Would You Convict?

[Madeline]

Cecil Conner was extremely drunk when, at two in the morning he got behind the wheel of a car. His girlfriend's five year old son was with him. Less than an hour later, he crashed the car into a tree and the child was killed. He is on trial for aggravated drunken driving, and evidence has been introduced to show his blood alcohol was .208 at the time of the crash.

Case closed?

Not exactly. Though the prosecutor sought to exclude this evidence, here are some additional facts the jury will hear:

The child's mother had come to collect Cecil from his friend's house because, after drinking all day, Cecil felt he was too drunk to drive. The police stopped the car and the girlfriend was arrested for driving on a suspended license.

Having now no safe way to get home (and having the care of that child), Cecil called friends, desperate for another ride. However, the police grew impatient and told Cecil if he did not drive away immediately, he would be arrested as well. Cecil claims he told the police he was drunk but they did not seem to care.

It seems to me, the people who should be on trial here are the cops and not the driver (assuming all these facts are correct).

Lawyer: Drunk driver called friends for help before fatal crash - chicagotribune.com

What say you?

 

[R.C. Christian]

Very interesting.

 

[Grace]

He should have still refused to drive, whether arrested or not, whether the cops cared or not. So now the kid is dead because he didn't want to go to jail too. He is guilty, and the cops are accessory to the crime in question.

That is, IF the facts are as stated..which we won't know until the trial.

 

[Madeline]

He should have still refused to drive, whether arrested or not, whether the cops cared or not. So now the kid is dead because he didn't want to go to jail too. He is guilty, and the cops are accessory to the crime in question.

That is, IF the facts are as stated..which we won't know until the trial.

I hear you. But I also can believe that a law abiding person, drunk off his ass, confused and unable to reach a friend who could drive, pressured by the cops to drive home -- such a person would have followed their instructions against his better judgment.

BTW, though of course we do need the facts proven at trial, the behavior of the police who stopped the girlfriend and arrested her, then ordered Conners to drive home is not in issue. Not really.

Cecil Conner: Officer who gave keys to driver before fatal crash testifies - chicagotribune.com

IMO, the prosecutor in this case should be hauled up before the state bar's ethics committee. At the very least, he should be charging the police involved with a crime -- reckless endangerment or negligent homicide.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The system always tries to protect their own. It's extremely pathetic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Somebody is obviously lying, and the jury needs to hear all the facts. I know there would be no way I would find him guilty if he went from being fine to having a strong odor of alcohol in less than 40 minutes unless someone could explain where he got that alcohol. No wonder the judge wants to keep the evidence out of court.

 

[syrenn]

Driving drunk. Guilty.

 

[uscitizen]

He should have still refused to drive, whether arrested or not, whether the cops cared or not. So now the kid is dead because he didn't want to go to jail too. He is guilty, and the cops are accessory to the crime in question.

That is, IF the facts are as stated..which we won't know until the trial.

this.

sounds like a couple of drunks that did not have any business with a child anyway.
And they guy got too drunk to drive knowing his wife? had a suspended liscence?
And sounds like he was already driving drunk or how would the cops have told him to drive away?

A fine bunch. Yep I would convict him, but maybe prosecute the cops as well.

 

[Intense]

Cecil Conner was extremely drunk when, at two in the morning he got behind the wheel of a car. His girlfriend's five year old son was with him. Less than an hour later, he crashed the car into a tree and the child was killed. He is on trial for aggravated drunken driving, and evidence has been introduced to show his blood alcohol was .208 at the time of the crash.

Case closed?

Not exactly. Though the prosecutor sought to exclude this evidence, here are some additional facts the jury will hear:

The child's mother had come to collect Cecil from his friend's house because, after drinking all day, Cecil felt he was too drunk to drive. The police stopped the car and the girlfriend was arrested for driving on a suspended license.

Having now no safe way to get home (and having the care of that child), Cecil called friends, desperate for another ride. However, the police grew impatient and told Cecil if he did not drive away immediately, he would be arrested as well. Cecil claims he told the police he was drunk but they did not seem to care.

It seems to me, the people who should be on trial here are the cops and not the driver (assuming all these facts are correct).

Lawyer: Drunk driver called friends for help before fatal crash - chicagotribune.com

What say you?

Why was She pulled over in the first place??? Why was he drinking so heavily while responsible for the boy??? He shouldn't have driven. The complications may contribute to a reduced sentence. The Cop's on scene have some explaining to do, too.

 

[Ernie S.]

