Jarlaxle

[BoSoxGal]

I am curious as to your thoughts on the outcome of the Fallen Seven trial this week - since you are both a truck driver and a bike rider, I figured you would have some.

I wish the trial had been available to watch I’m sure it was very interesting. I do not believe that New Hampshire juries are very liberal or stupid - it sounds like the state developed tunnel vision from the scene of the accident onward and refused to change course even when expert evidence established that their theory was wrong.

Here’s a story for folks not familiar with this case. https://www.wcax.com/2022/08/09/jury-de ... utType=amp

[Big RR]

I agree that the trial would have been interesting; I've been following this case on and off and saw many interesting point. For example, I would like to see how the defense was able to get the impaired charges dismissed, since (according to accounts) he admitted to ingesting heroin and fentanyl the night before (sure, it was a number of hours before, but I would think any expert could have established some impairment; since he was already facing DUI charges in Connecticut, I would have thought the prosecution would have pushed harder and why the charges were dismissed surprised me (maybe his statement about ingesting drugs was thrown out?). I would have thought the bikers (ex-Marines, not Hell's Angels) would have been very sympathetic victims as well. I also would have liked to hear the eyewitness testimony and see how well it supported the defense position. There were a number of facts in dispute, and it seeing how each side developed its case would have been interesting.

ETA: I understand he is now facing deportation, but, as he is Ukrainian, I don't think the immigration courts would deport him to a war zone, especially since he was acquitted of charges, so it may be dismissed. I don't know his immigration status, but if he has a green card (likely since he had a truck license), ICE would have to show that he was a threat to public safety, which could be hard to show.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Rightly or wrongly (I think rightly) we want 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as the standard for a conviction. We may well get an OJ Simpson kind of thing whereby he is found 'not guilty' but the civil case, with its lower burden of proof (I don't know if that is the case in Vermont) of 51% means that he - or presumably his insurance - has to pay extra.

[Burning Petard]

The rules for 'expert witness' testimony are really weird, established by panels (term of art for committee so nobody takes personal responsibility) of lawyers with little connection with objective reality. or a desire for ultimate justice. Mainly intended to authorize the ignorant to decide what the knowledgeable really knows. As one of those 'top judges' recently said, 'we just decide based on the law. We are not supposed to take into account the real world effects of our decision.'

snailgate