Multiple indictments
 

Hi Jeff,

You are absolutely correct, and this is standard procedure especially in cases involving alcohol and/or drugs and homicides.... plus a list of other felony offenses.

As an example, the Littlefield case involved multiple indictments.

Its a common practice that has been utilized for decades across the Country.

There is one more count to the indictment handed down that I am not familiar with. This is taken from the NH law firm blog I linked to in my last post.
What does that mean?

Airwaves, i think it means a simple case of road rage...

Erroneous on-line & print information.
 

Elements of both the Union Leader story and the blog you cite are in error. That is why the best and only reliable source is the Belknap County Attorney's Office.

She is charged with negligent homicide in a dual indictment, a common practice in cases like this.

The stronger indictment is the aggravated DWI accusation with death resulting. This is a Class A felony, with a possible penalty of imprisonment in excess of seven years.

A "fall back" indictment, in case the State cannot get a conviction on the impairment evidence they intend to introduce, will be negligent homicide based on some aspects of the operation of the vessel that night. Less the proof of alcohol or drug impairment, Negligent Homicide is a Class B felony with possible imprisonment not to exceed 7 years.

For those wishing to research the matter further, penalty definitions can be found under RSA 625:9 and Negligent Homicide information can be found by perusing RSA 630:3.

Hope this clears it up a little better....

So is the third indictment the one actually involving an "accident"?

So the Aggrivated driving charge is if she is convicted of being.... ????

As I stated earlier, both the Union Leader & the blog you cite have erroneous information.

There is no "aggravated driving" charge as there is no such RSA. Possibly the blog meant to state "aggravated driving while intoxicated".

There are 2 indictments presenting 2 different theories. Both indictments are for negligent homicide. The leading indictment is the Class A felony charge of negligent homicide/aggravated BWI. The second indictment, a Class B felony, is for negligent homicide due to operation.

It appears to me that both articles were mangled by inappropriate editing. A fairly common occurence within the news media and also in blogs where more than one individual is responsible for content.

Or...you could answer the question if you are able without being insulting and snarky!

You're welcome.

Have a very Merry Christmas! :)

Snarky?
 

Skip,

Thank you for your latest posts. I did not find them snarky or insulting at all but very informative.

Snarky - sarcastically critical or mocking and malicious

Not hardly! :look:

Skip, thanks for all the unbiased legal and general wisdom you bring to this forum.

R2B

This thread needs a "Thank You" button so I could also agree with that thought.

Not quite:
 

Legal views can be expressed as opinions; worse, they can be misleading instruments through omissions. However, only the last paragraph can be construed as an opinion:

In clear agreement with that media-bashing sentiment, Canadian newspaper columnist—and New Hampshire resident—Mark Steyn wrote this past Friday:

:emb:

Airwaves (as a member of the media) would, of course, see some "snarkiness" in Skip's post. :rolleye2:

what? where? how?
 

I've read and reread Skip's response and only see it as stating the facts and very explanatory!

Happy Christmas to all and to all a goodnight... PIG

Have a Very Merry Christmas Everyone!

Card; http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcar...ode=XE13117730

Agreed. Skip is a valuable asset and he is explains things well. I didn't find his post insulting to anyone. Keep up the good work Skip.

APS got the sentence that Skip wrote that I found insulting given that Skip knows what I do for a living.
I certainly know criminal lawyers and others who don't hold the investigative powers of many police officers in high esteem but I haven't used those comments to insult Skip.

I was asking legit questions trying to get inside the head of the prosecutors in this case.

Of course it was Skip that posted the link to the Union Leader article for "further details regarding the recent indictment" that he later said was "mangled by inappropriate editing". Nice research.

Chip on your shoulder
 

If it comes from the media then it must be correct?

The media do make frequent mistakes in reporting. They go with what they think they know even if it is incorrect. You kept trying to get the forum to answer questions based on incorrect information, even after it was pointed out that it was likely to be incorrect.

Skip initially pointed out a source of information. When he realized that that source was incorrect and causing confusion he pointed out that it was incorrect, explained what was going on, and referenced a more reliable source. This was both helpful and responsible.

Further, this is a discussion forum. No one here is obligated to provide "researched" answers. We share our knowledge freely and sometimes go beyond the call and dig up more info when we can. Newspapers and other media on the other hand DO have a public obligation to provide factual information and not just gossip.

There was no snarkiness involved unless you are carrying a big chip on your shoulder.

