Quote:Attorney's eloquence couldn't beat evidence in Goodman case
By Jane Musgrave and Christine Stapleton
Palm Beach Post Staff Writers
March 24, 2012
WEST PALM BEACH — Ignoring a gaggle of reporters who shoved microphones and cameras at him, famed Miami attorney Roy Black walked from the Palm Beach County Courthouse into a waiting black SUV without uttering a word about why a jury on Friday rejected his claims that John Goodman was innocent.
If he was surprised or disappointed, local attorneys said, he had no reason to be. Even an attorney of Black's formidable skills can't trump the facts, they said.
"A lawyer doesn't win or lose a case; the evidence does," said attorney Michael Salnick. "It's not a matter of who the lawyer is or the lawyer's eloquence. In the end, it's the evidence."
And, he and others said, in Goodman's case much of the evidence was simply insurmountable.
Three hours after his Bentley plowed into Scott Wilson's Hyundai, Goodman's blood-alcohol level was more than two times the limit at which a person is legally presumed too drunk to drive. Further, when he finally found a phone to summon help, he didn't dial 911. He called his girlfriend and his horse manager. Meanwhile, Wilson drowned.
"That was difficult and tough evidence to overcome," Salnick said.
The blood-alcohol level was bad, he said. But the delay in calling 911 might have been worse.
"I think what was difficult was that there was contact with someone other than police after the collision," he said. From a young age, people are taught that their first call in an emergency should be 911. That Goodman phoned friends who would help him instead of calling law enforcement officials who would help others was damning, he said.
Attorney David Roth said the blood-alcohol test and traces of hydrocodone found in Goodman's system made any defense difficult.
"Any time you have illicit drugs or drugs that are not used as prescribed, alcohol and a decedent, it is almost insurmountable for the defense," he said.
Further, attorney Richard Lubin said Goodman's explanations for what happened just didn't add up.
"There had to be too many explanations accepted for there to be reasonable doubt: 'My car malfunctioned. I drank after the accident. I didn't know there was a car in the canal. I didn't know I hit a car,' " Lubin said, ticking off the various reasons offered for Goodman's behavior. "I thought Roy did a good job with what he had."
Black, Roth said, also had another steep obstacle to overcome: seasoned and skilled opponents.
Assistant State Attorney Ellen Roberts has spent her lengthy career prosecuting traffic homicide cases. She is no stranger to high-profile trials. She and fellow prosecutor Sherri Collins skillfully countered Black's attempts to explain his client's actions away, convincing the jury the explanations didn't make sense, attorneys said.
Regardless of whatever plausible theories may be presented, ultimately a juror has to rely on his or her common sense, Salnick said. Several of the defense theories, such as saying Goodman drank after the accident to ease his pain, had to produce silent groans from jurors. He said he could almost hear them saying, "Come on."
"No matter who the lawyer was, those are things that are not going to be overcome," he said.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/attorneys-eloquence-couldnt-beat-evidence-in-goodman-case-2258063.html
It does all boil down to the evidence--and the evidence of an illegal BAC level for driving is the most damning evidence of all.
What's interesting in the Goodman case, is that the prosecutors did not establish how many drinks he had prior to the accident--no witness could say they saw him have more than 3 or 4 drinks, or that he seemed impaired to them--and that did not matter to the jurors. The fact that his BAC was .17 three hours after the accident, and the sheer implausibility that this was due to consuming a great deal of alcohol after the accident, as well as the driving behavior that led to the accident, led the jurors to the obvious, common sense, conclusion that the man was quite drunk when he plowed into another car, and exactly how that alcohol got into his system was irrelevant in determining his guilt regarding DUI.
And Goodman's lack of concern for the driver of the other vehicle--his failure to aid--was also obvious to the jurors by Goodman's own behavior and the fact that his first phone call, almost an hour after the accident, was not to 911. He knew he was in a lot of trouble, he knew he had been driving drunk, he knew he had just been involved in a terrible accident, and his main concern was his own situation.
There are limits to what even the most skillful defense attorneys can do when confronted with such compelling evidence regarding a client's guilt. And that's the reason that most DUI cases of this type are resolved with plea deals--the defendant is guilty, and the evidence of that is hard to refute.
The prosecutors weren't celebrating this victory--the lead prosecutor repeatedly referred to these traffic DUI homicides as "tragedies"--for everyone involved-- and the verdict that holds someone responsible for a needless death, while a just outcome, isn't cause for elation on anyone's part. John Goodman didn't consciously want to kill anyone that night, nor did Thom Swift consciously want to kill anyone that night in December. But both of them laid the groundwork for tragedy by getting behind the wheels of their cars drunk.
I can feel compassion for Swift, I'm sure he's a basically decent guy, and he's now in a situation that's largely beyond his control and one that will determine the direction of his life for the next several years. I hope that he has the stamina to handle whatever comes next for him. Perhaps because others posting in this thread know him, he's not just an impersonal news item for me, I am very much aware that we are talking about a very real person who has every reason to be quite apprehensive about his future right now. At the same time, I am also aware that another man, Barry Lancaster, lost his life that night, and, for him, there is no future. There is no way to view this situation except as a tragedy, a very needless tragedy, for everyone involved.
What I would hope is that this tragedy actually registers with the people who move in the same social circles as Swift, frequent the same watering holes, engage in the same sort of drinking, and then get in their cars and drive. I'd hope it leads to more people having a heightened awareness and the courage to start telling others that they're not in condition to get into their cars. The intoxicated person may not be thinking, and, for that reason, others, with better judgment, have to begin making more noise. It shouldn't be expected, and accepted, that people will get loaded in a bar and then get in their cars and drive--others should start butting in and saying, "Whoa! You've had too much to drink to drive"--and they should know how many drinks it takes to get someone to that level because outward appearances can be deceptive, heavy drinkers can often "hold their liquor" and mask the signs of intoxication.
While drunken drivers are responsible for their own behaviors, those who are silent witnesses to watching someone get drunk, and then get into a car, should consider how much they enable such behavior by maintaining their silence. Bemoaning tragedies after the fact is rather useless, trying to prevent them from happening makes far more sense.
You would have learned a lot from this one--like how real cases of this type are actually tried, what evidence is required, how it is gathered, etc.. The state met it's burden of proof for those jurors, the prosecution covered all the bases. Goodman was guilty as charged, and that's why the defense couldn't raise sufficient reasonable doubt..
