Gallo Trial Goes to Jury

emotionally, I don’t think he has ANY rights

the job laying tile and the relief check

I mean, thats pretty awesome.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.

…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?

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.

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

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?