ask the judge to excuse/strike that juror 'for cause', because if denied it would then be impossible for the state to get a guilty verdict, regardless of the evidence and the law. (All jurors are under oath on voir dire.) If they lie and do it anyway, then the verdict should be stricken and the prosecution should be entitled to a retrial.

[normiss 633]

Given the limited number of allowable "strikes" during jury selection, this really wouldn't provide the desired results would it?
I think you'd simply run out of "strikes".
I'm unsure if it would be allowed to query potential jurors on that either.

[wmw999 2,155]

Based on the last time I served on a jury, I think that either party can ask the judge to strike for cause without its hitting their strike numbers. And a juror willing to nullify would seem like cause to me

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 633]

It's more than possible I misunderstand the selection process as I've only witnessed it a few times.
I'll have to chat with my lawyer buddy on how his personal experiences with it have gone.

[wolfriverjoe 1,357]

normiss

Given the limited number of allowable "strikes" during jury selection, this really wouldn't provide the desired results would it?
I think you'd simply run out of "strikes".
I'm unsure if it would be allowed to query potential jurors on that either.

They can ask pretty much any question relevant to a potential juror's ability to be fair.
Asking about "jury nullification" has become more and more common.
And they can strike "for cause" pretty much without limit.

Wiki Clicky

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[normiss 633]

My buddy says those always lead to a Neil challenge or a race neutral challenge.


My curiosity wants me to read more, but I have a stoopid outage in Ohio to work.
Apparently even people in Ohio want Internets.
hmpf.

[dpreguy 14]

Both prosecution and defense are entitled to a certain number of strikes without any stated reason. That's how they get to a jury of 12.
There are no limits to requesting the judge asking jurors be excused for cause.

The concept of jury nullification can be compared to a governor refusing to sign the authorization for an execution, even after the defendant is properly and legally sentenced to die, and all appeals are exhausted. He substitutes his own beliefs. This is wrong, and works, in effect, a destruction of our system of criminal justice. It, in effect, is nothing more then one guy saying, "Nah, for my own personal reasons, I don't want to follow the law set forth by the legislature". Same for juries if they choose nullification. Not a good thing. If a law is a bad law, then the legislature should repeal it. This is how an ordered society works.

There are opportunities for the defense to argue justification, mistake, and other concepts at trial. If that doesn't work, then the law set forth by the legislature should be respected.

We have that here, and it is my hope that he loses the next election because of it.