Skip, I'm not clear what issue you have with the word accident. It's a perfectly good word to describe an unintended collision. But I'm not going to beat that dead horse.
My point is that with clear evidence of intoxication this is a slam dunk gulity verdict. Without the booze it get to be more of a challenge to get a jury to find her guilty. Littlefield left the scene, and there was plenty of evidence pointing to his intoxication. This really doesn't sit well with a jury. Sure she was a visible anti-speed limit cursader and that will work against her. I still think it depends on the facts of the case.
The jury will not be boaters. If the evidence comes out that she was traveling 25 mph and the new speed limit is 25 mph that will sway the jury. Sure we all know from driver's ed that you can't do the posted limit in bad weather, but we also all know from our everyday lives that most speed limits are set too low. We also have heard conflicting evidence on how bad the visibilty was. Non-boaters have no idea how dangerous it is to drive a boat fast in those conditions. Now if the speed evidence points to a much faster speeds, then the scale tips the other way.
We will just have to watch and see. I'm not saying that she is innocent, just that a jury may not convict her.
|