Poor Ceicil is guilty, no way around that, but I see a big payday on the way for the child's mother.

 

[Missourian]

Cecil Conner was extremely drunk when, at two in the morning he got behind the wheel of a car. His girlfriend's five year old son was with him. Less than an hour later, he crashed the car into a tree and the child was killed. He is on trial for aggravated drunken driving, and evidence has been introduced to show his blood alcohol was .208 at the time of the crash.

Case closed?

Not exactly. Though the prosecutor sought to exclude this evidence, here are some additional facts the jury will hear:

The child's mother had come to collect Cecil from his friend's house because, after drinking all day, Cecil felt he was too drunk to drive. The police stopped the car and the girlfriend was arrested for driving on a suspended license.

Having now no safe way to get home (and having the care of that child), Cecil called friends, desperate for another ride. However, the police grew impatient and told Cecil if he did not drive away immediately, he would be arrested as well. Cecil claims he told the police he was drunk but they did not seem to care.

It seems to me, the people who should be on trial here are the cops and not the driver (assuming all these facts are correct).

Lawyer: Drunk driver called friends for help before fatal crash - chicagotribune.com

What say you?

Something is rotten in Denmark.

It took Cecil 40 minutes to drive 2 miles ? I could WALK two miles CARRYING a five year old in 40 minutes.

But cecil was driving fast enough to kill a child in a car seat.

I have a feeling Cecil stopped for a pint or five in between the cops and the tree.

Plus, the story just doesn't jibe. Even if the cops told me to drive or go to jail, fine, I slowly drive around the corner and park...then I wait until someone can come get me or I call a cab or take the bus.

This is Chicago Heights...I've been there a hundred times, the corner of 394 and US-30...it's not like they were pulled over on some deserted backroad...this is a urban suburb just south of Interstate 80/94...the buses run thru there day and night.

 

[AllieBaba]

Driving drunk. Guilty.

Wait a minute...
Allegedly:
He wasn't the one behind the wheel initially.
He told the cops he was drunk and didn't want to drive.
The cops coerced him into driving anyway.

If that's REALLY the way it happened, "coercion" is key. If police intimidated him into engaging in dangerous behavior when he was incapacitated, the fault lies with them.

It's a big if. I'm not a big cop fan but I know of very few who would require a drunk man to drive a car with a kid in it. All the cops I know would be on the phone pronto to child welfare to pick up the kid, and glad to do it.

 

[Missourian]

From the article....At 3:15 a.m., about 40 minutes after police handed Conner his girlfriend’s keys, he crashed into an evergreen tree about two miles away in Steger.

 

[Madeline]

It is an interesting set of facts, isn't it? I am very disturbed that the prosecutor tried to exclude all evidence of the coercion, and that the cops involved have not been charged. With the caveat that this supposes all the facts as supposed can be proven, IMO, Conners should not be convicted.

 

[zzzz]

Just going by the facts posted here I would say that the driver's judgment was impaired by alcohol and that the people in authority who we are to obey at all times ordered him to drive home. The very existance of a cop telling you what to do is intimidating to most people and under threat of arrest (for what I do not know, maybe PI?) would you follow his orders? If the cops forced him to drive under the influence (wonder if they had a camera in the car) then I would think he would be absolved of anything that happened after that if he went straight home. What happened in those 40 minutes, was he driving slow, did he pass out a time or two or did he stop off and get some more juice. Without all the facts it is hard to come to a just decision.

 

[Missourian]

It is an interesting set of facts, isn't it? I am very disturbed that the prosecutor tried to exclude all evidence of the coercion, and that the cops involved have not been charged. With the caveat that this supposes all the facts as supposed can be proven, IMO, Conners should not be convicted.

I disagree, Conners defense is "I knew it was wrong but was coerced by a person of authority."

I've heard that defense before....at Nuremburg.

They had fears too, not of being arrest, but of being executed themselves.

"I was just following orders." doesn't pass muster any more today than it did in 1945.

 

[Sherry]

Cecil Conner was extremely drunk when, at two in the morning he got behind the wheel of a car. His girlfriend's five year old son was with him. Less than an hour later, he crashed the car into a tree and the child was killed. He is on trial for aggravated drunken driving, and evidence has been introduced to show his blood alcohol was .208 at the time of the crash.

Case closed?

Not exactly. Though the prosecutor sought to exclude this evidence, here are some additional facts the jury will hear:

The child's mother had come to collect Cecil from his friend's house because, after drinking all day, Cecil felt he was too drunk to drive. The police stopped the car and the girlfriend was arrested for driving on a suspended license.

