Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Devils Beat Rangers, Head To Stanley Cup Finals

Gallo Trial Goes to Jury

Trial goes to the jury

I'm both angry and scared.  Angry that this jerk blatantly destroyed 4 lives. Scared that there is a potential that the jury will let this guy go to probably repeat history and kill someone else

Prosecutors decided to charge Gallo with second-degree murder – not the lesser related charge of manslaughter. The jury does not have the option of convicting on manslaughter. If Gallo is acquitted, he would go free because he cannot be tried twice for the same offense.

Prosecutors say they charged the case as a murder because Gallo had a previous DUI conviction, had specific knowledge of the dangers of drinking and driving from his own experience and signed a court form from the earlier case saying he understood he could be charged with murder if he drove drunk again and killed someone.

Legal eagles, explain this one to me:

Also Friday, the judge will hear evidence on a seventh count, driving on a suspended license, while the jury deliberates. Gallo previously waived his right to a jury trial on that count and asked that it be separated from the other charges.

How can he pick and choose what charges he wants to go to jury? Is the Prosecution allowed to use this count as part of the jury trial?

I sure hope this jury has more common sense and intelligence than bleeding heart syndrome.

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

Comment 178 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

How can he pick and choose what charges he wants to go to jury?

Because the Constitution guarantees him a right to a Jury unless he waives it?

Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch

by red floyd on Sep 24, 2010 8:54 AM PDT reply actions  

I understand that part….but why isn’t it all or none? I want a jury to decide A, B, F & H but a judge to decide the rest? Isn’t it all related? It just seems like if one action related to another action caused something and the person decides jury, then it should all be jury.

People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Sep 24, 2010 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

The Answer

is, quite simply, because that is his right. Period.

by jjackflash on Sep 24, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

logically, I realize that

emotionally, I don’t think he has ANY rights

People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Sep 24, 2010 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

it would be smart for him not to have a jury trial

with a judge they will look at just the facts. Emotions are never good when your in the shit

I hope he burns in hell

"You dont need long hair to rip off your sleeves and be a badass" - J. Allen

by DAD OF VLAD on Sep 24, 2010 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

You know

until I clicked that link I assumed Gallo was some white overweight college kid with a drinking problem solely based on his name.

I had no idea Gallo was a latino bro, no idea how I missed that. I dont think it changes things, but I would like to protest confusing names like Trevor Reckling which give me one picture in my mind and shatter my preconceptions with fact.

I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....

by PhiSlamma on Sep 24, 2010 9:34 AM PDT reply actions  

Here, here!

Reason is just one letter away from TREASON!

"You gotta have nuts." / "Coming Around 3rd, especially if I'm ticked off, that's going to happen." - Torii Hunter

by Commander_Nate on Sep 24, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

Roll the double L's

Pico De Gallo.

Replace the O with a sombrero.

He was out drinking to celebrate a government relief check… I’m not saying… just saying.

What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.

by clover_black on Sep 24, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

He was celebrating that he got a new job, not the relief check.

They used the check to go out drinking on. His cousin was supposed to be driving him around to errands he needed to do to get ready for work the next day because he was not allowed to drive because of the suspended license.

I hate the Texas Rangers

by 44FAN on Sep 24, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

I read he was celebrating both

the job laying tile and the relief check

protectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpick

by 2pintsofbooze on Sep 24, 2010 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe he was celebrating both?

I mean, thats pretty awesome.

To think that he got a job… and a relief check? Can’t get much luckier than that, right?

What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.

by clover_black on Sep 24, 2010 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hank Conger?

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Sep 24, 2010 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh yeah

thats a definite one.

I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....

by PhiSlamma on Sep 24, 2010 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

To be fair though.

Hank’s real name is Hyun Choi Conger, which makes it much less confusing.

Faith Focus Finish

by b0rd3rline on Sep 26, 2010 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Separate Charges

The charges may have been made at the same time, but they are not related.
A suspended license did not cause the accident. Just like someone is not forced to rob a bank, because they have a fake ID. He may also be planning to plead guilty to that charge.

The defense apparently wants to separate the charges because they feel he will be convicted on that point and probably want time served. They do not want the jury to be led from one conviction to the next.
They will also try to find a jury that doesn’t have any Angel or baseball fans.

I don’t know why the prosecution thinks their case is good enough to obtain a second degree murder conviction. But normally if the jury is offer their choice of second degree (vehicular homicide) or manslaughter, juries choose manslaughter. The prosecution is removing that choice and risking not obtaining a conviction on that charge.
I believe the DUI should result in jail time though. I wonder how the defense will explain the alcohol (cultural?). I am sure the crash had some distraction or mechanical fault.

by Barca on Sep 24, 2010 9:39 AM PDT reply actions  

exactly. perfect answer.

They separated the charges to avoid drawing attention to the fact that he was driving on a suspended license for a previous DUI.

by firebird81 on Sep 24, 2010 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

which is why

it seems like they shouldn’t be separated but as long as they are able to introduce evidence (like the statement he signed about driving again under the influence), I guess it’s just a technicality?!?

People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Sep 24, 2010 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

I read a story yesterday on the OCR

about a guy who just got convicted of 2nd degree murder because he killed someone while drunk driving, and he already had 2 prior DD convictions and was driving on a suspended license.

there has already been a precedent set on OC where if you do what Gallo did, you get charged with murder, not manslaughter.

after I saw that story I felt a lot better about his chances of being found guilty.

protectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpick

by 2pintsofbooze on Sep 24, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

I am less interested in the jury decision than the penalties.

I have long since convinced myself that a jury will convict him.

I am curious to observe what the judge will do in terms of punishment as he weighs the known history of Gallo on the one hand, versus any shared culpability he might impose on Stewart for also being DUI, and possibly being impaired to a point of being unable to keep her vehicle out of harm’s way.

"Wastin away again in Minor-Leaguer-Ville..."

by Stirrups on Sep 24, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

one of my fears too

another slap on the hand? blame Courtney for not being able to dodge a literal speeding bullet?

People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Sep 24, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

the judge had previously ruled

that Courtney’s state was not of signifigance and he wouldn’t hear any testimony on it. so I have a feeling he won’t be thinking of her blood alcohol level when making any decisions.

the only problem I could see that creating is it gives Gallo a half-decent argument in an appeal.

protectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpick

by 2pintsofbooze on Sep 24, 2010 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, I think that it is an interesting question.

There is definitely a minimum level of sanctions to be applied to Gallo based on his own culpability, and especially considering his prior history. So there is that, assuming a conviction (which I have to assume).

But even though Stewart’s own DUI has no bearing on Gallo’s actions, the judge may decide to consider it when determining the extent of responsibility. There is legal precedent that DUI mandates full responsibility in any vehicular accident. And the logic here is that the judge cannot make any determination on whether Stewart’s impairement had any impact on her ability to recognize whether or not it was unsafe to enter the intersection. So when the law simply says “driver is DUI = driver at fault”, the judge might assign some responsibilty to Stewart and lower some responsibilty currently laid on Gallo, and reflect that in sentencing. He might conclude that Gallo and Stewart share a 100/100 split, or he might conclude that Gallo/Stewart share a 50/50 split.

