off topic Corasanti Verdict

[TrueBlueGED]

i'm no scholar on the subject, but in my schooling years i was a research assistant for a prof whose work was based on comparative analysis of criminal justice systems throughout the developed, second, and third worlds. so i gained a flavor there. not that i could hold forth on the subject now.

 

anyway, i won't purport to say anything "definitive" on the subject. just my 2 cents.

 

 

 

who said i was satisfied? ;)

 

to borrow an analogy from another area of law (product liability), our criminal justice system has many defects, but, imo, those aren't design flaws, they're implementation (manufacturing) flaws.

 

Good deal, was just curious if you were more familiar with the stuff than I am. I have only a cursory understanding of other systems from some stuff I read last year, and from what I gather they've all got problems, it's just a matter of which problems you'd rather have. Adversarial systems like we have may tend to favor the defendant and result in more guilty people walking, but other systems where the prosecutor has significantly more power leaves open the possibility for a lot of police abuse and innocents being convicted (look no further than what happened to Amanda Knox over in Italy). My biggest gripe with our system is the lack of clear standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt" as reasonable can mean different things to different people.

 

 

if that were true, they would've come up with a guilty verdict. The doctor's guilt isn't even debatable it's so obvious.

 

Strawman argument.

[tom webster]

First, unless you were in court for every minute, it is idiotic to question the juries intellect or motives.

Second, I allow for the possibility that while the doctor was indeed intoxicated, his intoxication played no role in what could have been a tragic accident if Ms. Rice swerved in front of him as the white paint seemed to indicate .

Third, while hard to believe, it is not impossible given the vehicle, that the Doctor did not know he hit a person.

[deluca67]

First, unless you were in court for every minute, it is idiotic to question the juries intellect or motives.

Second, I allow for the possibility that while the doctor was indeed intoxicated, his intoxication played no role in what could have been a tragic accident if Ms. Rice swerved in front of him as the white paint seemed to indicate .

Third, while hard to believe, it is not impossible given the vehicle, that the Doctor did not know he hit a person.

Dr. Marshawn Lynch?

 

He was intoxicated enough not to know he hit someone, yet intoxication played no role in what happened?

 

Since the OJ trial the intellect and motives of juries is always in question.

[tom webster]

I'm not going to go back and forth but I didnt say anywhere that he didn't know he hit something because he was intoxicated.

Let me ask you this, if he is intoxicated but driving straight down the road at 40 mph and she swerves to avoid something right out in front of him, did his intoxication cause the accident?

Last point, where you getting all your info about the case? The newspaper that you constantly rip? The budget slashing television news department battling for ratings during sweeps week? How about the radio? You remember the radio, don't you?

[Lanny]

 

Dr. Marshawn Lynch?

 

He was intoxicated enough not to know he hit someone, yet intoxication played no role in what happened?

 

Since the OJ trial the intellect and motives of juries is always in question.

Not saying I buy it, but his is what the juror claimed:

"Nixon said he questioned how much of the impact Corasanti could hear inside his BMW, given the size of the car and its engineering. It is possible he might not have heard the impact, even though neighbors did, Nixon said."

 

[spndnchz]

Quick verdicts always leave me wondering if the jurors just wanted to go home.

 

All that matters to me is that a young woman is dead because some jackass decided to have some drinks and drive home. I have to think if the "Doctor" gets out of his car and immediately gives her medical treatment it might have given this poor girl at least a chance of surviving.

Given the fact that when they found her, her head was hanging on by a thread to the rest of her body I doubt he could've done anything.

[Weave]

Listening to WGR on the ride home, there was alot of convo about the jurors and whether or not they got it wrong. Schopp seemed to be very intent on communicating that we shouldn't be judging the jurors. And I agree completely. We aren't privvy to the details the jurors were given. But it got me thinking about what might be the motivation for blaming the jurors. And it hit me. I don't think people are blaming the jurors as much as they are using them as a focus for their frustration. Out of the last several high profile cases of hit and run in WNY there has been a pattern. ***Wealthy drunk hitters have gotten off alot easier than expected. And the middle class guy ended up getting "what he deserved".

 

People see a wealthy guy "get off" and are angry because they don't believe it would work out that way for them, so they lash out. It is no different really than the sort of mindset that resulted in rioting in LA after the Rodney King trial.

 

 

***Someone correct me if I am wrong here. I am going off recollection.

[shrader]

 

Given the fact that when they found her, her head was hanging on by a thread to the rest of her body I doubt he could've done anything.

 

Well that and the fact that he was ridiculously wasted.

[tom webster]

I agree with a lot of what you say but I have one problem with it. I'm guessing the jury isnt populated by wealthy, upper class people. Shouldn't they feel the same disenchantment?

 

There is no doubt that wealth allows you a better defense but wouldn't this be a better indicator of the less fortunate being wrongly convicted rather then the wealthy being wrongfully acquitted.

 

I'm interested in the outcome of the hit and run case in Lancaster. A guilty plea today in a case that is much more of a slam dunk. Of course September won't have a ratings frenzy giving it 24/7 coverage.

 

 

 

Well that and the fact that he was ridiculously wasted.

 

That's assuming facts not in evidence.

[TrueBlueGED]

 

 

That's assuming facts not in evidence.

 

So him having a .1 BAC 5 hours after the accident is a coincidence? Being wasted is the one thing the jury actually convicted him of.

[tom webster]

So him having a .1 BAC 5 hours after the accident is a coincidence? Being wasted is the one thing the jury actually convicted him of.

 

They deadlocked on the DWI charge pertaining to the BAC test because they thought the test may have been tainted. They only found him guilty of common law DWI which means that they bought the officer's testimony that he "appeared" intoxicated.

