> It presumably was the result of negligence. But, ordinary negligence is not > criminal negligence. The DA did not find there was criminal negligence. > That does not mean he and his insurance company will not be civilly liable. > It does mean that he won't go to prison or be convicted of a crime.
Perhaps you can help enlighten me about the legal process in this case. First, is the following link an applicable definition of criminal negligence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence Second, it is my understanding that the DA uses a test that includes "is there a reasonable chance that a jury will find the defendant guilty if this case were prosecuted?". Is this true? My current position based on the information above, the points below , and the discussion up to this point: 1) A reasonable person is given a motorist handbook, been expected to understand the information contained therein, and is granted a license which in part reflects the licensee's intention to adhere to the spirit of the guidelines provided in that handbook. 2) That handbook, on page 68 ( 68 in acrobat reader, 62 as numbered in the document) states: The most dangerous "drugs" on the highway? * Impatience * Frustration * Anger 3) Based on several second-hand reports I have heard about the incident, the driver was involved in a heated exchange with his son immediately prior to the crash. One report suggested that the driver then left the scene at a markedly high rate of acceleration, consistent with a driver who is angry. 4) The Tracey Sorum Trial, where the defendant supposedly took his eyes off the road for up to 12 seconds then struck and killed a bicyclist, resulted in a hung Jury. The DA then decided against re-trial, presumably based on the disposition of the Jury, as opposed to any change in the facts of the case. My perception of the current situation is that a reasonable person holding a driver's license could be expected to forsee the potentially lethal consequences of driving while angry. However, the general public apparently does not believe is it possible to forsee the consequences of driving when angry, and is therefore unlikely to vote to convict a peer of criminal negligence. So when the DA decides whether or not to persue criminal charges in cases like this it is the disposition of a jury rather than the expectations one might get from reading a driver's handbook that is the criterion for conviction. So my question is this: Where are the weak links in my argument? _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