Above is Skip's post. As everyone can see, there was no use at all of bold font in his post. However, some posters have replaced normal font with bold font when quoting Skip.

My opinion is when you quote someone, you should not 'bold-up' normal font to imbellish your position. That is clearly adding spin to enhance your point and really unfair.

I have no idea why some choose to jump all over a poster that has clearly gone out of his way to answer questions being asked by other posters, including themselves. I just do not get it.



R2B

I don't think he was doing that to embellish his position, just to point out the "offending" comment. Had he NOT bolded it, I (and likely several others) might have never realized the offensive statement in question. Otherwise, I do agree with the sentiment of your post, but I don't think that was the case here.

The above being said, it does seem that "the media" often gets facts wrong, mangles things they don't understand and leaps to conclusions as if it's an Olympic event at times.

Skip always seems like a decent guy in his replies, I doubt he was trying to rankle anyone purposefully. If the linked-to article or comments contained errors, it's hardly his fault for pointing that out.

I can see your point about highlighting.

My concern was, and still is, that some readers that did not read Skip's post would think Skip put some of the words in bold, which could be considered insulting to some readers. I saw no insult or ill intent in any of Skip's posts. That is my main point.

Merry Christmas and a Happy and Safe New Year to you and yours!

R2B

Here is how it works with media. The County Attorney releases the information to media usually via press release. Media looks at it and writes the story. If the reporter is good then he/she asks questions from the various sides of the story that were unanswered in the press release. Otherwise it's news via press release. (See Bush White House Press Corps)

Skip points to the Belknap County Attorney as the ultimate source of the indictment information and is correct on that point. However since the Belknap County Attorney does not post that particular public information on his website we (you and I ) can only see the information in the indictment from the press release (?) that he issued to NH media.

Jeffk wrote:
Nope, just because it comes from media it is not automatically correct but there is a reasonable chance it is.

Since Skip quotes a NH media source...and the source I quoted was a NH law firm...

Skip quotes the Manchester Union Leader to provide us "further information" but later he trashes his own source and then blames my profession generally for routinely mangling information.

Didn't he read the Union Leader article first? If he did read it before linking us to it then he apparently was okay with it until I raised question about it.

Skip does not provide a link to the Belknap County Attorney, that he says is the ultimate source and, through his postings, leads one to believe that he has seen in order to provide us with the information he says his linked source (Union Leader) got wrong. He only states that media got it wrong again...hmmm No bashing there.

As a few of you got, I highlighted the offensive ignorant comment written by Skip.

Many of you take what Skip says as gospel. You should rethink that opinion.

I am evil, I am media, we question authority and then we tell YOU what we have learned. At least the good ones do.

I have seen many times when the media is either incorrect or intentionally biased with one sided stories. I never assume the media is accurate.

Skip has clarified the issues for me relative to this tragedy much more then any of the media articles. His input is wanted an necessary.

He doesn't speak just to hear himself talk and he doesn't appear to have an ax to grind like others.

I agree, thanks Skip for providing clear information.

My Gawd Airwaves --- Give it a break!!

Until this bickering of yours ( a one sided view of a personal attack), this was an informative thread.

Happy Holidays .............. be thankful

I too am impressed with the knowledge that Skip lends to this Forum. There is no doubt Skip knows his Stuff. SO: Where does Skip get this knowledge? Just a concerned citizen? ......Just wondering. NoBozo

Too few good ones, that's the problem. The media deserves it's reputation.




Check this so called journalist out:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...idency-success

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that --
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbuster...MJMatthews.jpg
MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

Matthews wasn't done with his odd new job description . . . An incredulous Scarborough kept pressing, astonished at such a complete 180 from Matthews's repeated insistence during the Bush presidency that he had to hold the government accountable.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?
MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

I believe that Skip has mentioned in the past that he used to be in law enforcement.

Skip has proven himself countless times on his accuracy of the law.Nuff said.

Skip prove himself once again!
 

This post needs a thank you button.

Not a chip, maybe a whole branch on shoulder
 

I disagree. Media tells stories, not necessarily the truth. Reporters talk to sources who may or may not provide accurate information. When it comes time to print the paper the story is written with what the reporter thinks that they know. Further, other people can edit the original story, sometimes skewing the original information. What we get is the best effort that can be produced in a limited time frame given the resources available.

In several instances where I have been in the know, I read the story in the paper and wondered where they got their incorrect information.

