Page 1 of 1

Public Outcry Nets New Trial for Wrongly Prosecuted Mother

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:51 am
by SuperHornet
Lady in ATL (who didn't even own a car) was prosecuted and convicted (by a completely slanted jury) of vehicular manslaughter when she lost control of her four-year-old, who broke away and was run down by a speeding drunk driver (who was also on pain meds). No charges for the drunk. The prosecuter portrayed it as jaywalking; maybe so, but a look at the map would show that it was at or near a corner, which in most places obviates that argument. Having gone two ways with three kids in tow, her options were to walk another half-mile to a cross-walk or to cross at the debarkation point, with the apartment right there.

At risk was a three-year term. She got a choice: probation or a new trial. That came after a nation-wide public outcry after she was featured on the Today show. This is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice I've ever seen, and, yes, I'm playing the race card! Just install a cross-walk and a stop light, for crying out loud!

http://t4america.org/blog/2011/07/18/pr ... petrators/

Re: Public Outcry Nets New Trial for Wrongly Prosecuted Moth

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:56 pm
by JohnStOnge
In my opinion she shouldn't have been prosecuted but as far as the "race" thing goes the guy who hit the kid was also Black. And it could've happened regardless of whether he'd been drinking or taking pain meds or not. One thing that happens a lot is that people see "drunk" driver and assume things would've been different if everything else about the scenario had been the same but the driver hadn't been drinking. Classifying something as an "alcohol related" or "alcohol impaired" driving death does not mean it is known that the alcohol use and/or impairment caused the incident.

And just to try to pre-empt some outrage, I will direct the reader to the NHTSA article at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811385.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Note the last sentence of the second paragraph:

"The term 'alcohol-impaired' does not indicate that a crash or a fatality was caused by alcohol impairment."

Put it this way: It is certain that the incident would not have occured if the kid hadn't run out into the road. It is not certain that the incident would not have occured if the driver hadn't been drinking.