That was a pretty good article, someone did their homework.

...defining negligence!
 

If Attorney Jimmie Moir can bring home the bacon, I definately expect to see him roar past Buoy 3 in a nice, new Formula SS-370 express cruiser with the name DEFINING NEGLIGENCE on the stern.

Defining negligence....Attorney Jimmie Moir got the Thornton 25-year old guy out of the state prison...who in 2006 crossed the center line in the Rt 49-Thornton S-curve and killed three 54 year olds who were riding on two Harleys....defining negligence

In a 3-1 split decision, in June 2009, the judges on the New Hampshire supreme court reversed a lower court conviction of negligence because in the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Linda Dalianis, the driver crossing the center line for some unknown reason is not negligence.

Two 50-something couples, driving two Harley Davidsons, two men and two women, in June 2006, were struck head on, in the middle of the daytime, by a car that wandered across the center line, killing three and injuring the fourth.

After serving about three years of a twelve year sentence, Attorney Jimmie Moir won his client in an appeal before the NH Supremes.....because that incident did not constitute negligence.......defining negligence!

DEFINING NEGLIGENCE....sounds like a good name for a nice big boat!

...ladies & gentlemen of the jury.....what is negligence? ....the failure to use reasonable care....doing something that a reasonable & prudent person would not do...

Who, Then?
 

Update from yesterday found at that link:
http://citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../0/CITNEWS0101

:confused: In this entire case so far, a new word now appears: :rolleye1:

That is very interesting. I have been thinking about what type of defense has the potential to be successful in this case and I've been unable to come up with anything that seems to provide a reasonable doubt. Intoxication will be indisputable one way or the other with blood evidence and even if totally sober how can't she be found negligent after running into an island at a high rate of speed? It seems like an open an shut case, but it could be possible that she wasn't driving the boat.

Attorney James Moir of Concord, who is representing Blizzard, filed a motion asking trial Judge Kathleen McGuire to ask prospective jurors a number of questions before they could be selected to sit on the panel. Key among them was whether they had formed any opinions regarding people "who own or operate large powerboats" and if they had an opinion concerning whether there should be a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Talk about a Red Herring!!!!!

I am not an attorney and I have been following the thread from the beginning and prefer the system to run its course. But, I do not see that these are unreasonable questions for either the defense or the prosecution to ask a jury pool in this case;and it might cut both ways. A person who has strong feelings either pro or con the speed limit or who owns or doesn't own a "large" power boat might have very different feelings but these feelings could influence their deliberations...one way or the other. The idea is to have none of these feelings and to be impartial. I realize that reasonable people with strong feelings CAN be impartial. Unfortunately, the real world may not work that way, but I do not see it as a "red herring" as the feelings and conscious or unconscious feelings may have a direct bearing on the impartiality of a juror. To me, it is not different to ask a juror in a rape case if he or she has a close relative who has been raped; or, in a malpractice case if anyone is a physicican or is closely related to one. If you were on trial in this case, would you want a strong advocate for speed limits to be on your jury? I would like to believe that jurors are impartial regardless, but it ain't necessarily so.

Interesting coincidence?
 

Both this trial and the disposition of SB 464 are happening next week. Trial starts Monday and is expected to last till March 11th. SB 464 is being considered on March 11th.

boat operator
 

I am not sure that I read this, but could it be that she was not operating the boat, that one of the other two was because she knew she was impaired?

To me that would make sense, since she most certainly should have the knowledge of the lake being a co-owner of a marina.:look:

I guess that would be a nice argument for the defense to make....but would not the other survivor be able to testify as to who was driving?

Hmmmm...

Conspicuous in her absence from the either the Defendant's or the State's witness list is the second passenger, the one who survived with a broken jaw: Nicole Shinopolous, from Massachusetts.

This is very curious.

I assume she's a friend of the defendant; have they reached some "confidential settlement" of her personal injury claim, such that she no longer has a dog in this fight?

Can she not found, or does she refuse to testify as the State would want her to?

Moir didn't list her as a witness, so it seems she won't testify on Blizzard's behalf.

Were she to testify truthfully, she'd be able establish the facts as they unfolded on that dark and stormy night.

So I ask: will she testify, and if not, why not?

I think the Doctor (Island resident) first on the scene said Blizzard was Slumped over the wheel. NB

According to the Concord Monitor article on 3/1/2010, Nicole Shinopulos is on the state's witness list.

Wondering if Nicole will be considered a friendly or a hostile witness by Jimmie the Belknap county attorney?

After all, Nicole was there onboard so she probably knows who was driving the boat at the time?

Dr Tom Rock's testimony could be a good indication with regard to who was driving the boat as well?

Who knows.....the deceased Stephanie could turn out to be Erica's best friend in life and in death...by taking the rap for driving the boat?

