Would You Convict?

[Madeline]

It is puzzling, and I'll admit I didn't focus on the time lapse until you pointed it out. If this had happened in Ohio, I'd feel confident in saying he could not have gotten more alcohol at that hour except from a private person, but I dunno when bars close in Illinois.

Still, if he took a 5 year old into a bar at 2 am or so, wouldn't someone have noticed?

The whole thing seems odd. Conners certainly didn't go from sober to drunk off his ass in that time -- it seems pretty clear he had already been drinking. Of course, the article doesn't say how much time lapsed before his BAL was taken.

 

[Missourian]

I've been in a similar situation as the one descibed...no child involved, but my wife was pulled over for window tint and it turned out her license had expired. The police didn't arrest her but they asked me if I was willing to drive...when I said yes, he checked my license before allowing us to leave. I expect that is protocol whenever that situation arises. I can't imagine that these officers would arrest the mother for suspended license and then force a drunk driver onto the road...that doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[WillowTree]

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?

I say his story stinks like fish. Lawyers always want to blame the police.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Cecil made a bad decision. Sins can be forgiven but crimes must be punished. If it can be proven that the police told him to leave, they can be indicated as accessories before the crime and held liable for tort damages.

 

[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?

I say his story stinks like fish. Lawyers always want to blame the police.

Of course Conners is guilty if the facts are not as alleged, Willow. IMO, the more interesting question is, is he guilty if everything is just as he claims?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course he is, Maddy. He should have said "no, I am drunk and I have a child with me. arrest me, and take care of us both." That would have been the manly and correct choice.

 

[Mini 14]

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?

I say his story stinks like fish. Lawyers always want to blame the police.

Of course Conners is guilty if the facts are not as alleged, Willow. IMO, the more interesting question is, is he guilty if everything is just as he claims?

Blood Alcohol of .208 - Check
Behind the wheel of an automobile - Check
Innocent child killed in accident - Check

then.....

GUILTY AS HELL - Check

but.....

Has an excuse - Check

Lawyer sees the opportunity and advises to sue the Police - Check

Lawyer STILL has a shot at making a dime! - Check!!!


The American Legal System is alive and well!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Check!

 

[Madeline]

Of course he is, Maddy. He should have said "no, I am drunk and I have a child with me. arrest me, and take care of us both." That would have been the manly and correct choice.

Ya, of course it is, Jake. But here's the rub: Conners acted to adhere to the law when his mind was not fogged up with alcohol. Later, when it was, he was subjected to the intimidation of the police and used terrible judgment.

But who can argue that alcohol impairs judgment? A drunken woman cannot consent to sex for this very reason. Seems to me, the intent of the police almost certainly overwhelmed Conners.

For that reason, setting aside some excellent questions Missourian has raised, if the facts are as claimed, I would not convict.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sins can be forgiven, crimes must be punished. I would convict. I would also pay a visit to the foreman of the current grand jury and have a talk with him.

 

[Madeline]

Sins can be forgiven, crimes must be punished. I would convict. I would also pay a visit to the foreman of the current grand jury and have a talk with him.

You cannot commit the crime of drunk driving unless you have the requisite intent. You have prolly heard of lawsuits where the survivors of a person killed by a drunk driving crash seek damages from the bar or party host who over-served the killer?

The theory of such cases is the deliberate choice to overserve a drunk and then fail to prevent him from driving equals the intent to recklessly endanger everyone on the road. If this is so, why would the police forcing a drunk passenger to drive be excusable?

And if the cops are at fault, doesn't logic dictate the driver cannot be?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not a lawyer, as you know, Maddy, merely a family law paralegal many, many years ago before I moved onto my career. Whatever the judge's instructions, I would hold out forever on a conviction on this, because to me it is simply a matter that one never drives drunk.

 

[Madeline]

I am not a lawyer, as you know, Maddy, merely a family law paralegal many, many years ago before I moved onto my career. Whatever the judge's instructions, I would hold out forever on a conviction on this, because to me it is simply a matter that one never drives drunk.

Nobody needs a law degree to answer this, Jake.....it's a WWYD if you were on the jury style question.

