Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
Thu May 31, 2012, 06:21 PM May 2012

Jury 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-Out

... Nixon says they were not convinced with how the blood was drawn from the doctor. That test showed Dr. Corasanti's blood alcohol content was .10 five hours after the crash. He said the jury questioned whether the blood sample could have been contaminated, and added the Corasanti defense team did a "great job."

Nixon 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.




30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jury foreman: Dr acquitted on leaving the scene after killing skateboarder because he "panicked".. (Original Post) Fumesucker May 2012 OP
Jesus. H. Christ. WTF??? "Panicking" is now a defense? - n/t coalition_unwilling May 2012 #1
It goes to the defendant's mental state. former9thward May 2012 #9
who *doesn't* panic if they have an accident? i've had three, none terribly serious, and i went HiPointDem May 2012 #22
The prosecution must prove intent. former9thward Jun 2012 #30
The Dick Cheney defense: "I was so upset, I went home and had a drink...." rfranklin May 2012 #2
Exactly! Wonder why the jury members didn't get that? SammyWinstonJack May 2012 #6
I hope Alix's family goes for a wrongful death lawsuit. This man should at least lose a lot of Booster May 2012 #3
This is a virtual slam dunk civil suit. hifiguy May 2012 #8
Hell, he'll probably plead guilty in a civil suit. Money means nothing to him. Booster May 2012 #12
Defendants don't enter pleas in civil suits like the do in hifiguy May 2012 #14
If a civil suit is filed, can he make a deal before it even goes to trial? Booster May 2012 #15
Oh, certainly. hifiguy May 2012 #16
Then if he's smart he'll do that. Booster May 2012 #18
He panicked because the force of the impact JBoy May 2012 #4
I guess the Doctor was tried by a jury of his peers: evil idiots. libinnyandia May 2012 #5
"we had to put some of the fault on Alix" alcibiades_mystery May 2012 #7
Jesus Wept, Sir The Magistrate May 2012 #10
Right. H2O Man May 2012 #13
Indeed, Sir: In This Matter, The Panicking Is The Crime The Magistrate May 2012 #19
I hope the girl's family leaves the doctor virtually broke and homeless. nt Ilsa May 2012 #11
Dafuq??? Odin2005 May 2012 #17
So stealing that. nt msanthrope May 2012 #24
Thanks for posting. I also have a link to the Buffalo News talking with the foreman Godhumor May 2012 #20
I confess, things like this fill me with such a despair I want to drink myself blind. Rittermeister May 2012 #21
Well, I hate to say I was right...but in the last thread, I did tell you msanthrope May 2012 #25
You're absolutely right, of course Godhumor May 2012 #26
Happens all the time. nt msanthrope May 2012 #28
It's the OJ jury redux. nt msanthrope May 2012 #23
OJ Jury at least had lead detective wanting to burn black people alive... uponit7771 May 2012 #29
WTF who instructed this jury........ Historic NY May 2012 #27

former9thward

(31,935 posts)
9. It goes to the defendant's mental state.
Thu May 31, 2012, 07:13 PM
May 2012

The prosecution must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt on that count and panicking would negate that.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
22. who *doesn't* panic if they have an accident? i've had three, none terribly serious, and i went
Thu May 31, 2012, 10:33 PM
May 2012

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)
30. The prosecution must prove intent.
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 11:22 AM
Jun 2012

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)
2. The Dick Cheney defense: "I was so upset, I went home and had a drink...."
Thu May 31, 2012, 06:23 PM
May 2012

That's why there was alcohol on my breath.

Jesus Christ people, he panicked because he knew he was DUI!

Booster

(10,021 posts)
3. I hope Alix's family goes for a wrongful death lawsuit. This man should at least lose a lot of
Thu May 31, 2012, 06:40 PM
May 2012

his money.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
8. This is a virtual slam dunk civil suit.
Thu May 31, 2012, 07:08 PM
May 2012

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.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
14. Defendants don't enter pleas in civil suits like the do in
Thu May 31, 2012, 08:07 PM
May 2012

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.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
16. Oh, certainly.
Thu May 31, 2012, 08:50 PM
May 2012

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.

JBoy

(8,021 posts)
4. He panicked because the force of the impact
Thu May 31, 2012, 06:42 PM
May 2012

caused him to press "Send" before he'd finished composing his text message.

H2O Man

(73,506 posts)
13. Right.
Thu May 31, 2012, 08:01 PM
May 2012

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)
19. Indeed, Sir: In This Matter, The Panicking Is The Crime
Thu May 31, 2012, 10:06 PM
May 2012

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.

Godhumor

(6,437 posts)
20. Thanks for posting. I also have a link to the Buffalo News talking with the foreman
Thu May 31, 2012, 10:19 PM
May 2012
http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/dr-james-corasanti-trial/article881178.ece

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)
21. I confess, things like this fill me with such a despair I want to drink myself blind.
Thu May 31, 2012, 10:28 PM
May 2012

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)
25. Well, I hate to say I was right...but in the last thread, I did tell you
Thu May 31, 2012, 10:51 PM
May 2012

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)
26. You're absolutely right, of course
Thu May 31, 2012, 11:06 PM
May 2012

Just givers me a sinking sense in my stomach when a jury foreman says things about how someone looks overriding the evidence.

uponit7771

(90,301 posts)
29. OJ Jury at least had lead detective wanting to burn black people alive...
Thu May 31, 2012, 11:32 PM
May 2012

...and overtly tampered with evidence...these people have nothing

Historic NY

(37,449 posts)
27. WTF who instructed this jury........
Thu May 31, 2012, 11:11 PM
May 2012

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 York’s 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 driver’s license and proof of insurance; and information about the driver’s name, address, insurance carrier and driver’s 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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Jury foreman: Dr acquitte...