It's a shame our Constitution guarantees people the right to be defended and have a fair trial, while also restricting the ability of the state to lock people up for whatever the hell they want in order to win elections.
Printable View
It's a shame our Constitution guarantees people the right to be defended and have a fair trial, while also restricting the ability of the state to lock people up for whatever the hell they want in order to win elections.
Does it, now?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Yes. That's the whole point. This is manslaughter at worst, not murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Right. By charging these people with murder, as opposed to manslaughter, that is what these prosecutors are saying. And as Diff says, the entire purpose is to get press and win elections, not justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Bingo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I'm all for throwing drunk drivers under the jail and forgetting about them, but Anthony and sleeve are right. I would argue that the punishment for manslaughter might need to be more harsh, but I would not define these cases as murder from the information presented.
Tnl 'a becoming a bunch of old men that only want justice for people they like.
You're awful handsome yourself, mister.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
I'm not sure if this is how it works, but drunk driving is a felony and NY has a felony-murder law. The article doesn't say this, but perhaps the prosecution chose to enact that law in these instances? Or maybe not?
I read the Heidgen appellate court opinion (one of the three cases). When I first posted last night I had only read the AP article Dolemite cited.
The appellate opinion is very dense and hard to read. But here are the two basic issues:
1. Whether Heidgen should have been found not guilty of second degree murder as a matter of law, and
2. Whether Heidgen should have been allowed to argue voluntary intoxication as a defense to having the mental state of depraved indifference.
The facts of this case are really ghoulish. Heidgen got drunk, veered into the wrong traffic lane, and plowed into a limousine, crushing the driver and decapitating a passenger. After the fact, Heidgen told people that he was despondent, felt like everyone was against him. The prosecutor tried to show that Heidgen was suicidal. That Heidgen wasn't just drunk out of his mind (his alcohol concentration was 0.28), but that he was trying to commit suicide by car.
And the dissenters point to another NY case from the Court of Appeals (that's actually NY's highest court, NY's "Supreme Court") with very similar facts where the Court concluded that the defendant could not be guilty of depraved indifference murder as a matter of law.
Also, it appears that the dissenters believe that even if a jury could have found Heidgen guilty of depraved indifference murder under those facts, Heidgen still should have been able to argue that he was so intoxicated that he could not have formed the requisite mental state of depraved indifference. Depraved indifference is usually best understood as "recklessness plus": recklessness plus some kind of awareness and indifference that one's conduct is incredibly dangerous.
I would be very surprised if "drunk driving" is a felony in NY. Driving under the influence of alcohol while impaired with a suspended license, or with a child under 15 in the car, or with 2 or more prior DUI convictions within 7 years might be a felony. But "drinking" and then "driving" is probably not a felony in NY. Simply driving under the influence of alcohol while impaired, or while having an alcohol concentration greater than 0.08, is probably a misdemeanor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
This is not a felony murder case. This is a second degree murder, "depraved indifference murder". Felony murder is where a person causes the death of another person usually in the course of or in furtherance of certain enumerated felonies, which vary from state to state. Aggravated DUI is not a "felony murder" felony here in AZ, and I doubt that it is in NY as well only because felony murder statutes typically involve specific intent crimes.
To get housed and then hop behind the wheel displays recklessness plus some kind of awareness and indifference that one's conduct is incredibly dangerous. I can not see how it could be interpreted any other way.
Well, I can, but I don't agree with it.
I've defended hundreds of DUI's over the past decade. And I've encountered plenty of people -- potential jurors, victims, family members -- who feel the way Josh does about drinking and driving. And that's fine.
But to prove murder, legally, you need to show more than drinking and driving. You need to prove intent.