Was Underage Courtney Stewart Driving Drunk?
by ReggieBullits on Jun 10, 2009 6:13 PM PDT
Email
PrintSad twist to the Nick Adenhart tragedy. Nick Shou at the OC Weekly claims to have gotten his hands on a toxicological report this morning showing that Courtney Stewart (the driver of the car that Nick was a passenger in) had a .16 Blood Alcohol Content at the time of the accident. That is twice the legal limit in the state of CA, but what's more bothersome is that Courtney Stewart was only 20 years old the day she died.
Gallo's attorneys must be salivating.
I already know most of your sentiment for the OCW, so save it. Nick Shou broke the story and TMZ is the only other place to have picked it up at this point.
The alleged Toxocological Exam is below. Damn.
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
119 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hmmm, is the Gallo team gonna claim contributory negligence?
"We have a great closer, one of the best in the game, and I wouldn’t trade him for anyone else." (Matt Palmer, after the latest Fuentes meltdown)
That's a defense to negligence in a civil case
The defense team will probably use this to argue lack of causation
by Ajax on Jun 10, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
And they will hopefully fail
Hopefully the jury will immediately smell bullshit, but juries are incredibly unreliable, aren’t they? :-(
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Nah, he was innocent--No doubt in my mind
;-D
I think this is a much more cut-and-dry case without a lot of police misconduct and evidence tampering, however.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
The best book I read on the OJ trial was...
…Bugliosi’s “Outrage”. His bottom line? Just about everyone involved in the trial was incompetent (although he gives high marks to Sheck and Neufeld, the 2 defense attorney’s that elicited testimony on DNA evidence).
As a former prosecutor, he especially exposes the incompetence and lack of preparation of the prosecution team. He documents item by item the errors they made.
It’s a great read on the trial.
And if
you’d seen the pictures of the Bronco, it was COVERED in blood. Not a spot or two here and there, but DRENCHED. It was a slam-dunk case for the prosecution, and the way they blew it was akin to fouling out to the catcher on a 3-0 pitch with the bases loaded.
For the record
If I was prosecuting the case, I would have started out just playing OJ’s interview with the cops, wherein over the course of not a very long period of time, he stated that at the time of the murders, he was: chipping golf balls on his front lawn, while in the shower, taking a nap, and getting into a limo. Oh, and then there were the five different stories he told (without any prompting) about how he injured his hand. I would have played the tape and pretty much left it at that. He would have needed to take the stand to pick a story, and gotten eaten alive on cross.
In the book, Bugliosi's contempt for the prosecution team is palpable.
One of his many comments about their errors includes the one you note above.
The prosecution was a miserable failure.
Yup. Another fool that Bogliosi took to task in the book.
The TV cameras in the court room were a mistake. Too much preening.
they most likely will and you can bet...
his sentence (assuming he’s found guilty) will be a not as harsh because of this but was this his 3rd strike?
shit, this isn't good
he’ll probably get a reduced sentence now, if he’s convicted at all.
RIP Nick. We will miss you!
He'll most definitely get convicted
He ran a red, Courtney didn’t. He was the one that caused the accident, hence, the fact that whether or not Courtney had been drinking is irrelevant.
I bet you anything that that is what prosecutors will argue, and they’ll win. Reduced sentence POSSIBLY yet very doubtful but rest assured that he’ll be convicted.
Contributory negligence or not
she didn’t run a light, and her being drunk is less a factor in the accident than it is a footnote.
It doesn’t mean a jury won’t see things differently now, or that the law doesn’t now view it differently…it just means I don’t view Gallo’s role in the accident any differently, nor do I feel he is any less culpable.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Jun 10, 2009 7:00 PM PDT reply actions
not a huge victory
peripheral blood=.06%, stomach =900mg which is .09
Post mortem blood could be contaminated
RIP Nick
In California
is it illegal to drink while underage? Or is it only illegal to possess it or buy it as in other states?
Just curious as it is obviously illegal to drive drunk anywhere.
Captain, there are doubt's...
Contributory Negligence
Is a defense to negligence actions in Civil Court. It has no bearing on a criminal case. Defenses to murder include (not exhaustive) self defense, voluntary intoxication, mistake of fact.