Frankly, I'm surprised more people are not feeling my POV, to acquit. There's some deadly serious police misconduct afoot here, if the facts are as alleged.

 

[Montrovant]

Sins can be forgiven, crimes must be punished. I would convict. I would also pay a visit to the foreman of the current grand jury and have a talk with him.

You cannot commit the crime of drunk driving unless you have the requisite intent. You have prolly heard of lawsuits where the survivors of a person killed by a drunk driving crash seek damages from the bar or party host who over-served the killer?

The theory of such cases is the deliberate choice to overserve a drunk and then fail to prevent him from driving equals the intent to recklessly endanger everyone on the road. If this is so, why would the police forcing a drunk passenger to drive be excusable?

And if the cops are at fault, doesn't logic dictate the driver cannot be?

I think that most people would say that there is fault by both parties; it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

 

[Madeline]

Sins can be forgiven, crimes must be punished. I would convict. I would also pay a visit to the foreman of the current grand jury and have a talk with him.

You cannot commit the crime of drunk driving unless you have the requisite intent. You have prolly heard of lawsuits where the survivors of a person killed by a drunk driving crash seek damages from the bar or party host who over-served the killer?

The theory of such cases is the deliberate choice to overserve a drunk and then fail to prevent him from driving equals the intent to recklessly endanger everyone on the road. If this is so, why would the police forcing a drunk passenger to drive be excusable?

And if the cops are at fault, doesn't logic dictate the driver cannot be?

I think that most people would say that there is fault by both parties; it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

This is correct. But by necessity, the share of guilt of the driver is reduced. Question is, has it been reduced enough to negate criminal intent?

It's a very odd set of facts...personally, I dun recall any other case similar to it.

 

[zzzz]

You cannot commit the crime of drunk driving unless you have the requisite intent. You have prolly heard of lawsuits where the survivors of a person killed by a drunk driving crash seek damages from the bar or party host who over-served the killer?

I'm not sure you need to prove "intent" in a DUI case. Even in involuntary manslaughter there is no intent to kill someone. But as I stated earlier, a drunk person would be intimidated by a cop because:

The cop is the authority and the driver does not want to go to jail.


If the facts are as stated, I can possibly see an aquital on the original charges. However the lawyer better make sure in jury selection that none of the jury has been effected by DUI's in the past. And he must stress that citizens must follow the orders of a cop because that is the law.

 

[editec]

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?

I'd say that the extenuating circumstances make villians of the cops as well as Mr. Conner.

Mr. Conner's plight, regardless of what the cops told him, was still his choice.

He choose to drink AND he choose to drive.

The corps OTOH, if they knew he was drunk ought to be charged as well for derelection of duty.

To SERVE and PROTECT, eh?

They clearly failed on BOTH COUNTs

 

[George Costanza]

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.

If a person ingests a large amount of alcohol and then drives a short time thereafter, the alcohol has not yet had time to fully integrate itself into the person's system. Hence, even though the person registered a very high blood alcohol reading at a later time, when the alcohol had been fully absorbed into his system, it does not mean that the person had that same high blood alcohol reading at the (earlier) time of driving.

In other words, it takes time for alcohol to take effect. If I slam down a pint of scotch and then drive one minute later, the scotch would not be an impairment to my driving, even though I would have a strong odor of the drink on my breath when stopped by police two minutes after consuming the pint, and even though I would probably register above a .20 when I gave a breath/blood test an hour or so later at the police station.

This phenomenon is known as the "rising blood alcohol" defense, and is quite often utilized in the defense of DUI cases.

 

[High_Gravity]

Why the hell would the cops order someone to drive drunk?

 

[Madeline]

Why the hell would the cops order someone to drive drunk?

The cops admit they ordered Conners to drive, but claim he did not say he had been drinking and they could see no signs of it in him. Conners claims he did tell the cops, and it seems clear he called friends for a ride at the traffic stop and told them as well. There's no question he had been drinking.

Some posters on this thread theorize Conners drank heavily after the traffic stop and before the accident. That's possible, I suppose, but his BAL was triple the legal limit when finally tested....doesn't seem likely he was sober then.

I do believe the cops fucked up, but then the question is, even if they did, is Conners still guilty?