the Wheels of Justice....

[Skip]

....turn slowly, but they still do turn.

As the article from yesterday's Citizen/Foster's reveals, Mr. Littlefield's legal problems are far from over, or "swept under a rug".....

http://www4.fosters.com/May2004/may_...p_nh_0513n.asp

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Mr. Littlefield's legal problems are far from over..."

Suppose his remaining conviction is overturned upon appeal by the always-labile NH Supreme Court? He won't be guilty of "a criminal act" then.

Isn't today's news also bad news for the survivors, too?

[Skip]

The civil & criminal proceedings are proceeding on two distinctly different tracks.

The burden of proof in the civil proceedings is much less than that in the criminal proceedings (preponderance of the evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt).

The civil case is extremely strong and will continue regardless of the outcome of the appeal. It is not uncommon in cases like this to have the criminal conviction overturned while gaining a victory in civil court.

And remember, the victim's family has temporarily seized an extremely sizable portion of Littlefield's estate in anticipation of this contingency. This will be available to the plaintiffs should they prevail in civil court.

Justice is better served when the guilty party assumes full moral and financial responsibiltiy for their wrongdoing. Therefore I believe the US District Court's ruling against Littlefield is actually not only a vicxtory for the plaintiffs, but a victory for every policy holder that will not now have to partake in a financial burden caused by the defendant's negligence.

Hopefully the appeal will be overturned in the not to distant future and the convicted party can begin paying his debt to society and allowing the victim's family the closure they deserve.

[Just Sold]

Skip,

I agree with your comments and the whole thing has, hopefully, made a lot of boaters pay more attention to what they are doing when they are on the lake here or elsewhere. Congrats to the insurance company too! The court decision certainly saved all of our premiums from going up just because of this one incident.

We will always have those boaters who think they are the only ones out there and that they have all the rights over everyone else.

I hope the civil suit makes plenty of news and wakes up those that have not paid attention before. I also hope the conviction is not overturned but it well could be.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Skip

The civil & criminal proceedings are proceeding on two distinctly different tracks.

The burden of proof in the civil proceedings is much less than that in the criminal proceedings (preponderance of the evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt).

The civil case is extremely strong and will continue regardless of the outcome of the appeal. It is not uncommon in cases like this to have the criminal conviction overturned while gaining a victory in civil court.

And remember, the victim's family has temporarily seized an extremely sizable portion of Littlefield's estate in anticipation of this contingency. This will be available to the plaintiffs should they prevail in civil court.

Justice is better served when the guilty party assumes full moral and financial responsibiltiy for their wrongdoing. Therefore I believe the US District Court's ruling against Littlefield is actually not only a vicxtory for the plaintiffs, but a victory for every policy holder that will not now have to partake in a financial burden caused by the defendant's negligence.

Hopefully the appeal will be overturned in the not to distant future and the convicted party can begin paying his debt to society and allowing the victim's family the closure they deserve.

I agree with what you said above but I am constantly troubled by the fact that we have 2 systems to dispence 'justice'. That our civil system can proceed in complete disagrement with our criminal system (though not in this case, think OJ) bothers me to no end (despite what I might agree is a righteous outcome). Naively I wish for a system that would arrive at facts, all punishment derived from the facts. I guess world peace would be nice too.

That the insurance company is denying any claim is a 2 sided thing (not that I disagree). Let's remember Littlefield Sr owns the boat and is guiltless as far as I'm concerned. It's the son who bears the sole responsibility. That said, I'm sure the contract stipulates (perhaps not explicitly) who may operate the boat and be covered. This is a lesson to be learned. Let your good buddy drive the boat back some night and do something wrong, you won't be insured. You own the repair and ??? whatever else ??? costs. Maybe your good buddy will re-imburse you and then again ....

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...I agree with what you said above but I am constantly troubled by the fact that we have 2 systems to dispence 'justice'...

Two things would improve the Justice System.

1) Remove "Discovery" from the criminal justice code. It legally allows defense attorneys to coach their clients and witnesses -- lying to greater effect -- and drags the witnesses through more months of ordeal and depositions.

When "Discovery" was introduced, the entire American Justice System tanked -- perhaps irrevocably.

2) Remove the Oath. ("That the testimony you give today is the truth...").

Judges (and juries) are left little wiggle room when the defense team states, "There was no illuminated stern light on the boat".

If you think "Civil" Justice is the answer, remember that the Donzi offshore-boat fatality off Parker Island is still unresolved after six years, and Littlefield's Criminal Appeals are still running their course after nearly two years.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by madrasahs

When "Discovery" was introduced, the entire American Justice System tanked -- perhaps irrevocably

Simply absurd!

For the readers out there, let me explain what the concept of discovery is a little more fairly.

It is not a vague term described in some "criminal justice code" (whatever that term means) but a basic Constitutional right.

A 1963 landmark United States Supreme Court decision interpreted Section I of Article XIV of the United States Constitiution as meaning that the fundamental right of due process includes the State providing evindentiary material to the accused in a timely manner prior to the trial.

Simply stated, if the State accuses me of a crime, it must provide me the evidence thay have secured to formulate their charges prior to my trial so I may prepare an adequate defense.

In my many years in law enforcement have I seen this right abused?

Certainly.

But I would not want to have it any other way.

It is simply absurd to want to deny an individual a basic constitutional right because that right may be occasionally misconstrued by a third party.

Because that is what your suggestion does.

May I make a suggestion?

Tear yourself away from the keyboard and skip a couple of posts to the Winni site today.

Run, don't walk, to your nearest local library. Secure a copy of the United States Constitution and read it slowly and carefully from begining to end.

I know, you can do it so easily from home. But why deny the opportunity to get outside and enjoy the freedom and beauty brought to you daily by the same document you would so easily gut?

Besides, the fresh air may help bring you back to your senses!

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by Skip

"...the fresh air may help bring you back to your senses!"

Well, it's raining cats and dogs out -- thanks anyway.

Originally Posted by Skip

"A 1963 landmark United States Supreme Court decision interpreted Section I of Article XIV of the United States Constitiution as meaning that the fundamental right of due process includes the State providing evindentiary material to the accused in a timely manner prior to the trial.
In my many years in law enforcement have I seen this right abused? Certainly.

Some describe the 50's as "the idyllic America".

Originally Posted by Skip

But I would not want to have it any other way.

And what attorney would not?

Originally Posted by Skip

"Run, don't walk, to your nearest local library. Secure a copy of the United States Constitution and read it slowly and carefully from begining to end. Tear yourself away from the keyboard and skip a couple of posts to the Winni site today.

OK if I start reading at the First Amendment?

What is wrong with a Justice system when people expire of old age -- or other causes -- long before their Civil cases are heard? Plenty.

No comment(s) on "The Oath"?

(I appreciate your input, BTW).