This information is fodder for an apt defense attorney who will undoubtedly question how the accident was caused, and put doubt into the minds of jurors as to who was at fault for the accident. However, regardless of fault, Gallo faces 3 separate counts of murder and was undoubtedly reckless when he was driving while intoxicated at a high rate of speed, after two prior DUI charges. All of this tantamount to 2nd degree murder, which he will likely be found guilty of.
and there is a witness to a run red light
I think it’s just that: fodder without much substantiation
RIP Nick
It will make it difficult
For the prosecution to argue the evils of drunk driving, IF the driver in the other vehicle was intoxicated. It makes the case tougher for the prosecution who could have rallied against Gallo for driving drunk, it will be difficult to do that and not lose credibility with a jury IF the report is true. Nonetheless, the prosecutor has a solid murder 2 case, and should be able to win on the facts.
correct
but because you never know with juries, it might make a plea deal (vehicular manslaughter x 3) more likely.
High Profile case
It would seem pretty difficult for a prosecutor to cut a plea deal in a case like this. With such media scrutiny and high profile person involved things would have to look really bad for a prosecutor to even consider cutting a deal.
I don't know,
This information is now public, and if the venue doesn’t change, it will be common knowledge among the jury pool. Definitely something for the prosecution team to consider.
That's only if the evidence gets in at all
At the end of the day, the evidence in Courtney Stewart’s toxicology report is likely irrelevant to the case at hand, given that she was legally in the intersection at the time of the crash. As such, the judge will most likely not allow the defense to introduce it into evidence.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Relevance?
I’m not sure i understand your argument that the information wouldn’t be relevant? Wouldn’t the report support a defense theory that she wasn’t legally in the intersection at the time?
No
She was making a legal turn or entrance. The fact she shouldn’t have been driving doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that her car was appropriately crossing the intersection on a green light.
I just read a published case on this exact thing today. Driver plows into a car when he goes 80 through an intersection, kills all three girls in the car. It turns out the victim might have been somewhat drunk as well.
The judge said, and the appellate court upheld, that the fact that the victim driver was also drunk was irrelevant to the defendant’s culpability. The only point that mattered was whether the car had a right to be in the intersection at the moment of the accident, which it did.
Same thing here.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
I agree
On that point, i agree completely. Whether Stewart should have been driving or not isn’t relevant to the issue of whether the car was in intersection legally or not. That said, I still think the defense will be able to get the toxicology report in.
What will it prove as to Gallo's defense?
It’s more than likely not going to get him any sympathy points. It’s not going to prove he wasn’t reckless, or introduce doubt that he was.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
That may be true
But you wouldn’t be doing your job as a defense attorney if you weren’t trying to bring it in on the chance that it casts doubt on the situation or prompts the prosecution to offer a plea deal. The potential for a shift of perception, beyond the legal technicalities, is certainly there when the situation changes from one drunk driver to 2 drunk drivers one of whom was underage
Im currently considering law school...
and salivated all over this conversation.
sorry if this true but light humor was inappropriate….
Do it for Nick '09
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Jun 10, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
For 17 years I worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
Don’t do it.
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
intoxication
if i recall correctly, intoxication is is never a defense unless it is involuntary intoxication, which would seem to be a very difficult claim to make in this instance.
@ common law
Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes: First degree Murder. Should not have mentioned that re a 2nd degree murder defense, I was just listing defenses to murder from memory and that one slipped through the cracks. thanks for pointing it out.
Jury Duty
The one time I actually made it onto a jury, it was a homicide case. There was no dispute the defendant shot the guy; the question was, murder or manslaughter? There was evidence that the guy was really, really drunk, and the trick was figuring out whether he had decided to shoot the guy before getting liquored up or afterwards. If the latter, it was involuntary manslaughter. We deliberated for a few days on that one.
It was
a really fascinating case, especially for me to actually get to be on the jury. Basically, both sides were out of peremptories by the time I was seated. Ultimately, we convicted on the murder count. The defendant told a taxi driver (at a time before he was completely rip-roaring drunk), when they were discussing their respective problems, “This is how I solve my problems,” and showed the driver his gun.
Beats the trial I was the jury foreman on...
Some slimeball was messing with his daughters.
One juror was convinced they had set him up and framed him. We hung on 4 of 5 charges.
