@hawkeye10,
Quote:Certainly, the system will succeed in railroading him into jail
Then he certainly is throwing out his money with a defense attorney isn't he since you've decided they are all inept?
And the judge would really have to be asleep at the switch too.
And all of this will go on in a public courtroom where no one will notice he's being "railroaded" into jail.
It's amazing that you, and only you, will be able to see a complete miscarriage of justice taking place in a public courtroom.
Quote:the system...will never ask whether Thom's actions caused that death
Of course the system will ask that question! He's charged with DUI manslaughter, that's the main question on the table. The defense will try to refute that charge. If the defense can't get the charge dropped, but they can get it lowered with a plea deal, they might suggest Thom accept the plea deal if the state has convincing evidence of DUI manslaughter to present at trial. If they feel they can punch sufficient holes in the state's case, or shift some responsibility to the victim, they might get an even better plea deal or they might suggest Thom go to trial and let a jury decide it. The final decision is up to Thom.
A major issue might be Thom's level of intoxication. If his BAC was .17 or .23, for instance, it might be difficult to prove he didn't contribute to Lancaster's death, even if the bike had no lights and Lancaster had poor vision, because of the even greater impairment of an automobile driver's faculties at those higher levels.
It also will depend on whether there were witnesses to the accident.
It may also depend on the point of impact between the car and the bike--was the bike alongside the car? In front of the car?
The question of whether Thom caused, or contributed to, Lancaster's death will definitely be front and center during the hearings, any plea negotiations, and certainly at trial, if there is one.
Quote:and will further punish him for breaking the literal commandments of the fleeing the scene law even though he mostly complied with the spirit of what that law was intended to accomplish.
Mostly complied with? The spirit of what the law intended to accomplish?
So, in your mind he only sorta..maybe..complied with some of the
spirit of the law.
Good grief, a law is a law--exactly as written. And if this case goes to trial, the jury will be given a copy of the law--exactly as written--to decide whether he violated it. "The spirit" of the law doesn't enter in.
He did not stop his car. He did not aid the victim. Those are clear violations of one of the laws.
That he, at some time, may have called the police to report the accident (and simply from the news reports we do not know for sure whether he called the police or they tracked him down) will probably work in his favor, but only in the sense he didn't
continue to flee prosecution
after he got home, he didn't remain a fugitive from justice. That might help the defense to argue for leniency on that charge.
Quote:For the state this is a win, for Thom and the rest of us not so much.
The only real win for Thom would be if they could prove someone else was driving his car.
If the defense cannot refute the state's case it will be a win for the state because they will be able to convict the person responsible for driving while drunk and killing someone.
If the defense can sufficiently refute part of the state's case, they might be able to get charges dropped or lowered and that might result in a better plea deal for Thom, and that would be a win for both sides.
If the defense can demonstrate Thom was not legally drunk, or can demonstrate that the BAC testing was faulty and possibly inadmissible as reliable evidence,
and that Lancaster was totally at fault for the accident, that would be a win for Thom.
I fail to see where Thom will be railroaded. He has a defense attorney with considerable experience, and a reputation to protect, who will work to see that doesn't happen.
