Boating Accident

[Island Girl]

If she drank what she said she drank, her BAC would be 0 by the time her blood was taken. Very simply, she was not telling the truth about her alcohol consumption. The blood loss thing is crap in my opinion. Even if it were correct and her BAC were below the legal limit as her witness proposed that is still above 0. IMHO.

IG

[Steveo]

I don't remember anyone on this forum that had a problem with Littlefield's conviction and sentence when it came down. He was negligent when he hit another boat and killed someone he didn't know and he went to jail for it. Maybe that is the difference here. Erica hit an island and killed her best friend. If instead of an island she hit another boat that night and killed some one on it what would you think. Was she negligent? If convicted should she serve jail time. I think we are getting too wrapped up into the emotions and the unusual situation. Because it was an island, it is too weird and unfortunate to be anything but an accident. Because it was her best friend - she could never be negligent when it came to her best friend. And of course Erica's personal suffering is much greater because she killed her best friend than if it was a stranger, she shouldn't have to suffer more by going to jail.

Bottom line: given all the conditions of that night if Erica hit another boat and killed a stranger on that boat this discussion would have been over long ago and Erica would have a couple of years jail time to think about what she had done.

[Mink Islander]

Originally Posted by Steveo

I don't remember anyone on this forum that had a problem with Littlefield's conviction and sentence when it came down. He was negligent when he hit another boat and killed someone he didn't know and he went to jail for it. Maybe that is the difference here. Erica hit an island and killed her best friend. If instead of an island she hit another boat that night and killed some one on it what would you think. Was she negligent? If convicted should she serve jail time. I think we are getting too wrapped up into the emotions and the unusual situation. Because it was an island, it is too weird and unfortunate to be anything but an accident. Because it was her best friend - she could never be negligent when it came to her best friend. And of course Erica's personal suffering is much greater because she killed her best friend than if it was a stranger, she shouldn't have to suffer more by going to jail.

Bottom line: given all the conditions of that night if Erica hit another boat and killed a stranger on that boat this discussion would have been over long ago and Erica would have a couple of years jail time to think about what she had done.

If this were the story of some wreckless driver in bad weather driving too fast, hydro-planing and consequently losing control of her SUV, striking another vehicle and killing the occupant (a total stranger) would we all agree the driver was negligent and should be punished or was it a "could happen to anyone" boo boo that should be quickly forgiven and forgotten? If instead, you had the same fact set but it's a single vehicle accident where the passenger (a close friend) is killed should we think about the punishment differently and more sympathically towards the driver? Suffered enough and all that? Who was killed shouldn't matter is my point. Anytime an innocent person is killed through the negligence of others, families and friends suffer. Knowing the victim of your crime shouldn't lower your punishment. The punshment should be the same as if she'd killed a total stranger. And this was an "accident" in the sense that she didn't intend to kill her friend, but it was completely preventable had any semblance of common sense been employed. The very idea that someone with her "boating experience" would conclude that getting on plane when she couldn't see beyond the bow of the boat was a reasonable and safe decision is truly frightening -- almost more frightening if alcohol wasn't really a contributing factor.

[Airwaves]

It's interesting reading some of these posts and I expect it will get even more interesting after the sentencing.

I didn't realize that so many of you were on the jury and heard ALL of the testimony and saw ALL of the evidence.

So let's see who knows what they are talking about and who is engaged in speculation through limited media coverage or hearsay.

Everyone who was on the Blizzard jury please post "I was a juror". If you were not please post "I was not there".

That way we can give more weight to what those of you that sat on the jury have to say considering you were there every day and heard everything.

[Eagle]

I WAS NOT THERE. And you can totally disregard everything I posted.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"Everyone who was on the Blizzard jury please post "I was a juror". If you were not please post "I was not there"..."

I was not there, but I followed it while awake.

Especially during technical testimony, one or more jurors will fall asleep. Therefore, you can state, "I was a juror", but still be a juror who "was not there".

Excerpts from a site on juries:

"...the main thing that's newsworthy is that these sleeping jurors made the paper while other jurors slept in trials all over America.

"If you're a trial lawyer, you've seen jurors sleeping.

"People are tired. Really, really tired...On top of our other worries, nowadays we're losing sleep over the economy.

"Fatigue not only impairs memory and learning generally...but a a 2007 study suggests it specifically impairs moral judgment.

"You can often spot fatigue in voir dire if you remember to look. Tired jurors often look tired, will say they're tired, and will make you tired when they describe what they have to do in a typical day.

"If a juror who keeps falling asleep isn't dismissed, it's usually because a lawyer forgot to ask, unless the trial has gone on so long and the panel is so small that the dismissal would mean (or threaten) a mistrial.

"As we've noted, people are tired, so if a juror falls asleep while you're talking, it's usually not entirely your fault. But think about whether it partly is. The juror was awake earlier, right? And if one juror slept through your expert's testimony, how many others daydreamed?"...you need to figure out how to make it interesting -- preferably before anybody falls asleep..."

http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberat...or_misconduct/

Heck, Judges fall asleep! (Most notably on the Supreme Court of the United States).



If there's an appeal (and I'd expect one) we'll have transcripts of exactly what went on—eventually.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Girl

If she drank what she said she drank, her BAC would be 0 by the time her blood was taken. Very simply, she was not telling the truth about her alcohol consumption. The blood loss thing is crap in my opinion. Even if it were correct and her BAC were below the legal limit as her witness proposed that is still above 0. IMHO.

IG

I'm not sure what the defense proposed regrarding blood loss, I wish I had heard the exact words. I agree that what's been reported about how much drink she had that night is not the whole story. In order for her to have a BAC of 0.15 and not been drunk at the time of the collision, she must have sucking down quite a bit in the few minutes prior to the collision, then wrecked and having lost some blood, the concentration of alcohol would be higher than normal. I tend to think that this wasn't the case. There's no way that the alcohol consumed in the restaurant would not have been into her bloodstream by the time of the collision and subsequently metabolized. But lets say that she and her friends, having completed the prank, left the dock and sucked down the vodka. Who would be drinking that much facing a completely dark night, low hanging clouds and fog, threat of immediate rain and no GPS ? If she wasn't a "true" 0.15 at the time of the collision, was she still > 0.08 ? Was there enough alcohol in her to affect her decision to pop it back onto plane in near zero visibility ? We can debate the juries decision wrt the BUI charge but IMO there's no doubt about the negligent operation.