Angels fan since '67
Wow, that stinks
I was on a federal panel about 20 years ago, and we convicted after about a day of deliberation on a simple counterfeiting case.
Witty .sig goes here.
That is one juror with a troubled family life.
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
It won't, or shouldn't, matter at all
As bruinbrah pointed out, there is no contributory negligence defense to murder.
Further, the ONLY relevant fact is whether Courtney Stewart was legally in the intersection at the time of the accident. Every indication we’ve seen shows that she was, so far as I can tell without any doubt, making a legal entrance into the intersection at the time of the accident.
It matters not one bit what her BAC was—unless SHE had been the one running the red light and possibly causing the accident. In that case, had she died, it wouldn’t matter quite so much that Gallo was incredibly drunk. But that is not what happened.
In fact, the judge will almost certainly not even allow Gallo to bring in the evidence in Stewart’s toxicology report. As we’ve mentioned, it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand—which is, to wit, “Did Andrew Gallo recklessly speed through an intersection while intoxicated and strike and kill the occupants of car making a legal turn?”—Irrelevant testimony, despite what you may see on T.V., is NEVER admissible.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Framing of the question
Clearly the defense isn’t going to frame the question as you put it. And Gallo probably will testify (not like he has much to lose) that he had a green or yellow and was allowed to go. If that’s the case it seems like it would be relevant to the defense’s theory of how the accident happened that Stewart was intoxicated and that she was in the wrong. Clearly I don’t think this argument would work with the jury and Gallo would seem much less credible than the witness to the crash, but I’m don’t see anything that would prevent the defense from making it.
by HaloFanInDC on Jun 10, 2009 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're right that the witness credibility might make it relevant
Otherwise, it shouldn’t be. The case I cited above makes my argument otherwise. So long as Gallo can’t prove or inject any doubt as to the fact that the light was green in Stewart’s favor, then Stewart was legally in the intersection and there’s no issue.
I thought they (police?) established pretty early on that the light was green for Stewart and red for Gallo. If nothing else, Gallo’s cousin was in the car at the time, was he not? Unless he wants to lie under oath and perjure himself, and assuming he had a good idea of what was going on at the time, the prosecution should be able to make him admit that the light was red for Gallo.
Regardless, even if Courtney Pearson was blind drunk, her intoxication does not change the fact that Andrew Gallo was also three times over the legal limit. It does not change the fact that he got in a car while in this state and drove through a red light at 60-80 mph. It does not change the fact that he knew damn well he could kill someone by getting behind the wheel. In other words, it does not change the fact that he committed second degree murder.
The defense will not get to frame the question for the jury. The jury may be influenced by their arguments—But at the end of the day, the ONLY thing the jury may contemplate is what the judge instructs them to contemplate. I guarantee the judge is not going to be framing the question much differently than “did Andrew Gallo behave in such a manner manifesting an extreme indifference for human life, and did he kill Nick Adenhart/Courtney Pearson/Henry Stewart as a result?”
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Out of curiousity
Is there any traffic cam footage that showed she entered section legally? Defense can argue unreliability of the eyewitness testimony seeing as it was so late/early. But just wondering if we know of substantial proof of the matter.
RIP #34
It's walking distance from my apartment
Pretty sure that’s not a camera light
"I've got more action than my man John Woo
And I've got mad hits like I was Rod Carew" - Shure Shot, The Beastie Boys
by Zoe Necrosis on Jun 11, 2009 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm going to have to disagree with you here
Yeah, irrelevant testimony is never admissible, but I think that this testimony is still somewhat relevant to the case. A lot of people are correct in that Gallo’s defense attorney will probably try to make an issue of causation. Now, I believe you when you claim that precedence shows that the fact that the second driver was drunk is not legally conclusive nor persuasive enough to affect the outcome of the case. But the drunkenness of the driver is absolutely relevant. As HaloFanInDC notes below, Gallo could argue that he did not, in fact, run a red and that the other car was wrongly in the intersection. The state or condition of mind of the driver of the other car is absolutely relevant to that argument. Now, obviously, there’s an eyewitness account to the contrary, but that won’t stop Gallo from making that argument (it’s not like that’s so spurious as to trigger the equivalent of a Rule 11 violation in California).