Further, in followup stories, as information evolves, the new information is often presented without comment that the original story was inaccurate.


Since Belknap County is the agreed ultimate source, if there is confusion about the content of the indictment it would make sense to go to the original source rather than to keep quoting the media article or a blog.

I would suggest that Skip did not reference Belknap initially because he knew it was not accessible on line. When he realized there was confusion he added his knowledge of the law, and I assume, information from people he is acquainted with in the department.

The NH Law firm source that you quote in turn quotes the Laconia Daily Sun for it's information about the indictment, another media source that probably got it's information from the same press release that the Union Leader did. We're not chasing our tails here are we? Further, is there any reason to believe that this law firm has any special insight into this case?

Skip gave a pointer to a publicly accessible source of information. He did not state that the article was absolutely accurate and he is not responsible for it's content. As questions arose he provided more information in a responsible manner.

Skip has, time and time again, provided well reasoned responses to questions of law, usually providing detailed references (RSAs) for those wanting to follow up. When additional questions have come up he has calmly and respectfully provided more details, examples, and occasionally his opinion on the law. On the occasion that he has missed a nuance of the law he has graciously accepted correction or extension of his original premise.

I don't take anyone's information as gospel but when someone consistently provides rational and respectful commentary backed up with solid references I consider that person as a very good source.

It seems that you have your own problems with law enforcement people and that seems to bias your views.

Skip for President!
 

I agree with the above quote!

Merry Christmas!

Thanks....
 

Hadn't visited this thread in a bit so I just noticed the kind words thrown my way....and just wanted to give a belated thanks to all of you!

Geesh, some of you even made me blush!!!! :)

Anyway, Happy New Year to all of you and above all else , please be safe!

Skip

"My Fatal Wreck"
 

I've personally made newsprint on two occasions as a teen:

News item 1)
I was struck and injured by an outboard while swimming in Lake Winnipesaukee. :eek:

I swam under a moored boat and surfaced under an outboard motor that was tilted up out of the water. (With a minor cut to my scalp, requiring a trip to the ER, where the tale got to the press). :rolleye2:

News item 2)
I was a fatality in a car wreck. :eek: :eek:

I'd had a wreck the day before—with no injuries to either party—but fortunately I was present when my folks first encountered that morning's newsprint report and read that account aloud to me. :eek: :eek: :eek:

That said, when you read an account like "your fatal wreck", you look at safety altogether differently. :(

Well, for starters, this one was in a boat.

The point escapes me
 

And charges were filed. Looks like there will be a trial. Maybe that robed lady holding the balance beam will be served. What was the point again ?

Kennedy's head is imploding for the unjust death he caused.. What goes around come around they say!! The rat crawled home and did not get bagged & tagged for being wasted!!

Standard legal maneuvering...
 

Defendant's attorney is attempting to have the results of her blood test excluded. Story from today's Citizen can be read HERE.

Well, this is not really a surprise move as part of a vigorous defense. This is the essential evidence for the charge that includes BWI. If it is excluded that charge will be very difficult to prove.

It also shows a weakness of getting a blood sample from a third party (hospital) rather than the police drawing it themselves. It required a warrant that can be challenged.

We still don't know what the BAC was. We now know that Shinopolous said they had a couple of drinks earlier, didn't finish them, and didn't think that Blizzard was drunk. Her testimony doesn't sound very damning since the same could be said for a majority of people that go out for the evening but it does establish they were drinking.

Given the seriousness of the accident I would think that might justify the warrant but I'm not sure how much wiggle room there is in "probable cause". It is based on whether a "reasonable man" would conclude that a crime HAS been committed based on the facts available, in this case as presented in the warrant.

It seems to me the warrant was a little sloppy. Drinking is not a crime. Is 2 drinks excessive drinking (which is a crime when operating a vehicle) ? How long ago did they drink? How much was really consumed? Were the beer cans from an outing last week? If the warrant required convincing evidence of legal intoxication it seems lacking.

All that said, I will make a guess that the BAC was over the limit, why bother to exclude evidence that doesn't hurt you? The BAC may get tossed out but the reality will remain.

This remains a tragedy.

"All that said, I will make a guess that the BAC was over the limit, why bother to exclude evidence that doesn't hurt you? The BAC may get tossed out but the reality will remain."

The above sentence sums it up nicely. Why exclude the evidence if it doesn't implicate you?

Excluded BAC evidence won't be heard by the jury. :(

(Until after the trial, that is). :rolleye1: