Intoxication Manslaughter

Re: Intoxication Manslaughter Many years ago I had the unfortunate displeasure of serving on a jury in an intoxication manslaughter case. There had been three people, two males and a female, killed in what could only be described as an horrific accident. The car had flown through the air for many feet and had struck a tree while airborne, ejecting the driver, nearly unharmed, and killing the three passengers. During the course of the trial we were told that the new "intoxication manslaughter" law required that a blood sample be taken from the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal accident. In this case, a sample was taken at the scene in the paramedics' vehicle. A police officer rode in that vehicle, in which the driver was taken to a hospital, and another blood sample was taken there at the officer's insistence. We were told that sample was not tested for many hours. As part of the prosecution's initial presentation we were given, and made to look at, not only pictures from the scene of the accident, but also pictures of the autopsies performed on the deceased. These pictures were then mounted to an easel and placed in front of the jury box, for effect, and left there throughout the trial. The pictures were so indescribably awful that, contrary to the Judge's instructions, during the very first break the jury took there were jurors who were openly ready to charge and convict the driver with any crime the court or prosecutors might offer. As the trial progressed we were given the results of the blood tests. At that time, the legal limit of blood alcohol for intoxication was 1.0 (it is now lower). The first test, given at the scene, showed a level of .9 – absolutely legal and below the level required to convict on any of the pending charges. The second test showed a level of 1.1 – high enough to convict based upon legitimacy of the evidence. One of the paramedics who had been first on scene stated unequivocally the defendant was in shock but did not show any signs of impairment nor did he smell of alcohol. He had no reason to believe the defendant might have been intoxicated. A very poor witness for the defense, a doctor of questionable credibility, gave testimony about how the second blood sample may have been tainted by fermentation for having been held so long before testing. The prosecution essentially presented only the one blood test, which showed the defendant over the legal alcohol limit and the pictures from the crash. The lawyer for the defendant was appointed by the court and was not nearly as capable in his presentation as compared to the huge team of prosecution lawyers. We were later told, after the trial, that due to the magnitude of the accident other lawyers were unwilling to accept the case as they assumed they would lose. As soon as deliberations began, the jury was split with some voting guilty and some voting innocent. The innocent side of the voters claimed there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defendant was intoxicated and others claimed he was and yet others stated it didn't really matter – he had been drinking and people were killed, therefore he was guilty in their minds. As jury foreman, I sent a couple questions to the judge for clarification. One was " if a person who is intoxicated is driving through an intersection with a legal green light and a completely sober person runs the red light in that intersection, hits the intoxicated driver's vehicle and dies as a result of that accident – is the intoxicated driver guilty of intoxication manslaughter?" The answer, based upon the wording of the law, "yes". Later, a question was posed " if a person has driven to the next block of their own street, entered a friend's home and become legally intoxicated and returned to their vehicle intending to drive home but decided not to drive and remained in their vehicle, realizing their intoxication, and were struck from the rear while sitting still by a sober driver who died as a result of that accident, is the intoxicated person guilty of intoxication manslaughter?" The answer, according to the law, "yes". The charge given the jury in our case consisted of answering some very simple questions: 1. Did an accident occur? 2. Did someone die as a result of that accident? 3. Was the defendant a driver in that accident? 4. Was the defendant intoxicated? If the answer to all was yes, he was guilty, if the answer to any was no, he was innocent. The basic facts presented were: there was an accident, someone died as a result of the accident, the defendant was a driver and, according to the prosecution, he was intoxicated, according to the defense he was not. They both provided proof. Should anyone have had any doubt? It would be like one side showing a coin claiming it is heads and another claiming it is tails. Both may be right, both may be wrong. In a criminal trial, however, a jury is ordered to determine beyond a reasonable doubt which side is right. Question four was the sticking point. If there existed a blood test totally exonerating the defendant from this charge, how could the jury accept only the test that proved him guilty? There was, it was argued, reasonable doubt based upon the blood tests and at various times some jurors actually vacillated with their votes. After greater than a reasonable, time the judge was notified the jury could not reach a unanimous decision. The judge responded that since this was the first case to be heard under this new law, the jury would not be released until coming to a verdict. There could be no hung jury. Period! The coin had to be heads or tails and the jury would remain until a determination was made. The method of that decision, be it affirmation of one side's argument or a compromise to end the endless haggling would be unimportant. A verdict would be rendered. The jury had been told they would be the ones to determine the punishment phase in the event of a conviction and we had been given what the options would be. Without belaboring the hours of deliberation, a deal was finally struck wherein the defendant would be convicted but the jury agreed unanimously the sentence would be the minimum allowed and would be probated. The verdict was presented to the court and, after hearing additional arguments, the jury was sent out to decide the appropriate punishment. Since that had been pre-determined, it took only a few minutes to put into writing and the jury returned – to an almost packed courtroom consisting of many interested parties. Everyone in the courtroom seemed amazed at the rapidity with which the jury had reached the punishment decision and when it was announced, the level of anger and angst expressed in that courtroom was overwhelming. The family of the female who died was understandably grief stricken while the families of the males who died were relieved. During the punishment hearing phase, the families of the males had actually asked that the defendant not receive any jail time as they did not attribute complete blame to the defendant. The bulk of irate folks present had no family ties to anyone involved but were present to see "justice" served and, by their determination through blinded vision, it was not. When all was completed, the judge asked if any jurors would meet with the lawyers who had questions about their presentations. I remained and was stricken and sickened by the questions asked by the attorneys who reminded me of a group of thespians wanting a critique on their performances. Not ONE single word was mentioned about guilt nor innocence. As a matter of fact, it was brought out at that time that the convicted driver had actually gotten into a road race, had come to a major curve in the road and was stricken by the other vehicle causing him to jump the curb, fly through the air and the deadly crash ensued. Why had that fact not been given during the trial? It was explained that had nothing to do with the questions that had to be answered in an intoxication manslaughter case. Why had the driver not been charged with some other crime of which he was absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty? Because the combination of the incredibly ghastly scene of this crash and the fact there were three people dead due to someone else's actions would probably WIN at trial when there was some level of evidence pointing to intoxication. My primary point of writing this is to let you understand not all circumstances are as they seem. Probation may very well be justified in some instances. A ruling of complete innocence may be justified when a jury hears testimony not given to the general public nor the news media. The strong possibility exists there have been other cases where judges and juries, privy to facts in a case not given outside the courtroom, may have rendered verdicts or sentences unfavorable to outsiders opinions. Maybe this case, today, would have been bargained DOWN to simple manslaughter rather than intoxication manslaughter with stiffer penalties. Maybe justice could have been truly and truthfully served. A secondary reason for my writing this is to attempt to rid my psyche of my personal guilt or seek forgiveness for having allowed myself to be bullied and intimidated by a judge into voting to convict another human of a crime I did not believe he committed. I could not be certain if it was heads or tails – one test he was completely innocent of the crime with which he was charged, the other test guilty. Certainly, he did something horribly wrong and perhaps there was a law which would have properly punished him. He was not, however, guilty of intoxication manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. Any law which, by the language it is written, prohibits any and all facts pertinent to the situation from being presented by both sides is a poor law and I believe contrary to the intent of the laws of our land. Anyone sitting on a jury empowered to change a person's life forever should have all the facts having to do with the case and neither prosecution nor defense should be given an "edge" by disallowing pertinent facts. Truth, not good acting by the lawyers nor twisting of facts, should determine the outcome of a trial.