What may be a more pertinent issue is whether the evidence is too prejudicial to present before a jury. This is always a risk where intoxication is an issue, because there’s the chance that, rather than punishing the alleged for the crime committed, the jury punishes them for the moral wrong of drinking and driving. I suspect this evidence isn’t too prejudicial to prevent admission, so I’m sure much will be made of it in the court room.
From a non-legal perspective, though, how horrible is it for Courtney’s family that these facts may be aired in a public court room? You’ve already lost your daughter, and now her memory is going to be dragged through the mud by a toxicology report.
R.I.P. Nick Adenhart, #34.
by cardinalwraith on Jun 11, 2009 4:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Response from an Offline Conversation
Wraith and I actually continued this conversation offline, but I wanted to get people’s thoughts here, too. Here’s what I wrote, in slightly edited form. It turns out the case I cited earlier, while on point, is actually unpublished and thus cannot legally be cited to in future cases. The legality-of-being-in-the-intersection question was not actually the main issue in that case, however, and though that doesn’t make it any more citable, I’m also thinking that the issue has probably been discussed in other, published opinions.
Also, as an addendum, I agree that there is an issue if this report is to be used to dispute causation—if Gallo didn’t cause the accident, then he can’t be convicted of any crime, plain and simple. However, even without direct witness testimony or camera footage, I’m sure “we” have enough circumstantial evidence, at least, in this case to establish Gallo’s fault. As an example, accident reconstruction experts can show that Stewart was going some reasonable speed for entering the intersection at the time she was entering, whereas Gallo was going 60-75 mph in a 45 zone. Establishes MUCH higher likelihood that he’s at fault.
Here’s my argument in response to Cardinalwraith:
Right, I’ll agree with you there as noted elsewhere—it’s relevant if there is any dispute over whether the car was appropriately in the intersection at the time. But again, the fact that she was drunk shouldn’t have anything to do with the answer—it either was or wasn’t appropriately in the intersection, regardless of her BAC. Does her BAC at the time make it more or less likely that she would be in the intersection (il)legally? Probably. But that should only come up as an argument if there’s any bonafide dispute over whether she was legally in the intersection. In the [non-citable] case, there was at least one witness who had been stopped at that same red light and clearly saw that it was green in favor of the victims and red for the defendant, and the defendant didn’t dispute that this was the case. Here, though, we don’t know…but again, I thought from the initial reports that it was pretty well established that the light was green for Stewart and red for Gallo—I think it will depend just how low or slimy Gallo’s counsel is willing to be.
Even so, suppose for the sake of argument that Stewart wasn’t legally in the intersection. What then? As you know, this would matter a lot if it was a tort case—and there very well may be a wrongful death suit in the future—as it would establish contributory negligence and proportionately reduce the amount Stewart’s family (but probably not Adenhart’s or Pearson’s, or even Wilhite in a separate, similar action) could recover, depending on how much blame the jury ultimately felt she should bear for the accident. But in the instant action, it doesn’t change the fact that Gallo knew as established by his earlier signed statement that he could kill someone if he got behind the wheel drunk, got behind the wheel drunk anyway, and wound up killing someone. The law doesn’t take a very kind view to people as intoxicated as Gallo was. The fact is that he was reckless enough to warrant DHM if he killed someone, and that’s exactly what he did. I don’t see how, even if Stewart shouldn’t have been in the intersection, this will change the outcome of the case, jury sympathies or no.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Also, acronym/abbreviation clarification
Not sure if it’s been mentioned on here already:
DHM = “Depraved Heart Murder”; it’s another term, used in law school, to mean a form of second degree murder. Essentially describes what we have here.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Good thing that was a "summary"!
Pretty soon we will be seeing pleading formats around here!! (I kid, I kid..)
I thought that the point being made about Stewart being in the intersection illegally was that with her BAC being anything over .00, she could not be anyplace legally, doubly so if behind a wheel?
I mean – and I wish to emphasize that I do not know anything about the sequence of events here – if she accelerated from a stop when her light went green, could it be argued that she entered into the intersection before it was actually safe to do so considering that there was a van screaming down at that intersection at twice the posted speed limit, and with no apparent intent on stopping? And that her alcohol consumption impaired her judgement to the extent that she was either inattentive to the threat or unable to make a proper assessment, and entered the intersection despite the evident danger? Could not the case then be made that her illegal alcohol consumption and illegal driving activities contributed to the effort of putting the other three victims at risk, somewhat reducing the liability of Gallo?