Having now no safe way to get home (and having the care of that child), Cecil called friends, desperate for another ride. However, the police grew impatient and told Cecil if he did not drive away immediately, he would be arrested as well. Cecil claims he told the police he was drunk but they did not seem to care.

It seems to me, the people who should be on trial here are the cops and not the driver (assuming all these facts are correct).

Lawyer: Drunk driver called friends for help before fatal crash - chicagotribune.com

What say you?

Something is rotten in Denmark.

It took Cecil 40 minutes to drive 2 miles ? I could WALK two miles CARRYING a five year old in 40 minutes.

But cecil was driving fast enough to kill a child in a car seat.

I have a feeling Cecil stopped for a pint or five in between the cops and the tree.

Plus, the story just doesn't jibe. Even if the cops told me to drive or go to jail, fine, I slowly drive around the corner and park...then I wait until someone can come get me or I call a cab or take the bus.

This is Chicago Heights...I've been there a hundred times, the corner of 394 and US-30...it's not like they were pulled over on some deserted backroad...this is a urban suburb just south of Interstate 80/94...the buses run thru there day and night.

I agree.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cecil Conner was extremely drunk when, at two in the morning he got behind the wheel of a car. His girlfriend's five year old son was with him. Less than an hour later, he crashed the car into a tree and the child was killed. He is on trial for aggravated drunken driving, and evidence has been introduced to show his blood alcohol was .208 at the time of the crash.

Case closed?

Not exactly. Though the prosecutor sought to exclude this evidence, here are some additional facts the jury will hear:

The child's mother had come to collect Cecil from his friend's house because, after drinking all day, Cecil felt he was too drunk to drive. The police stopped the car and the girlfriend was arrested for driving on a suspended license.

Having now no safe way to get home (and having the care of that child), Cecil called friends, desperate for another ride. However, the police grew impatient and told Cecil if he did not drive away immediately, he would be arrested as well. Cecil claims he told the police he was drunk but they did not seem to care.

It seems to me, the people who should be on trial here are the cops and not the driver (assuming all these facts are correct).

Lawyer: Drunk driver called friends for help before fatal crash - chicagotribune.com

What say you?

If the facts are correct, then Cecil Conner is guilty of felony drunk driving. The officer(s) involved, if the facts are correct, are culpable for misfeasance; the agency would at a minimum be found to have liability and the officers culpable for gross negligence.
Of course the officers would claim 'failure to train' so the civil action would be long and interesting. Usually deep pockets pay.
As for the agency reaction, the officers involved would be investigated and if found guilty, fired.

 

[Madeline]

It is an interesting set of facts, isn't it? I am very disturbed that the prosecutor tried to exclude all evidence of the coercion, and that the cops involved have not been charged. With the caveat that this supposes all the facts as supposed can be proven, IMO, Conners should not be convicted.

I disagree, Conners defense is "I knew it was wrong but was coerced by a person of authority."

I've heard that defense before....at Nuremburg.

They had fears too, not of being arrest, but of being executed themselves.

"I was just following orders." doesn't pass muster any more today than it did in 1945.

Humm, that's a different POV, Missourian. Interesting. But to be guilty of most crimes, a person needs to have the requisite intent. IYO, can someone that drunk form the intent to drive whilst impaired?

Can I infer from your post that you see no criminal liability on the part of the police as well?

 

[Missourian]

It is an interesting set of facts, isn't it? I am very disturbed that the prosecutor tried to exclude all evidence of the coercion, and that the cops involved have not been charged. With the caveat that this supposes all the facts as supposed can be proven, IMO, Conners should not be convicted.

*
I disagree, Conners defense is "I knew it was wrong but was coerced by a person of authority."
*
I've heard that defense before....at Nuremburg.
*
They had fears too, not of being arrest, but of being executed themselves.
*
"I was just following orders." doesn't pass muster any more today than it did in 1945.

*
Humm, that's a different POV, Missourian. Interesting. But to be guilty of most crimes, a person needs to have the requisite intent. IYO, can someone that drunk form the intent to drive whilst impaired?
*
Can I infer from your post that you see no criminal liability on the part of the police as well?

No, if he said "I'm too drunk to drive" or something along those lines and the police forced him to drive anyway, they are of course culpable.

But, IMO, that just sounds ridiculous...the police arrest the girl for driving while suspended...only to coerce a drunk to drive while under the influence/while intoxicated?

That dog don't hunt.