"Wastin away again in Minor-Leaguer-Ville..."

by Stirrups on Sep 24, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

thought that makes sense, I don't like that option

People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Sep 24, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

I wouldn’t worry about the judge. Since the prosecution seems to be aggressive in their case, the judge will probably treat this seriously in the penalty phase. I suspect half the judges already have a length of sentence in mind.

The questions revolve around the jury. Will they see themselves in the same situation as Gallo? Will they base their decision on whether Gallo’s lawyer was competent? Will they see Gallo as a young man who could be their son? Is the trial fair? Is he well liked?

It appears that the defense wanted women on the jury. They tend be at one extreme or the other. Do any of them talk a lot, suggesting that they have strong opinions and could be leaders? Does anyone’s posture or voice show command?

by Barca on Sep 27, 2010 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

I am not "worried" about the judge. I am curiously interested in what logic he will use,

and whether or not that logic takes into account her intoxication as he determines punishment. It is just a point of interest to me.

"Wastin away again in Minor-Leaguer-Ville..."

by Stirrups on Sep 27, 2010 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

thanks to Sam Miller for pointing out this one to me

OCRegister article

I like this article a bit better than the Huff Post one.

People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Sep 24, 2010 9:49 AM PDT reply actions  

Wrong--He WILL be tried again

The reason he would technically “go free” if acquitted of second-degree murder is that no other charges have been brought against him—Price took an “all or nothing” approach, which is kind of a gamble.

HOWEVER—if Gallo is acquitted on second-degree murder, Price will immediately re-charge him with some form of manslaughter. Manslaughter is NOT a lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, and thus charging him with it after this trial would NOT be double jeopardy.

I still think second-degree murder here is pretty cut and dry and he should be convicted. But he’s not going to go free (for long anyway) if he’s acquitted.

Light up that halo! RIP, Nick.

by Clutch on Sep 24, 2010 9:51 AM PDT reply actions  

Double Jeopardy.

If he walks, he can’t be tried for Manslaughter for killing Nick, Courtney, and Henry. He’s already been tried for that crime, even if it was on a different charge.

Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch

by red floyd on Sep 24, 2010 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

No, he hasn't.

Again, it is only double jeopardy if he has been tried for manslaughter before. He has only been tried for manslaughter if manslaughter classifies as a lesser included offense of second-degree murder. Manslaughter is a LIO of FIRST degree murder, but not SECOND degree murder.

Therefore, Gallo has NOT been tried on manslaughter under a different theory and CAN be tried on it again.

If it were a lesser included offense, Price would have put it in with the charges just to be safe—but she wanted the murder conviction, so she went all out. If that strategy fails, she’ll just charge him with gross vehicular manslaughter and away he’ll go. He’s NOT getting off.

Light up that halo! RIP, Nick.

by Clutch on Sep 24, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

John and Ken had a great discussion of this same point last week.

If I knew how/where to link to it, I would.

Light up that halo! RIP, Nick.

by Clutch on Sep 24, 2010 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Correct

Case directly on point: People v. Sanchez, (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 983. Gross vehicular manslaughter is not a lesser included offense of second degree murder. Drunk driver killed someone in a DUI accident. Same operative facts as in the Gallo case.

by jjackflash on Sep 24, 2010 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks!

Also loving the CA citation style!

Light up that halo! RIP, Nick.

by Clutch on Sep 24, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

She asked a Superior Court jury of seven women and five men to convict Gallo of three counts of second-degree murder, two counts of felony drunken driving causing injuries and one count of felony hit and run.

It seems like having more women might lean towards conviction, depending upon their ages. I would think older women, specifically mothers, are more prone to be black and white with drunk driving than younger, non-moms.

I was under the impression that prosecutors went for the most severe charge that they think they can successfully win. Even if it’s way under what it really should be.

People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Sep 24, 2010 9:55 AM PDT reply actions  

In the article I read, it sounded like a really weird trial.

Gallo’s attorney became emotional, sounds like she started crying. She said she thinks Gallo was driving the car, and he says he was the driver, but she’s not sure he knows for sure. ?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-angelspitcherkilled

by LanaBanana on Sep 24, 2010 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

He's not going to be acquitted...

His attorney has done a piss poor job of defending him, so bad it might even be grounds for an appeal. She really ran a very weak defense. This is Orange County, defendants in criminal cases already have a strike against them even appearing in our courts. His actions killed 3 young people, one of them a high profile player for the area’s largest and most beloved sports franchise. HUGELY sympathetic victims in a family oriented county. This case has affected hundreds of thousands of people locally. It’s hard to imagine that even a GOOD defense attorney could get this guy off in Orange County.

But all of that doesn’t address the defense’s argument…which is that Andrew Gallo was too drunk to be able to decide he shouldn’t be driving. If that argument were to win a DUI case, it would be used to negate every single DUI case in the future, because it says that a drunk cannot legally determine whether or not he is too drunk to drive. AND…it’s a hit and run, a point often forgotten here. He got out of the car and told his stepbrother to “run, bitch”. He’s thru. And I hope he ends up on a yard with plenty of Orange County boys on it, too.

by firebird81 on Sep 24, 2010 10:04 AM PDT reply actions  

agreed

his defense was basically that since he was blacked out, he can’t be guilty.

protectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpick

by 2pintsofbooze on Sep 24, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

That one actually works, and beautifully I might add.

In college.

"You gotta have nuts." / "Coming Around 3rd, especially if I'm ticked off, that's going to happen." - Torii Hunter

by Commander_Nate on Sep 24, 2010 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

If you can't remember it, it never happened

protectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpick

by 2pintsofbooze on Sep 24, 2010 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

Sometimes they're the ones using it.

O_o

"You gotta have nuts." / "Coming Around 3rd, especially if I'm ticked off, that's going to happen." - Torii Hunter

by Commander_Nate on Sep 24, 2010 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

I fixed it for you

Sometimes most of the time they’re the ones using it

protectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpick

by 2pintsofbooze on Sep 24, 2010 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

not exactly

His defense is, I did not intentionally drive drunk because I was blacked out and could not know what I was doing. He is still on the hook for everything, other than having the implied malice needed for second degree murder. It’s the only argument to be made, and had it not been made, he’d definitely get a new trial. It may work too, since witnesses claim Gallo believed his step brother was his DD. At least throws some doubt out there. I think his step brother should have some culpability in this as well, more on this later though.

This would have no implication on normal DUI cases, there is no mental aspect to a dui. If you are above the legal limit, you are guilty. This would have implications on second degree murder cases. If you are blacked out, and someone hands you the keys and says drive, can you really know what you are doing, what could happen, that you could kill someone, that you signed something saying drunk driving kills people? The law and precedent may say you do know, but we all know that once you get to a certain point in your drunken state, you don’t know which way is up or down.

I don’t know when Gallo’s step brother told Gallo to drive, or if Gallo knew all along he would be driving; but it’s not as cut and dry as Gallo going out alone and getting hammered, then driving back home and running that red light. If someone testified that Gallo knew early he’d be driving and said eff it, and kept drinking, then it is cut and dry. But I don’t recall reading that.