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
I think the way the accident happened
Is that by the time Gallo plowed into her, she was already past the point of no return—it seems she made a safe entrance into the intersection at a point where Gallo was far enough away and it would have been reasonable to assume he, like any other normal driver, would yield.
The (non-citable) authority I mentioned makes reference to the fact that a lot of drivers on both sides of alcohol-related accidents are intoxicated. That does not affect the outcome of the case.
If I were allowed to cite the case I mentioned earlier, I would relay the courtroom conversation that happened when the defense tried to make the exact argument you just made about “couldn’t legally be anywhere”—neither court particularly cared about that detail. All that mattered was, intoxication aside, the car itself had a legal right to be in that intersection at that time.
Further, this is beginning to be like arguing over a technicality. Stewart’s BAC was .06 at most. The ONLY reason that’s considered over the limit is because she was, barely under-age. Had this accident happened just a few months later, she would have been of age, and at that point her BAC would have been well UNDER the legal limit of .08, and there would be no issue whatsoever.
That said, the only thing Gallo could potentially make of this is either (a) she shouldn’t have been in the intersection or (b)( her reaction was impaired. Expert witnesses will be necessary.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
the witness and other victim of the crash, as I recall
said the light was green and had been green…..Gallo plowed through it, probably because the intersection appeared empty. The guy was loaded…what did he care?
Yeah, OK
So I guess the most Longwith could do would be to discredit the witness…and how’s that going to look to be pounding poor Wilhite on the stand? “You don’t know what happened because you were almost dead [at the hands of my client]!”
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
here:
The impact spun around both vehicles, and one then struck another car but that driver was not hurt, police said.
found this also
t’s a little after midnight when Nick, Jon and Henry pile into Courtney’s car, a silver Mitsubishi Eclipse, and set out for In Cahoots. At about 12:20 a.m., Courtney, with Nick sitting beside her in front, Jon behind her in back and Henry behind Nick, approach the intersection of Orangethorpe Avenue, heading northbound. Courtney is on Lemon Street, in the right-hand lane, seeing a green light all the way. She’s less than a block away from the bar, or as Lt. Kevin Hamilton of the Fullerton PD said, “a tee shot away.”
Another driver, Estevan Quiroz, is on Lemon Street heading in the opposite direction, facing Courtney, and inching out into the intersection, preparing to turn left onto Orangethorpe.
In the corner of his left eye, Quiroz catches a red blur, which in Quiroz’s estimation a vehicle is traveling at about 90 mph. He wisely stops because, as he sees the blur, he can tell it has no intention of stopping.
Andrew Gallo, driving recklessly, not knowing why he’s almost 20 miles south of where his night started in Covina, slams full speed into the passenger side of the Mitsubishi, where Nick Adenhart and Henry Pearson are sitting, according to police. Andrew doesn’t even tap his brakes, T-boning the Mitsubishi, the force of the crash spinning the sports car across the intersection and killing Courtney and Henry instantly.
Ah, good
That witness will be crucial to proving the irrelevance of the toxicology report. Hopefully Longwith’s team doesn’t go all “Southland” on him…;-D
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Now THAT is interesting.
“…the car itself had a legal right to be in that intersection at that time.”
Do we really imbue inanimate objects with legal rights? When did THAT start happening?
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
OK, so I'm not sure of the inanimate object's rights
But the point is, Courtney’s BAC does not, as you argue, automatically mean that she is incapable of being anywhere legally so long as she is driving. If that were the case, you’d see a helluva lot more DUI drivers with accident fatalities getting off scot-free.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
How odd that this would be the case.
In California, underage drinking is not prohibited as long as the minor remains in a private location. Therefore, any minor who has been drinking and is on a public conveyance should be presumed to have broken the law. Since Courtney did not live in that intersection, her presence there should be illegal.
Gallo’s violation of DUI is different, of course. Having a BAC well above .08 means that he is deemed incapable of operating a vehicle safely. Ms. Courtney’s .06 BAC merely means that she has acted in a manner that the State deems to be irresponsible. But in both cases, would not a police officer be empowered to secure an arrest?