Is that the plan for defense attorney Jimmie Moir.....time will tell.....soon enough?


It's definately a trial case for the two Jimmie's.......Jimmie Carrol - Belknap County Attorney vs Jimmie Moir - defense attorney and former prosecutor for the New Hampshire attorney general's office.

Just remember one thing:

Innocent until proven guilty.

okay
 

Well if that is the case so much for that possibility. However, perhaps the deceased was driving, Blizzard seen what was coming and she took over the helm too late.
It is ashame that these things end up in a court. No matter who was driving the death of there friend will haunt them forever

Here's something to think about....the documented legal title on this lawsuit is: "The People of the State of New Hampshire verses Erica Blizzard", ....as best that I know.

Makes sense. Now the question will be if Nicole Shinopulos has or is planning to file a civil lawsuit. The defense could exploit that's the case since she would then have something to gain. Makes you wonder how much liability insurance was on the boat. Lawyers/sharks will swarm wherever the money is.

There is no win-lose in this case. Send her to jail and what does that do for anyone at this point? This usually comes down to $$$$$$$$ which you can be assured with be dealt with in a civil lawsuit.

Don't operate impaired. Don't ride with friends who are impaired. Neither individual in aforementioned cases would be using proper judgement if they did....

From "myfoxboston"
 

More reporting on the awful accident and upcoming trial. It contains comments from the Beaudoin family. Mr. Baudoin's' comments help keep this all in perspective.

IMHO, regardless of the outcome of this trial, and any subsequent trials, the whole thing is a tragedy that has profound effects on everyone involved.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/...-boating-death

"Proven" Defense Victories...
 

Then you just gotta love this lawyer with a list of his New Hampshire court "victories": :rolleye1:


(Emphases are the site's).

Lawn Psycho's Comments...
 

"Send her to jail and what does that do for anyone at this point?" Are you serious? Let's be clear: What it does is hold people responsible for their actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

You apparently don't understand how the system is screwed up. Feel free to search my other post(s) regarding drunk driving/boating. If the legislature had a back bone and wanted to significantly reduce OUIs, first offense would be mandatory six months in jail.

However, folks on thie board seemed to miss the points made by what FLL previously posted. The problem is the differential justice applied to offenders. Your BAC will absolutely impact the sentence. Ever heard of "aggravated DUI". Differential "justice" is built into the OUI laws for something that's in practice the identical crime.

I am sure Blizzard has a lot of coins to pay for a defense, Joe Blow with no assets would get screwed. Until enforcement and penalties are made uniform, I still say Blizzard going to jail will do nothing for her or society.

The WHOLE thing is about money. Civil lawsuits, state makes money on OUI fines and fees, insurance companies get higher rates, police make money off OUI, prosecuters make money off OUI, judges make money off OUI, driving education instructors make money off OUI. Oh yeah and the NH liquor store at the Portsmouth traffic circle has a big yellow banner saying to "stock up, tax-free". So the State of NH gets the bonus of taxing the booze too. So who in the money chain has incentive to erradicate OUI? Follow the money, as it leads you to many answers to why things don't change (ergo OUI, healthcare, etc)

I have an uncle and a cousin both killed by drunk drivers (seperate accidents). My grandfather had a personal meeting with Bush I on this very topic. I've got the pictures and article in my desk drawer. He also wrote a book about the loss of his son (my uncle). I don't think my grandparents ever really got over it. So don't tell me what "the system" does or does not do......

Quote from the Fox News article:

"...when her 37-foot speed boat crashed into a ledge"...

I'm surprised they could find an impartial jury in Laconia.

Even more sad than that is the fact that there is actually a National College of DUI Defense...

I haven't heard anything about Nicole but according to SteveA's "MyFoxBoston" link, Beaudoin's parents do not wish Blizzard to go to jail (I also heard something similar on WMUR news).

Sure, you say that NOW, but when it is your bacon in the fire, who you gonna call?

Some lawyers are better at playing the game, at manipulating people, than are others.

Your post reminds me off that famous quote in Shakespeare's King Henry VI: "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers."

It's a game for sure, but shear volume presents problems at courts too.

Don't detest the game players too much APS, many times, you use tactics that share some of the very same code of ethics. Win at all costs. If there's gaming to be done, people will game it.

AP story in Conway Daily Sun
 

The Conway Daily Sun today (March 8) had this link to an AP hosted story about the trial.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-08-13-56-52

With the headline:

State: Boat driver in fatal NH crash legally drunk

This one was more descriptive

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nat...osition=recent

"Belknap County Attorney James Carroll tells jurors that Erica Blizzard had a blood-alcohol count one and a half times the legal limit for driving when the boat she was piloting struck a ledge on Lake Winnepesaukee.
"

That would make the level around a .12.