I think he got a competent defense, I think he is guilty, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a few jurors are slow to come around, if they do at all. Depends on what the step brother said, and how much does he even remember anyway? I imagine he wouldn’t be too quick to admit he knew how drunk Gallo was, never blacked out himself, just didn’t want to risk his own dui so he let Gallo drive instead. But I don’t know, I think he’s just as bad. You don’t say you are a DD for a guy who already has a dui, and then decide to get loaded and give the keys to a well seasoned drunk driver. EFF EM BOTH

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 24, 2010 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

I love writing these things, and then needing to edit something in the first fricken line

His defense is, I had a Designated Driver, I didn’t plan on driving before I got drunk, I did not intentionally drive drunk because I was blacked out when I was given the keys…

The only thing his defense attorney tried to do was remove the mental aspect.

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 24, 2010 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

thats what I said

his defense was essentially, I was blacked out, therefore I am not guilty for what I did while I was blacked out.

you can add a lot more words to that argument, but all in all, his argument was that he was blacked out.

protectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpick

by 2pintsofbooze on Sep 24, 2010 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

it's a piece of his argument, an important piece

but it’s not essentially his defense.
You are making it seem like he’s shrugging it all off saying I blacked out I shouldn’t be punished. When he’s really saying, I didn’t plan on driving (no implied malice), I had a DD(no implied malice), and when my DD couldn’t drive I was already blacked out and couldn’t form the requisite implied malice to convict me of 2nd degree murder. That’s just his defense’s attempt to counter the only way the prosecution can get the implied malice, by saying Gallo knew he’d be driving the second his DD started drinking. It’s a giant grey area. If any of the jurors have ever driven to a bar, I’m sure they are having a long hard look in the mirror at some point this weekend. Emotions aside, it’s an interesting argument on both sides – I have no idea what the case law says either at this point. It’s also why manslaughter isn’t being charged right now, because it fits easier into these grey area ones. Would be an hour deliberation if he had just driven himself to the bar, got loaded, then driven back home and killed some people. The DD puts a wrinkle into it. And it’s a pretty big wrinkle I think. I also think we’re arguing semantics over “essentially”, but maybe I’m wrong. Either way, I hope he gets a dirty shiv to the gut. Along with his pos DD fail of a brother

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 25, 2010 3:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's not a big wrinkle at all.

He didn’t use a designated driver. He may not have known how drunk his stepbrother was, but he DID know he was drinking. So, unless the defense wants to convince the jury that he was blacked out after drinking his first beer, it is nothing the jury should take into serious consideration. Designated drivers don’t drink. If you’re just drinking less than everyone else, you are still a drunk driver. He didn’t have a designated driver. He had a drinking buddy.

He also signed that little piece of paper on his previous DUI. The very purpose of having a DUI suspect sign that paper is to establish a 2nd degree murder charge in the future. These cases are tied fairly regularly in California and typically result in convictions. If you want recent precedence a man was just convicted of 2nd Degree murder this Thursday in Orange County. From a legal standpoint, he has no leg whatsoever to stand on. If the jury doesn’t convict him, they are negligent in their duty. Because he will walk.

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

Sorry

to break this to you, but it’s the law: if you are sufficiently blitzed, you are legally incapable of committing murder (forming the necessary mens rea) unless you made the decision beforehand, and the judge presumably so instructed the jury. If, indeed, Gallo did not INTEND to drive until AFTER he was already in that condition…

As I said, that was the precise issue in a case in which I was a juror. There was no question that it was the defendant who walked into the restaurant shot the cook a couple of times, walked out, walked back in and shot him a couple more times, then left. The thing was, there was literally no known motive, and it was established that over the course of the evening, the guy had consumed about a case of beer. He was sauced. We had to determine whether he had decided to kill the guy before he started drinking (or early enough in the drinking to still have his wits about him). We had to trace the guy’s whole evening along a time line to pinpoint when he had made the decision.

It IS a big wrinkle.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

nooo.....

Intoxication can be used as mitigating circumstance, which is what you are talking about. But there are a lot of guys doing time for murder who who killed someone AFTER becoming intoxicated,with no clear intent of doing so beforehand. It’s the jury’s CHOICE whether or not to apply mitigation to the individual situation. It is the difference between the classic definition of 1st and 2nd degree murder. You are legally incapable of committing 1st DEGREE murder under you example, not second degree.

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

An excerpt from the article I am referencing in this post as an example:

When a person commits a crime in a state of voluntary intoxication, that does not result in them acting less criminal than if they’d committed the act as sober," Duarte said. "They are equally culpable in a drunken stupor or sober.

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

reply fail

When a person commits a crime in a state of voluntary intoxication, that does not result in them acting less criminal than if they’d committed the act as sober," Duarte said. "They are equally culpable in a drunken stupor or sober.

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, I'm right

I know the law generally, and I know the law on which we were instructed in that case. It’s not about mitigation; it’s mens rea.

This link actually provides a good explanation of DUI murder.
http://tinyurl.com/2btq64j

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

the whole quote

When a person commits a crime in a state of voluntary intoxication, that does not result in them acting less criminal than if they’d committed the act as sober," Duarte said. "They are equally culpable in a drunken stupor or sober.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Damn

When a person commits a crime in a state of voluntary intoxication, that does not result in them acting less criminal than if they’d committed the act as sober," Duarte said. "They are equally culpable in a drunken stupor or sober.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

FAIL AGAIN

a jury may consider whether the defendant’s level of intoxication affected his mental state — specifically, whether he intended to commit the alleged crime or whether it was merely a careless act. If there’s intent, the culpability is greater — potentially producing a conviction for murder, for example, instead of for manslaughter.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

ALSO

I’ve tried commenting a couple of times, and it keeps cutting off half of what I write.

I was simply noting that the interviewee is presumably discussing Washington State law (based in Bellevue, Wa.), but I imagine Wa. law is similar to Ca. law.

Mens rea = mental state.

That’s why they have you sign that piece of paper when you get a DUI, so they can attempt (in a case like Gallo’s) to show your intent, rather than carelessness.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

your link doesn't support your point.

I see nowhere in there where blackouts are a legitimate defense. It’s nowhere in your link.

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

I never

said the word blackout. I was talking about mens rea.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

well, his attorney is saying he blacked out.

not that he was too drunk to make a responsible decision. I can’t find any examples in the US of anyone successfully arguing they were too intoxicated to know they committed a crime. The only way they could really claim that is if they blacked out, because otherwise they would remember having committed the crime. But a blackout is a form amnesia, not a loss of mental control.

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

We may be

talking about the same things, but using different words.

Better to go directly to the source (the Ca. jury instructions). Specifically, Calcrim. jury instructions #625, Voluntary Intoxication: Effects on Homicide Crimes
(Pen. Code, § 22). "You may consider evidence, if any, of the defendant’s voluntary
intoxication only in a limited way. You may consider that evidence
only in deciding whether the defendant acted with an intent to
kill[,] [or] [the defendant acted with deliberation and
premeditation[,]] [[or] the defendant was unconscious when (he/
she) acted[,]] [or the defendant .]
A person is voluntarily intoxicated if he or she becomes intoxicated
by willingly using any intoxicating drug, drink, or other substance
knowing that it could produce an intoxicating effect, or willingly
assuming the risk of that effect.
You may not consider evidence of voluntary intoxication for any
other purpose.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

possibly....

We’ve just kinda chased that rabbit down, haven’t we?Here’s why I think it’s not good defense in THIS case..the video presented to the jury of Andrew Gallo and his stepbrother drinking beer in a club that night. The video apparently shows them downing 5 beers apiece, two of which were LARGE 3 pint glasses. Andrew Gallo sat next to his “designated driver” and got wasted with him. The notion that he expected his stepbrother to be sober and drive is thrown out the window in that video. He knew SOMEONE was going to be driving intoxicated.

And your excerpt from California law says simply that the jury MAY consider voluntary intoxication, but it doesn’t REQUIRE them to. See what I mean?

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

The video doesn't prove the mental aspect

 Just because he knew his DD was drinking doesn’t establish that he knew he would be driving. Even if he thought his step brother would be driving them drunk, it doesn’t prove the prosecutions case. They need to prove Gallo knew or should have known HE would be driving. That’s why they are taking longer than an hour to decide this. Knowing someone would be driving drunk doesn’t mean anything, otherwise his step brother would be sitting in a cell too.

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 25, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Jurors

do whatever they want, of course, and of course the word “may” is permissive, not obligatory, but that’s not really the issue. The issue is what law applies to the evidence presented. I did not follow the trial that closely; I do not know what the evidence was. I was pointing out the law that applies to those facts, whatever they are.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

murder v. manslaughter

The one time I actually made it onto a jury, that was the issue in the case. Was it murder, or was the defendant so blitzed when he shot the guy (and there was literally no known reason or motive for why the guy did what he did) that he could not form the mens rea necessary for murder (as a jury, we decided that he’d made the plan to kill the guy before he started drinking, and so convicted him of murder; but it took 3 days of deliberation).

by jjackflash on Sep 24, 2010 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

If he gets off, he'll be gone before he goes to another trial for sure

and not “gone” the way I would want him to be gone.

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 24, 2010 10:55 AM PDT reply actions  

I hate to think that prisoners prefer the Angels

but I hope that there are a few fans in his cell block. And I hope that they show Gallo their “appreciation” for his contribution to the team.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Sep 24, 2010 12:52 PM PDT reply actions  

I was kind of surprised how quick the trail went.

If the jury deliberates passed Monday, I might worry a little bit about whether they vote to convict. The case went to the jury late Thursday afternoon and they say if a jury tends to take a long time deliberating the less likely they are to vote to convict.

I hate the Texas Rangers

by 44FAN on Sep 24, 2010 1:07 PM PDT reply actions  

they've already taken longer than I would like.

but they’ve gotta go over each count. With7 counts it can take a while.

by firebird81 on Sep 24, 2010 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

GUILTY.

God needed a starter. RIP #34

by 3rd Echelon on Sep 24, 2010 4:01 PM PDT reply actions  

We know people have addictive tendencies depending on natural and genetic makeup

We know they are held accountable despite this because of free will.

The CEOs of alcohol beverage companies through their own free will deliver a product to a populace where a high percentage of the people who drink are susceptible to alcohol dependency. When drunk, people tend to make poor choices, this is a fact.

The CEOs know this because they are smart and educated. They know people will drink their product and drive drunk because they know alcohol is addictive.

If this guy goes to jail for 50 years, so should every alcohol peddling CEO. Under their own free will, they distribute alcohol to a public knowing that many will drink and drive and kill someone.

You don’t have to make alcohol illegal, just make those responsible for peddling it suffer the same consequences as those who abuse it.

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 6:25 PM PDT reply actions  

correction: nurture instead of natural

or “personal experiences and genetic makeup” instead of “nature and and genetic makeup.” Sorry I didn’t proof read.

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's more of a philosophical argument

Versus a U.S. legal (filthy rich people) argument.

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Take responsibility for your own actions

You brainwashed corporate lackeys (ha ha lackey), have poor uneducated people taking responsibility for their actions while letting the educated rich not take responsibility? You totally missed my argument also!

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’ll start digging ditches on Monday so I can escape my inability to take responsibility.

by RedFog on Sep 24, 2010 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

You're actually still wrong

Look, people who know me personally and probably even some people here at HH can tell you I’m no friend of the corrupt corporate lackeys and CEO’s that you keep trying to pin excessive alcohol consumption on. However, there’s a difference in the type of “corrupt” action you’re trying to point out here and the type I usually get pissed off about.

See, when a bunch of CEO’s or whatever decide it’s a great idea to go and invest in bogus real estate loans meant for tons of people who can’t afford them (but who will be told they qualify) and then sell insurance on those loans to each other, and then again sell insurance on that insurance, all in the interest of making boatloads of short-term cash, and then fail miserably and come begging the taxpayers for hundreds of billions of dollars because “they’re just too big to fail”, then I have a problem. Why? Because that’s the same as me and my old frat buddies betting tons of money on craps in Vegas, losing mightily, and then saying we’re too important to lose that much money so we need public money to stay afloat. We are simply creating wealth out of wealth for ourselves without creating any real economic production and then expecting those that actually do the latter to pick up our bets.

Furthermore, when CEOs or whoever get together and decide it’s a good idea to drill everywhere they can as quickly as possible to get oil and sell it, ignoring environmental regulations and buying off government officials the whole way through, and then have no solution available when they have an accident that causes billions of dollars in economic and environmental damage, but still try to shed responsibility, then I get pissed off. Why? Because that’s like I drilled a hole in the ground to find oil, ignored safety regulations and paid people to ignore my infractions, and then acted like it wasn’t my fault when oil shot everywhere from the hole I unsafely drilled and ruined your livelihood.

The key difference in what you’re saying is that the drunk person follows the same decision making process as the corrupt CEO’s that I get pissed off at. They know what alcohol does and the risks of consuming it, yet they go ahead and do it anyway, and then end up hurting themselves or someone else. That’s the same as creating a market bubble and then letting it burst on everyone else, or digging an unsafe hole in the ground and letting it leak into everyone’s environment. A dumbass is a dumbass whether they are sober and rich, drunk and poor, or anything in between. Keep in mind this is coming from a regular drinker (in fact I’m pretty tipsy right now), and one who has made some bad decisions because of alcohol and been to the hospital and almost jail because of a few of them. Those decisions are, more or less, my fault and nobody elses.

Should the owner of Sierra Nevada and Captain Morgan go to jail because me and some other guy drank a bunch of their product, knowing full well what they are, and decided to start a barroom brawl at 2AM because of this reason or that? No. There’s really no argument to the contrary.

I have one final scenario: I’m not a rich CEO or corporate lackey and most people aren’t. However, I make my own booze and share it regularly with my friends in my house. So do a decent amount of other people. Should I be held responsible for a guy who gets drunk in Fullerton, and then drives and kills 3 people because I brew beer for myself and my friends in San Diego?

Your move.

"You gotta have nuts." / "Coming Around 3rd, especially if I'm ticked off, that's going to happen." - Torii Hunter

by Commander_Nate on Sep 25, 2010 2:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

By that argument

Some people use hammers to kill people.
CEOs know that hammers can kill people. Therefore when someone kills someone with a hammer, the CEOs of Sears/Kmart/Craftsman, Home Depot, and Harbor Freight should be put in jail.

Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch

by red floyd on Sep 24, 2010 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

We need hammers son

Do you NEED alcohol. Your answer is YES by your reply. Give it up.

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

AAA has a good program

If anyone tells you to give up hammers, tell them to go to hell.

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

If AAA has such a good program...

…why can’t Wood hit jackshit?

"Wastin away again in Minor-Leaguer-Ville..."

by Stirrups on Sep 24, 2010 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Use speed like Pete Rose or Roids like Arod

Just a matter of changing drugs. Simple, really.

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't agree with you.

Alcoholic beverages are unique products. I cannot think of other products with the variety of results based on quantity consumed. Compared to other “drugs” alcoholic beverages can be consumed for purposes other than “getting high” (although that is another possibility). You wouldn’t say the same about mushrooms, marijuana, coke, hash, methamphetamine or other narcotics. They are consumed for the sole purpose of “getting high”.
Many people are able to responsibly consume a few drinks and avoid any noticeable impairment. They can also consume these products exclusively for the sensory enjoyment – that is, for the particular flavor of the wine, beer, or mixed drink. Again, that doesn’t apply to other drugs.
If you put “alcohol peddling CEO’s” in jail (as accessories?) for Gallo-type transgressions, the net effect will be the same as outlawing alcoholic beverages. The production then, will not disappear. As during Prohibition, it will simply go underground. It is best left to each adult individual to decide what is best for them, acknowledging that there will no doubt be more jerks like Andew Gallo, and more victims of their irresponsibility. Such are the perils of the freedom to choose.

by sothball on Sep 24, 2010 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Reading into my post what you want?

While ignoring what I said.

Your argument has nothing to do with what I said. What’s the matter, can’t give up something you don’t NEED? For the benifet of ALL?

Can’t believe you guys are all such suckers for corporate greed and have no sympathy for those who suffer from it.

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

us suckers suffer from corporate greed, or

we suffer from something awful in which alcohol was involved, and therefore overreact and clamor to

make those responsible for peddling it suffer the same consequences as those who abuse it
? because it doesn’t sound like you see that distinction.

by cath619 on Sep 24, 2010 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

both suffer the same consequences

that’s what I said

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree

My opinion seems “Mad.” Compared to the Norm. Still, like those crazy people before me, I will continue to prophesize my beliefs.

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

by that logic

should we give up sex because people have sex addictions. We can designate mating times, right? Once a year, to pro-create. Or should we hold the pornography industry accountable because some suffer from a sex addiction? See where the logic is misplaced.

"Carnival Lights/Fourth of July/Boardwalk Talk/In the dead of night/ Always Made you smile/Always made you smile/Always made you smile" -- The Gasight Anthem - "The Patient Ferris Wheel"
http://mattycantfail.blogspot.com

by CarnivalLights on Sep 25, 2010 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, your argument is more anti-corporate rant than reasonable argument or logic.

I most certainly can give up something I don’t need. And I don’t have any problem with you making that argument (i.e., I give up something I don’t need for the benefit of all) so long as you do not coerce others into your point of view. At the end of the argument, I want the power to decide what I need and don’t need (within reason of course), not you or any group of like-minded individuals.

Back to your original point, which was summarized accordingly;

You don’t have to make alcohol illegal, just make those responsible for peddling it suffer the same consequences as those who abuse it.

So, your net goal is to eliminate use of alcohol. Only this time, you want to accomplish the goal through co-prosecution of “alcohol CEO’s”, rather than Prohibition-type legislation. Either way, the end result is the exact same. Right? Or do you believe I still have somehow missed your point?

Assuming I have captured your point, do you think what you argue for will end Gallo-type behavior?

by sothball on Sep 25, 2010 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

Then the flock

Drove drunk?

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

nonsense.

Every car manufacturer knows that people who drive cars tend to crash into other people. Every CEO of every car manufacturer knows that 10’s of thousands of people each and every year are going to die because they used a product that CEO’s company makes. Every automotive CEO knows that thousands of people every year are going to be convicted of vehicular manslaughter as a result. So, by your logic….every CEO of every car manufacturer in the world should also be convicted of vehicular manslaughter.

You can drink alcoholic beverages without drinking enough to get drunk. Millions of people do it every single day. Those who DO get drunk have chosen to do so and the responsibility is 100% their own.

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

In addition to the auto-manufacturers...

…if you buy into vladtheimpaler’s logic, why stop at “alcohol CEO’s”? What about the manufacturer of the bottles, labels, cartons and wrappers? How about the transportation company? What about the place where the alcohol was purchased? The maker of the ice mixed with the drink? I can’t think of any logical argument against criminal prosecution of all of these – and more – if you accept vladtheimpaler’s argument.

They would all then bear some share of responsibility, corporation or other form of business entity.

by sothball on Sep 25, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

The FARMERS

who grow the hops, barley, rice, wheat, corn, whatever.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions  

ALL of the bastards!

They are all responsible for Andrew Gallo getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated. He’s just a victim of American corporate greed!!!

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

most logical argument thus far!

don’t forget Anchor or whoever made the mugs. Without those, your argument can’t hold water beer

People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Sep 25, 2010 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly!

I say we Indict the whole capitalist system!

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome takes the lives of several thusand children every year.

A tragedy of children passing in their sleep. The CEO’s if Simmons, Serta and Sealy all know this. We should hold them responsible for making beds. WE all need to sleep on rocks.

Or maybe it’s the dark. We should probaly outlaw dark, too.

"Wastin away again in Minor-Leaguer-Ville..."

by Stirrups on Sep 26, 2010 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ok you have all convinced me

Anyone who has consumed addictive alcohol then drove a car deserves to go to jail for 50 years.

Rich peddlers are immune.

Alcohol is special and shouldn’t be confused with real drugs.

I’m learning. Keep the words of wisdom coming.

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Sep 24, 2010 9:59 PM PDT reply actions  

Somebody needs a drink

Shall we attack sugar while we are at it?

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 24, 2010 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

ok you have convinced all of us

that we are simply, as you put it, suckers for corporate greed. because thats what us Halo fans are all about, helping out the big corporations. going off your logic, the CEO of Verizon should have to serve the same sentence as some 17 year old who ran over a kid in their car while texting. rifuckingdiculous.

you’ve brought your ludicrous rant to the wrong place man. if you don’t like alcohol, more power to you. but don’t judge others who don’t see things the way you do. that is what douchebags do, and I’ve read enough of your posts to know you aren’t a douchbag. or maybe you are, ^^this^^ post is certainly not helping your case.

p.s. go angels

protectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpick

by 2pintsofbooze on Sep 24, 2010 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Alcohol is delicious.

Maybe your parents should have taught you that, instead of planting weird, subversive nonsense in your head.

What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.

by clover_black on Sep 25, 2010 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

What difference should it make whether the peddler is rich or poor?

Why would that even be a consideration? Perhaps you can provide the inherent rationale of that statement for those of us lacking your keen wisdom?

What makes alcihol unique is that it can be consumed for purposes other than any effect a “drug” induces. I enjoy wine on a regular basis, yet I never get drunk or impaired from it’s ingestion. Can the same be said for marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine or any other drug you name?

In this sense, you are correct. Alcohol is special.

by sothball on Sep 25, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

Impaired

Sorry, but even one glass of wine will impair you somewhat.

Also, your attempt to distinguish pot from booze fails as well. While I have no quarrel with the concept that people can enjoy the flavor of alcoholic beverages and therefore consume them for reasons in addition to their intoxicating effects (like you, I enjoy wine regularly, and have been known to enjoy the flavors of a nice rum), there are people for whom the act of smoking is, itself, pleasurable, and who enjoy the flavors of weed (and tobacco, for that matter).

I do not know if the same can be said about coke or meth or quaaludes. But don’t lump marijuana in with drugs.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

yeah...

I would like to find one person who smokes marijuana strictly for the flavor. It is impossible to smoke without becoming intoxicated, unless you don’t inhale. seriously, where have you ever met someone who spends that much money just to enjoy the taste or pot? And it IS a drug, as are alcohol and tobacco. If you had said don’t lump it in with HARD drugs, you would have had a point. No one smokes weed for the flavor.

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's a PLANT

it’s not a drug.

Personally, I like the smell of it. I also like the smell of burning sage, and some incense. I don’t like the smell of burning hair, though.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

most drugs are plants.

Cocaine is a plant. Heroin and all the opiates are derived from a plant. Most drugs are plants or derivatives of plants. So, you liketh smell of it..that’s ot the same as smoking it without the intention of getting intoxicated now, is it?

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm just saying

that plants are not drugs.

Cocaine is derived from a plant, but it’s derived through a chemical process. Heroin and opiates are derived from the plants as well. There’s a big difference between a naturally occurring plant and a product derived from applying some kind of chemical process.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

The "impairment" from one glass of wine will vary, depending...

…upon the amount of time allotted for it’s consumption. I will usually sip a glass over 60-90 minutes. If I am impaired after the glass is consumed, it is negligilbe at best. I’d bet I would be well below the .08 standard to be considered legally intoxicated.

I concede your point on marijuana. But then, do you know anyone that smokes marijuana for sensory enjoyment, exclusive of any mind-altering effects?

by sothball on Sep 25, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

Exclusive?

No.

But I don’t know many people who enjoy the taste of wine, but do not enjoy the buzz (and I’m not talking about getting completely sauced). As I suspect that the enjoyment (of wine) is also enhanced by how the alcohol affects the pleasure parts of the brain, not just the flavor.

If you like wine, by the way, you should try going up to Santa Barbara wine country (it’s pretty close) either in April for their vintners’ festival or in two weeks for the harvest festival. They get most of the wineries in the area to participate. Your ticket to the even lets you sample the goods from as many of the wineries as you can handle, plus food from area restaurants, etc., and they have shuttle bus service to the event from a couple of area hotels so you don’t have to drive!

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Mrs. Sothball and I have ben enjoying wine all over this state.

It’s remarkable how wineries have propagated throughout California. Over the past 5-6 years, we take an extended weekend in October and travel to a different part of the state and sample the local wineries.

So far, we have been as far south as Julian & Temecula, and as far north as Napa Valley. There are other “pockets” we have visited…Sierra foothills (we stayed in Murphy’s Camp), and Paso Robles. We couldn’t believe the growth in wineries around Paso Robles!

Santa Barbara sounds good. That may be the destination this year. Thanks for the tip.

by sothball on Sep 25, 2010 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Solvang!

Spending a day there and then moving up the coast to SLO county is a good way to spend a wine lover’s weekend.

by firebird81 on Sep 26, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

That's where

we stay. We’ve actually never made it up to SLO and Paso Robles. One of these days.

by jjackflash on Sep 26, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

you gotta do it.

And stay downtown SLO. Go up on a thursday so you see the farmer’s market, which is really just a big street festival downtown.

by firebird81 on Sep 26, 2010 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

my wife and I

did SB wine country just last month. it was a great time. I highly recommend!!

protectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpickprotectedpick

by 2pintsofbooze on Sep 26, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

Paso Robles wine travel

Informative, recent article here.

Ended up reading lots about the place; sounds like a pretty laid-back scene.

(/endshamelessplugformagazine)

by cath619 on Sep 27, 2010 6:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

Estancia from Paso Robles is my favorite table red.

But if you want see a boom in wineries and vineyards, pull off at highway 246 in Buellton. Vineyards are sprouting up all over the place to the west on the way to Lompoc throughout hte Santa Rita Appellation, and the wineries are popping up in Buellton and Solvang like crazy.

"Wastin away again in Minor-Leaguer-Ville..."

by Stirrups on Sep 27, 2010 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

I fail to understand...

how we are “brainwashed corporate lackeys.” Because we don’t hold CEO’s accountable for everything that is happening in the world? Is it McDonalds fault that people are fat? No. There is such a thing as a right to choose.

Look, I’m not a fan of big business. At all. In fact, any time I can slam on corporate America, I absolutely do. But come on. There is no way that you can hold the alcohol industry accountable for what Andrew Gallo did. He COULD have stopped drinking. He COULD have gone to the liquor store and drank in the safety of his home. But he didn’t. And if anything, he was being egged on by his brother/cousin (sorry, I’m really tired and am too lazy to go back and look at which one is the correct label), and not the alcohol. Yes, the alcohol impaired his decision making. But by no means did the alcohol industry impair it. Gallo did, on his own.

Yes, people go to bar’s to drink where their are advertisments everywhere for alcohol. But, there are also designated driver advertisments, there are DUI warnings, and there are alcohol warnings. Actually, I think the alcohol industry has done a fair job of promoting the “please drink responsibly” message. And I’ve been at bars where the designated driver gets free soda’s and stuff. And as my good friend Commander Nate pointed out, bar’s will throw you out if you’ve been drinking too much. They’ll also call you a cab. At one bar, I got drunk and the bartender wouldn’t let me leave unless I had someone driving me home, which I did. So there’s that.

Look, when I go out to a bar, I know my limits. And shoud I ever choose to exceed my limitations and drive home after drinking way too much, that is a decision I would have made on my own, not one influenced by an industry. It’s not as if I would say, “Goddamn that Guinness company. They FORCED their beers down my throat with their subliminal advertising.” No. I freely chose to drink those Guinnesses.

Look man, I get what you’re saying. But I think it’s a cop out. You have to hold people responsible for their actions. I rarely post on here. I read quite a bit, but rarely post. I felt the need to post. I’ll end this post with a quote from the late Joe Strummer:

"When you blame yourself, you learn from it. If you blame someone else, you don’t learn nothing, cause hey, it’s not your fault, it’s his fault, over there."

"Carnival Lights/Fourth of July/Boardwalk Talk/In the dead of night/ Always Made you smile/Always made you smile/Always made you smile" -- The Gasight Anthem - "The Patient Ferris Wheel"
http://mattycantfail.blogspot.com

by CarnivalLights on Sep 25, 2010 2:08 AM PDT reply actions  

also...

i wish i would have spell checked before accidently clicking post. Sigh. Is it too much to ask for an edit button.