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
Sure
And in a civil case, it would also matter (potential financial solvency issues aside). Also in the previous case I believe all parties involved were of age, so perhaps it didn’t matter. Yet—theoretically if Courtney was, say, 21 years old and thus of age, but had a BAC of .09, she would also be committing an illegal act of DUI—yet that again apparently wouldn’t matter.
If Courtney Stewart herself were accused of some crime beyond DUI—say all parties had escaped alive, for example, and the state decided to charge destruction of state property—then her state of inebriation/reaction time/etc. would be much more likely to matter. As it is, however, it shouldn’t have much of anything to do with anything.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Cause of death is pretty gruesome
“Aortic transection”. The force of the impact was so great, her aorta was ripped off her heart. Wow.
Witty .sig goes here.
Don't think there is any footage
I don’t recall there being traffic cams at that intersection. Plus it would seem likely that the media would have picked up on footage or at least the existence of the traffic cams if there were any.
I agree with you that the defense will probably go hard at the witness about his/her sensory perception at the time. However, I’m not sure about how effective that will be because the witness will probably testify to the color of the signals at the time and those are pretty obvious to see even at night
reasonable doubt
yeah, but it’s all about reasonable doubt. With moving vehicles, sometimes it’s hard to place exactly where a particular vehicle was at any given point in time. Where exactly was the witness, what kind of angle did he/she have, etc., etc.
Good news for you guys
I got jury duty a couple of weeks ago for this July 6-10th.
So if there’s a change of venue for a tainted jury pool there, and they come to L.A. County, I will do everything in my power to get on that jury and TAINT DA SHIT OUTTA IT.
In other words, root for me to manipulate the system, and deny ever reading this post or knowing who I am if I somehow end up on that jury. ;)
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Jun 10, 2009 10:03 PM PDT reply actions
If they're going to change venue for this case
I imagine it will go to SF or something like that, as with the case of the marauding pit bulls coming to LA a few years ago.
Witty .sig goes here.
Yeah, I know
but I can dream, can’t I?
It’s win-win, really.
If I get assigned to the case, I can either taint the jury pool and make sure the ass-hat gets what’s coming (and risk the legal consequence, of course), or I can decide I don’t want to do it because of my extraordinary bias in the matter, and walk out of duty.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Jun 10, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
We need more jurors like you! Where can I contribute to your cause?
"We have a great closer, one of the best in the game, and I wouldn’t trade him for anyone else." (Matt Palmer, after the latest Fuentes meltdown)
by PieceOfAase on Jun 10, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions
You can just mail me a check for, like...a grand
and we’ll call it even. Don’t worry, it’ll go to my defense fund for the jury tampering or perjury charges.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Jun 10, 2009 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Are you John Cusack, by any chance?
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
John Grisham, actually
but don’t tell anyone please.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Jun 10, 2009 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I liked the John Cusack version better.
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
Do you also go by the name "Caseys Kiss of Death?" on the world wide web....
answer yes or no, sir!
Do it for Nick '09
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Jun 10, 2009 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Can I plead the fifth?
I don’t think that works.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Jun 10, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions
You actually might...
But then again, probably not.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Man I cant get away from the bar exam...
contributory negligence, causation, 2nd degree murder, RES IPSA LOQUITOR, MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP
Driven into right-center field, Erstad says he has it...the Angels, world champions!
oh God
just had a flashback of the Bar…and that was 22 years ago
This season just seems jinxed. If it can go wrong, it does
rule against perpetuities
all day every day
by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Jun 11, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions
I think knowing RAP
is automatic malpractice
This season just seems jinxed. If it can go wrong, it does
Damn
Now maybe we have to kill more bad guys. I say we kill, or re-kill, everyone who drove drunk that night or had an inkling that the driver of their car might be impaired. They would all be guilty by association.
Angel Pitching (Adenhart), Angel Defense - get past that.
by vladtheimpaler on Jun 11, 2009 2:34 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Alcohol can be produced by bacteria as a by product of their metabolism, and can also be produced during putrefaction. I guarantee that if you hadn’t drank any alcohol and a blood sample was taken that you would find a small amount of ethanol present in many cases – this is why the limit will never be set to exactly zero. The fact that the postmortem blood is 100mg% higher than the peripheral blood suggests that something like that is going on. It would depend on when the alcohol analysis was run, as a longer interval would obviously give more time for alcohol to be produced after death.