I recall getting clients off on their DWI charges when their BA was .14 and sometimes .15.

The legal limit out here used to be .15.

The client would usually get pulled over for swerving or driving poorly, but then after the arrest, if they blew below the .15 requirement they would beat it, being legally deemed not intoxicated.

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

My bacon won't be in the fire...

I am not "anti-lawyer", but think it is a bit much that there is an actual college with the sole purpose of defeating DWI cases.

Keep in mind that the results were drawn probably a few hours after the accident. Figure in response time to the scene after the call was made to report it, extracation, transport to Laconia, etc. That puts her even higher, at a level that would certainly impair judgement even as Mr V. mentions, for a seasoned drinker. One of the sites I saw online gave a generic 0.015% off your BAC for every hour without alcohol consumption. If this is the case, the actual BAC at the time of the incident could have been 0.15%+.

The legal limits were changed to .08 at the bequest (lobbying), of the insurance industry, for apparently obvious reasons. The Feds gave the limit teeth by withholding highway funds, and effective way to get their way. There are far too many subjective, and technical data used in whether a person is impaired or not to get into that lengthy discussion. Three beers on an empty stomach can cause more impairment than several drinks over a few hours with food. Everyone is different, and so are the circumstances.

Since the BAL is one of two primary accusations for the State, the other being too fast for conditions/improper lookout, it will weigh heavily in this case. There was another case that would have delivered a far more serious penalty, if the perp had stayed around long enough to be tested shortly thereafter.

I hope for all families concerned this trial really is over this week, so they can go on with their shaken lives. I hope the reports on this forum will be contained to instruction and reflective, and be devoid of personal statements or agendas. Everyone needs to know what happened, and realize that you really cannot let your guard down. One slip up, and a tragedy can happen to anyone, anytime. The consequences to people and their families and friends are horrific, so I try to post as if this tragedy impacted me personally, and respect all those that might be reading.

"How Fair"? I think very fair. Don't forget she crashed her boat into an island and killed someone.

Point taken.

BUT, why proscribe conduct today which was perfectly acceptable yesterday?

That doesn't seem fair.

Whether she was drunk or not, Blizzard should be sued, and sued hard, for her negligence.

Maybe hard enough to collect all the available insurance, then start cleaning her out of her personal / family assets.

Reduce her from "rich girl" to "poor girl."

Just sic some sharp lawyers on her.

For driving a boat, it should be about a .18, since you gonna get seasick any way so what's the difference. Plus, all boaters like to drink. Boating and drinking just naturally go together....everyone knows that?

For cdl truck drivers, it 0.02, federal law enforced in all 50 states, and it stays on your driving record for something like 15 years.

So, here's the deal..... let it be .02 for truckers..... and .18 for boaters....add the two together....what's do you gut...you gutta .20 ... a nice round number .20....and everybody is happy....all is groovy!

Cdl
 

Actually... The legal limit established by the Federal Motor Carrier Association for CDL truck drivers in all 50 states is .04 BAC. As a former professional tractor trailer driver, a current law enforcement officer and a current boat owner and enthusiast, the legal limit for boating should also be .04. The reasoning behind this is that, speaking from experience, a boat is every bit as technically difficult to operate as a tractor trailer is but in different ways and therefore requires the same elevated level of care.

Just my .02 cents (pun intended)...

Found this post over in the Union Leader's email opinions....sounds like it could be a better plan of legal advice.....how's it sound to you?

"So it appears her defense will be: 'I may have been legally drunk but I was not impaired and it was just a tragic coincidence that I ran into an island at high speed in the dead of night in the rain and my friend was killed.' Wouldn't it be refreshing if for once a defendant admitted the truth and asked for mercy from the court instead of trying to wiggle out of her responsibility? Her attorney's attempt to defend the indefensible in the trial will likely do more damage to her reputation than the accident and publicity have already done. It didn't have to be this way."

Skip M., Ossipee

I also found this post....

45 during the day and 25 at night are fast speeds and fast enough. If those speed limits had been in effect that night then perhaps the defendant would have taken her boat with twin 425 horsepower motors to the ocean instead of the lake. In the ocean it would have been much harder to run into an island. So I say make the speed limits permanent and it will not only slo people down but maybe save a life or two!
- F. L. Less, Meredith, NH

Innocent till proven guilty??
 

What if she's innocent...

I sense some of the same ambulance chasing tendencies reappearing that you have been accused of in the past. Are you putting in your resume for the job?

Sorry to disappoint you Ryan, but the U.L. post from F L Less was not from me. Could be it's the same person with the same disingenuous modus operandi as from June, 2008, shortly after the night of the Diamond Island incident/accident.