"Carnival Lights/Fourth of July/Boardwalk Talk/In the dead of night/ Always Made you smile/Always made you smile/Always made you smile" -- The Gasight Anthem - "The Patient Ferris Wheel"
http://mattycantfail.blogspot.com

by CarnivalLights on Sep 25, 2010 2:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

He got away

with a slap in the wrist the first time. He signed a freakin piece of paper that stated if he drove drunk again, he might kill someone. Well, his ‘black-out’ defense is a crock, he never should’ve drank again, but he choose to, so therefore, he choose to kill those three kids. He wasn’t grateful enough or smart enough for the chance he was given to make good of his life the first time he was busted with the DUI, he threw his own life away, now he can sit in jail for at least 50 years. If this a-hole walks free, then you know Orange County has turned in Liberal BS land, along with most of Kallleeefforrnnniaaauhhh. I dont give one rap about this Gallo guys future, and how dare he have an Italian sounding surname?

by TSamn15 on Sep 25, 2010 9:33 AM PDT reply actions  

so by drinking

he chose to kill? you don’t need to get caught drinking and driving to all of a sudden be put on notice that it can kill someone. It can happen the first time you ever do it. It can happen anytime you do it. Just because he had a prior DUI doesn’t mean every time he drank in the future he was choosing to kill someone.
Guess there are a lot of would be murderers out there. Uncle Arte makes millions off them every season.

Even if he isn’t found guilty of 2nd degree murder, he will still be convicted of manslaughter, and likely get 15-20 all things considered.

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 25, 2010 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

" Just because he had a prior DUI doesn’t mean every time he drank in the future he was choosing to kill someone."

By signing that piece of paper he was required to sign after his last DUI, everytime he drank in the future he was choosing to POSSIBLY kill someone.

by LanaBanana on Sep 25, 2010 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

It is EXACTLY what it means, legally.

He signed a piece of paper basically agreeing that if he drinks and drives it could kill someone. So, by his own admission he is showing a complete lack of concern for human life by getting behind the wheel drunk. This is a common legal practice in California and a common charge. He need no have the specific intent of killing someone to be guilty of 2nd degree murder in this case. He only needs to be engaged in dangerous conduct with an obvious lack of concern for human life. Driving drunk is dangerous conduct. Driving drunk on a suspended license for a DUI that you were ordered to sign an acknowledgement that driving drunk can kill a human qualifies as an obvious lack of concern for human life.

Guys, it’s fairly straightforward here. There are other people in California with 2nd degree murder convictions for doing exactly what Andrew Gallo has done. They just convicted a man THURSDAY in Orange County Superior Court of second degree murder for doing what Andrew Gallo has done. My belief is that if the jury lets him off it will because they aren’t comfortable with the severity of the charge….but there are reams of precedence here. This isn’t some groundbreaking case we’re talking about. It is standard alcohol related vehicular homicide.

However, seeing the arguments we’re all engaging in here, I can only IMAGINE what is going on in the deliberation room!

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

once again you miss the fact that

he did not leave his house intent on driving drunk.

that is what separates him from the run of the mill 2nd degree murder dui cases.

signing the paper means nothing, people get second degree murder convictions off their first offense, without ever signing such a paper. BUT, those people leave with the intent to drink and drive. His case is different, he didn’t make that decision, arguably, until he was in no capacity to “know” anything.

if you can;t see the distinction, I don’t know what to tell you, but the jury obviously know the difference because it didn’t take them 45 minutes to decide.

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 25, 2010 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

the jury is decidingon SEVEN different charges.

We have no idea why they haven’t reached a quick verdict. And here’s a little thing YOU’RE missing… NO ONE leaves the house planning to drive drunk, bud! It’s no different than any other DUI case.

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

you have no idea what implied malice is

too bad “bud”

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 25, 2010 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

NO ONE leaves the house INTENDING to drive drunk.

So should we have no DUI 2nd degree murder cases ever?

Of course not.

When someone knows the consequences of drunk driving—AS GALLO DID—and still ALLOWS themselves to get blasted anyway and allows themselves to get behind the wheel, they have manifested a conscious disregard for human life. Thus 2nd degree murder is appropriate.

Light up that halo! RIP, Nick.

by Clutch on Sep 25, 2010 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

people do leave the house in their car, intending to drink, and then know they will be driving home

the only question is how much they will drink, how long they will wait to sober up, etc. Will they decide to leave their car over night if they get blasted? In Gallo’s case, the distinction isn’t needed should he have driven himself to the bars that night. Again, that’s the difference between his case and the others. To brush it off is to not understand the mental requirements of murder or the recent decisions.

Doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be tried as a murderer, doesn’t mean he is innocent, it just means it’s not the same as the recent decisions per se.

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 26, 2010 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Are you even following the case?

His attorney basically based her defense strategy on throwing different theories out there to see if one sticks. She started her case by claiming that both drivers were drunk and it was just a case of “fate” that he happened to be the one who hit her, that just a slight change in timing she would have t-boned HIM and he would have been the victim! She did this AFTER the judge ordered that Courtney Stewart’s condition was inadmissable. Her defense was a mess, so bad that he may have grounds for appeal based on her ineptitude!

by firebird81 on Sep 26, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

I heard about that

worth a shot. While it’s classless and legally irrelevant, she is just trying to show that before you demonize her client, think about what this other person did. If Courtney had killed someone that night, she actually has the cookie cutter implied malice. Knew she was going to drive before drinking, had drinks, drove her own car, left her house drunk with 3 other people in her car, etc. The law doesn’t care, it’s well established. The judge is correct in not allowing it, but lawyers will do whatever they can for their clients. So what may look sloppy and inept to you, actually was what his lawyer should do. It’s also why people hate defense attorneys. I’d expect an appeal if he’s found guilty, but not based on incompetent council. It’s a hard one to prove, unless substance abuse is involved.

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 26, 2010 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

well...her BAC .06

So…it’s really hard to discern whether she was actually intoxicated or not, but legally she would be simply because of zero tolerance for minors. It would be interesting to see how that played out in another case, tho.

by firebird81 on Sep 26, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

she was underage?

didn’t remember that. At any rate, there isn’t much of a defense for Gallo. What he got was good enough I would think. He’s going away for 25 or 50, depending on what he ultimately is guilty of, 2nd degree now, or manslaughter 3 months from now. I did read his attorney argued that Gallo wasn’t even driving, his stepbrother had injuries that matched the interior damage on the driver’s side, and some other weird theories. Not much to work with, but covered all bases, as ridiculous as it seems.

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 26, 2010 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

She was 20.

Yeah, she did all that and I can see your point that she covered all bases, but doesn’t it run the risk of coming off to the jury as nothing more than an act of desperation, rather than a solid case for her client? In jury trials you usually want to be the one who tells the best story, no?

by firebird81 on Sep 26, 2010 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes

What the defense wants to do is craft a plausible story while raising doubts about the prosecution’s version. What she has done is raise doubts about any story leaving the prosecution’s as the only realistic version of events.

This business about not being sure who was driving is ludicrous. Her own friendly witnesses know who was driving and they will be forced to either tell the truth making the lawyer look bad or tell a lie invalidating their own testimony.
Gallo was too drunk to know that he shouldn’t be driving, but he could make the decision to tell everyone to run away?

by Barca on Sep 27, 2010 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's irrelevant and has a strong likelihood of unfairly prejudicing the jury

Therefore she should not be making the argument in the first place.

Add to it that the judge specifically instructed her before trial that she was not to bring it up and she should be held in contempt of court and there should possibly even be a mistrial. Further, she should be referred to the CA State Bar for discipline on the ethical violation.

Light up that halo! RIP, Nick.

by Clutch on Sep 26, 2010 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Surprised she didn't save it for closing

if you’re going to damage the jury, mine as well wait until the very end and really piss the judge off.