Ideally if you obtained a positive in blood you would also analyse the urine to see if the individual was still absorbing alcohol at the time of death, or was in the elimination phase. However, from the ‘report’ it doesn’t seem like there was any urine taken, possibly due to the nature of the crash. They analysed the vitreous humour (eye fluid) and found no ethanol, and since the eye is a closed system, it is not subject to bacterial ethanol production causing false positives. The concentration of ethanol in vitreous is closely correlated to that in blood due to the network of capillaries that supply the eye with blood, and the ratio of ethanol in blood to vitreous is 1.18, meaning that it should be higher in the VH than in the blood. The fact that it is negative means that Courtney was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of her death.
by Matt UK on Jun 11, 2009 4:44 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
Cue the Sunglasses and The Who
YEAAAAAAH!
abso-bloody-lutely
i’ve been waiting years for that….somehow doubt it’ll have the glamour of CSI ‘cheesy one-liner, put on the sunglasses and walk away’ Miami tho
My biggest gripe with CSI: Miami
Is not Caruso. It is this: WHY IN THE WORLD DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE YELLOW?
It is maddening.
RIP Nick Adenhart, #34
Nice Information
Below in the California Vehicle Code Section 23140 which takes into account what you just stated.
(a) It is unlawful for a person under the age of 21 years who has 0.05 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
(b) A person may be found to be in violation of subdivision (a) if the person was, at the time of driving, under the age of 21 years and under the influence of, or affected by, an alcoholic beverage regardless of whether a chemical test was made to determine that person’s blood-alcohol concentration and if the trier of fact finds that the person had consumed an alcoholic beverage and was driving a vehicle while having a concentration of 0.05 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood.
© Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, upon a finding that a person has violated this section, the clerk of the court shall prepare within 10 days after the finding and immediately forward to the department an abstract of the record of the court in which the finding is made. That abstract shall be a public record and available for public inspection in the same manner as other records reported under Section 1803
0.05%
or 50mg% is still quite a lot of alcohol for someone who shouldn’t be drinking at all. I’d guess it’s the equivalent of a pint of weak beer, say 3.5% abv. I also forgot to say that I’m not sure what ‘postmortem blood’ is, you should always use peripheral blood for analyses as drugs are subject to postmortem redistribution, which is when drugs move from areas with high concentrations (eg. liver) to areas of low concentration, and taking blood from a central area can mean you end up with a higher result than was actually present. Further to my point about bacterial ethanol production, the extent of this would also depend on whether the blood was preserved before analysis (I’d expect it to be, but you never know)
Thank You!
Thanks for an informative explanation!
by Angelino Angel on Jun 11, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Clearly Matt is spending way too many nights at Holiday Inn Express.
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
If I ever kill anybody, I'm coming to Halos Heaven to find me a lawyer.
I am the Iron Man
by 44FAN on Jun 11, 2009 8:55 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Phil Spector, is that really you?
"We have a great closer, one of the best in the game, and I wouldn’t trade him for anyone else." (Matt Palmer, after the latest Fuentes meltdown)
by PieceOfAase on Jun 11, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
he's on the Dodger web site.
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Jun 11, 2009 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Courtney Stewart
was she relly speeding through the intersection if so then the case could change a little bit or if she did ran a red light and was drunk when she die no one would know for sure but this should not change the fact that he kill 2 people and had a bac 3 time over the limit he should pay for wht he did who care what she did
JOE ANDERSON
A period can become your friend one day.
I love this team.
by Downing Rules on Jun 13, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It was for me when I was in my early twenties!!!
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
by Stirrups on Jun 13, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- U.S. senator cries foul over Nationals plans to take back park from Phillies fans
- Photo: Comerica Park readies itself for Hockeytown
- Podcast: Dirk Hayhurst talks about Italy, the reality of the big leagues and his new book
- Dennis ‘Oil Can’ Boyd claims he used cocaine before a majority of his games
- Does Billy Beane’s contract extension signal an optimistic dawn for Oakland fans?
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
