General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJury foreman: Dr acquitted on leaving the scene after killing skateboarder because he "panicked"..
http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/169951/1/Corasanti-Jury-Foreman-Speaks-OutNixon also said the jury did not convict Dr. Corasanti on the charge of leaving the scene of a fatal accident, not because they questioned whether he left the scene, but they feel he panicked.
Ultimately, Nixon said the jury felt defense effectively "poked holes" in the prosecutions case against Dr. Corasanti, but said prosecutors had a good case.
When asked about the victim of the accident, Alix Rice, he said "we had to put some of the fault on Alix." That statement was based on testimony from a defense accident reconstruction expert that questioned whether Alix was riding her longboard on the road or in the fog lane.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)former9thward
(31,935 posts)The prosecution must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt on that count and panicking would negate that.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)into a shock-like state every time where i was apparently awake & functioning, but literally couldn't process any information.
why is "panic" a defense for hit & run? did he come back after his panic died down & turn himself in?
no. he tried to get rid of the evidence.
former9thward
(31,935 posts)They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant intended to leave the scene of an accident where they caused personal injury or property damage. Without an admission from the defendant it is a high standard to get over. But those are the court rules.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)That's why there was alcohol on my breath.
Jesus Christ people, he panicked because he knew he was DUI!
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)Booster
(10,021 posts)his money.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)There, the burden of proof is "the preponderance of the evidence" and not "beyond a reasonable doubt." "Preponderance of the evidence" is 50% plus one molecule. This fucker will go down.
Booster
(10,021 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)criminal prosecutions. I am sure he, or his insurance company, would contend the suit. He would still lose. I'm an attorney and have clerked for judges. Juries as a rule don't like guys like this when money, rather than personal freedom, is at stake. Juries also never send white 1%ers to jail unless they have no choice.
Booster
(10,021 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)A civil action can be settled anytime before trial starts, and it isn't unheard of for actions to be settled even at the early stages of a trial.
Booster
(10,021 posts)JBoy
(8,021 posts)caused him to press "Send" before he'd finished composing his text message.
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Holy motherfuck.
The Magistrate
(95,241 posts)The degree of stupidity and fecklesness displayed here is epic.
H2O Man
(73,506 posts)It still surprises me, from time to time, that an entire jury can "decide" a case without having a clue as to what "reasonable doubt" means. More, the very concept of "panic" as a defense suggests these folks cannot tell real life from daytime television.
The Magistrate
(95,241 posts)It does not matter why you left the scene, the crime is leaving the scene, and almost everyone who does so does so in a panic.
Ilsa
(61,690 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Unlike my evidence post in the original thread, I am going to biased as hell here.
The things that struck me from the conversation were the following four things:
The jury thought Corasanti "seemed nice"....what the hell.
The defense expert witness was "more professional" then the police crime scene investigators in reconstructing the accident. Again, "more professional"? That means what exactly?
Finally, the jury had reasonable doubt the doctor could hear the impact inside his BMW Series 7, because the defense could not show how loud the hit would have been. As the DA said after the case, "It is a car not a tank."
Also, the doctor wouldn't have noticed his car's front end had crumpled 8 inches and a mirror had been ripped off, because the jury walked behind the car (did not sit in it, mind you), and he couldn't see the damage looking through the rear windshield. Apparently, the foreman felt being behind the car would mirror what the driver sees.
OK, five things. It is nice to hear the jury bonded during the "grueling trial".
I am not a happy Buffalonian tonight.
Rittermeister
(170 posts)I know, I know, things like this are just outliers. Democracy and popular government work, most of the time. Except with Bush. And the 2010 midterms. And the 100,000+ dead Iraqis, and the millions homeless. And a thousand other outrages gleefully perpetrated by the masses. This country which is tearing itself apart brick by brick just as fast as it can arrange it. Christ, will we ever figure this stuff out?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that in my opinion, you win a case with a BAC of 1.0 five hours after on the jury pick.
And it looks like this defense team picked a stupid jury. Which is what you want if the science is against you.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Just givers me a sinking sense in my stomach when a jury foreman says things about how someone looks overriding the evidence.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)uponit7771
(90,301 posts)...and overtly tampered with evidence...these people have nothing
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)panicked..he was either at the scene or not or report the accident or not....it doesn't matter
Leaving the Scene of an Accident Where Personal Injury Occurred New Yorks Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) Section 600(2)(a) states that if a driver is involved in an accident and knows or has reason to know that personal injury to another occurred, he must stop at the scene to provide to the injured person or a police officer:
his drivers license and proof of insurance; and information about the drivers name, address, insurance carrier and drivers license
A conviction for failing to exhibit your license and insurance identification in violation of NY VTL 600(2)(a) constitutes a class B misdemeanor. Any subsequent such violation is considered a class A Misdemeanor. Any further violation committed by a person who previously has been convicted of such a violation will be charged as a Class E Felony.
A violation of VTL 600(2)(a) other than for the mere failure to exhibit a license and insurance information where the physical injury involved results in death or serious physical injury also constitutes a Class E Felony.