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 26, 2010 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think in closing you can't mention evidence that hasn't been brought in earlier.

Surprised that would have stopped her, though.

Light up that halo! RIP, Nick.

by Clutch on Sep 26, 2010 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

you can't

especially evidence deemed inadmissible in a pretrial hearing.
cheating ain’t trying is hard to fit into the ethical gray area, but she probably isn’t losing sleep.

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 26, 2010 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nah, that happens all the time. The judge will have to deal with her.

by Barca on Sep 27, 2010 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Al Capone says “Hello”.

Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch

by red floyd on Sep 29, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yup.

Just another example of people with good intentions making things worse, much worse.

by sothball on Sep 29, 2010 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Im not saying bring back prohibition or make it impossible for people to legally get alcohol

Im saying make people get a license to consume alcohol or put it on the distributors to limit their customers consumption by making them responsible for the customers actions once they reach this point of irrational, uncontrollable behavior.
Hell, close public consuption and make people drink in their homes. Sure they can still go to parties and get drunk, but then at least someone who ought to be concerned about the person should be around.

I dont know, its just a horribly selfish argument to say that they couldnt control themselves so they arent responsible.

by Balls and Strikes on Sep 30, 2010 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hell, close public consuption and make people drink in their homes. Sure they can still go to parties and get drunk, but then at least someone who ought to be concerned about the person should be around.

that doesn’t work now

People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Oct 4, 2010 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yes indeed

He CHOOSE to kill. He knew the consequences. He agreed to sign the paper that the judge presented to him stating that his drinking could result in the killing of someone or persons. He drank, he drove, therefore, he choose to kill. My statements shouldn’t even be an argument, or an extra explanation. He choose to do this, PERIOD. Pass the maxis.

by TSamn15 on Sep 25, 2010 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Here is California's legal definition of 2nd degree murder.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion” or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

Notice that malice or intent are not required.

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 10:33 AM PDT reply actions  

Intent

is required. The “lack of concern” is basically intent.

by jjackflash on Sep 25, 2010 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

exactly

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 25, 2010 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

the burdon is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

there is no assumption.
it has to be proved, a) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and b) obvious lack of concern for human life

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 25, 2010 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

no argument there.

they have. It should be fairly open and shut. Standard case for this type of crime.

by firebird81 on Sep 25, 2010 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

and i agree that he showed no concern for human life

but, it’s not as easy as a split second emotional choice, not with the legal arguments involved.

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 25, 2010 5:45 PM PDT reply actions  

If you agree that he showed no concern for human life

Then you agree that he committed second degree murder—for that is the very definition.

Light up that halo! RIP, Nick.

by Clutch on Sep 25, 2010 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm taking Crim Law right now

And it’s fun to spot the other clearly legally trained individuals on this site.

by linkbruin on Sep 26, 2010 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

you're a criminal law student?

Let me ask you this. Someone here said he will at least be convicted of manslaughter, but the way I read California law is that only applies if the judge gives the jury specific permission to find him guilty of a lesser charge, which means if he isn’t convicted of 2nd degree murder he may walk. What’s the truth?

by firebird81 on Sep 26, 2010 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

Having taken crim law and worked for an appellate judge

I can tell you—You are right that THIS jury cannot find him guilty of manslaughter because he was not charged with it. The judge can’t even give permission for the jury to find him guilty of manslaughter because, again, he was not charged with it. However, because manslaughter is not a lesser included charge of second degree murder (see People v. Sanchez [thanks jjflash]), in the event that Gallo is acquitted of second degree murder Price can turn around and immediately charge him with manslaughter without violating the double jeopardy rule.

Also, link, where you going to law school?

Light up that halo! RIP, Nick.

by Clutch on Sep 26, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think we're either looking at a conviction or a hung jury...

instead of an acquittal. I would imagine that 10 or 11 jurors are sitting there ready to convict and one or two are holding out, maybe based on evidence, maybe based on their own predispositions (?) having little or nothing to do with the actual evidence. (tends to be how juries work). So, if the jury is hung, what are Susan Price’s options beyond re-trying for 2nd degree murder?

by firebird81 on Sep 26, 2010 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

Right.

There are very few acquittals.
The DA’s office will evaluate the convictions obtained and length of sentences. If they are unsatisfied, they will evaluate the cost of a new trial and likelihood of conviction. Since this is a high profile case, there is significant chance that they would re-try the case. At that time the Prosecution can try Gallo for 2nd degree murder, manslaughter or both (leaving the option for the jury/judge [if no jury]) since he was not acquitted.

by Barca on Sep 27, 2010 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

I went to my namesake for undergrad

I’m attending one of the 3 other LA schools right now, if I remember correctly you attend an LA school as well?

by linkbruin on Sep 27, 2010 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I do!

Your namesake, as it turns out.

Light up that halo! RIP, Nick.

by Clutch on Sep 28, 2010 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

while these arguments are very interesting (and some entertaining)

right now all of it is in the hands of people who are NOT trained in the complexities of the law. They are regular people such as myself who merely know right from wrong. Or at least that’s what I’m hoping for. Look what OJ’s jury did. (that’s a whole other clusterf*k though).

People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby

by ladybug on Sep 26, 2010 11:50 AM PDT reply actions  

exactly.

And all we can really hope for is there isn’t one person on the jury who refuses to convict because of their own personal biases. I AM heartened that this is in Orange County, where juries are NOT known for letting offenders off, vs. LA County where they ARE.

by firebird81 on Sep 26, 2010 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

guilty 3 counts 2nd degree murder

Somewhere, right now, Mickey Hatcher is ruining a swing.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Sep 27, 2010 10:54 AM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Halos Heaven is the Number #1 Angels Fan Blog according to QUANTCAST. Our Angels Fan Site is YOUR Angels Fan Community!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Summation of the Angels 2012 season so far
Sinatra2_small
Sign the petition to end "Buttercup"
Angelsbathroom_small
JCVW: Vernon Wells Has Been a Consistent .222 Hitter Since 2010

Recent FanPosts

Morales-mainx-large_small
Albert Pujols – A Man of Faith
Kendry_morales_small
The Most Frightening Word in Baseball: "Rebuilding"
Avatar_small
By The Numbers: MLB Starting Pitchers
Small
Angel Games Boring?
Angelmike_small
Terry Smith. You make the call.
Nick_small
Are the Angels the anti-Rangers?
Wrigley_field_small
A Serious top 5 of why Pujols is below the Mathis line.
Angelmike_small
The Top Ten Reasons Albert Pujols is hitting below 200

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Leaders of the Free World

4323_1105939621665_1622022962_290465_5300842_n_small Rev Halofan

Mostinterstingman_small cupie

Tn96_small WiHaloFan

Whammy10_small blast21dave

Fearless Crew

N1222371_8709_small scottnak

Halos2_small Stirrups

Anarangels_small Mayheminthehood

Cant-tell-if-trolling-or-just-very-stupid_small linkbruin

Avatar_small rghan

Alternate-club-logo-no-highlight1_small RexTookMyStash

Celebrity Chefs

306996053509_0_0_small PhiSlamma

Angelsbathroom_small mattwelch

Angels_ywc_album_small yeswecan

34_adenhart_small RallyMonkey5

Userpic-105-100x100_small Suboptimal

The_prior_art_cover_small Turks Teeth