[shrader]

I really don't want to get into this too much, but do you know the guy or something? I can understand people questioning the hit and run and the manslaughter aspect of this one, but not that he was drunk. Didn't he even admit to that?

 

That quote you threw around ' "appeared" intoxicated' is one giant red flag to me.

[darksabre]

I agree with a lot of what you say but I have one problem with it. I'm guessing the jury isnt populated by wealthy, upper class people. Shouldn't they feel the same disenchantment?

 

There is no doubt that wealth allows you a better defense but wouldn't this be a better indicator of the less fortunate being wrongly convicted rather then the wealthy being wrongfully acquitted.

 

I'm interested in the outcome of the hit and run case in Lancaster. A guilty plea today in a case that is much more of a slam dunk. Of course September won't have a ratings frenzy giving it 24/7 coverage.

 

 

 

That's assuming facts not in evidence.

 

We can only hope that justice is served in the Lancaster case as well. But I'm sure the jury won't look as fondly on that punk kid that is on trial; he's not the kind of person who will provide a testimony that will make jurors question his guilt.

[tom webster]

I really don't want to get into this too much, but do you know the guy or something? I can understand people questioning the hit and run and the manslaughter aspect of this one, but not that he was drunk. Didn't he even admit to that?

 

That quote you threw around ' "appeared" intoxicated' is one giant red flag to me.

 

Just quoting what I believe is the letter of the common law charge. Since he refused the breathilyzer(sic?) and since they deadlocked on the charge dealing with the bac level, the only charge they convicted him on was the law that allowed a guilty verdict if he "appeared" intoxicated.

And no, while admitting to a few drinks long before the accident, he didn't admit being drunk and during testimony questioned whether a medication he is on could have given the positive reading.

I don't know Dr. Corsanti but I know how the Newspaper can twist the facts and as stated previously, almost all the people that have such absolute opinions on this case have gotten all their facts from flawed agencies with their own agenda.

I personally believe Dr. Corsanti was under the influence of alcohol but I have no way of knowing if it played a role in the accident. Like the situation a few years back, when the well respected middle age father had a few drinks with dinner and then hit three people as they crossed Transit Road wearing dark clothes, did alcohol play a role in that accident? Where was the outrage and all the tv footage and front page stories?

 

We can only hope that justice is served in the Lancaster case as well. But I'm sure the jury won't look as fondly on that punk kid that is on trial; he's not the kind of person who will provide a testimony that will make jurors question his guilt.

Plead guilty today so no jury. That's my point. Case isn't as glamorous so all it merited was a little blurb on the bottom scroll and a small story on wgrz's web site.

[darksabre]

 

 

Just quoting what I believe is the letter of the common law charge. Since he refused the breathilyzer(sic?) and since they deadlocked on the charge dealing with the bac level, the only charge they convicted him on was the law that allowed a guilty verdict if he "appeared" intoxicated.

And no, while admitting to a few drinks long before the accident, he didn't admit being drunk and during testimony questioned whether a medication he is on could have given the positive reading.

I don't know Dr. Corsanti but I know how the Newspaper can twist the facts and as stated previously, almost all the people that have such absolute opinions on this case have gotten all their facts from flawed agencies with their own agenda.

I personally believe Dr. Corsanti was under the influence of alcohol but I have no way of knowing if it played a role in the accident. Like the situation a few years back, when the well respected middle age father had a few drinks with dinner and then hit three people as they crossed Transit Road wearing dark clothes, did alcohol play a role in that accident? Where was the outrage and all the tv footage and front page stories?

 

 

Plead guilty today so no jury. That's my point. Case isn't as glamorous so all it merited was a little blurb on the bottom scroll and a small story on wgrz's web site.

 

Ah didn't catch that. Pleading guilty sorta takes all the hype out of it.

[deluca67]

I'm not going to go back and forth but I didnt say anywhere that he didn't know he hit something because he was intoxicated.

Let me ask you this, if he is intoxicated but driving straight down the road at 40 mph and she swerves to avoid something right out in front of him, did his intoxication cause the accident?

Last point, where you getting all your info about the case? The newspaper that you constantly rip? The budget slashing television news department battling for ratings during sweeps week? How about the radio? You remember the radio, don't you?

What evidence is there that she swerved in front of the car? Even If she did, wouldn't the doctor have seen her or at least known he hit something?

[Wyldnwoody44]

This whole situation is terrible, I don't know corsanti well but I have met him at a couple gatherings, from my judgement, the guy was an a$$. I also hear mixed reviews from patients that have seen him (which I suppose is typical of most doctors)

 

The cold facts= him operating a vehicle while intoxicated and him striking a young girl. Everything else is irrelevant. If he was sober then yes, this is more of a case, but when you drive intoxicated, you should lose some "privelages" as a driver in a court of law. Regardless of if she swerved or not, he was drunk! This overrules any chance of this not being his fault.

 

Im a very big advocate against driving intoxicated, I've slept in my car at the hospital or in an on call room before, many people in corsantis status feel they are above that, and that is the kind of arrogance that is disgusting.

 

I wont blame the jurors, as several others have mentioned, we don't know all of the facts, the judge also has a right to overturn a verdict as well. I didn't follow this case closely enough to say they got it right or wrong, it just is what it is and it just Appears to me that this one should have probably gone the other way

 

 

[That Aud Smell]

the foreman's interview was an interesting read.

 

this bit toward the end of the article - Nixon said he questioned how much of the impact Corasanti could hear inside his BMW, given the size of the car and its engineering. It is possible he might not have heard the impact, even though neighbors did, Nixon said. Nixon said prosecutors did a good job trying the case.

 

"But they never addressed the soundproofing of the car," Nixon said. "That's the reasonable doubt."

 

imho, that was a jury that allowed persuasive expert testimony to trump their own common sense.

[Sabre Dance]

First, unless you were in court for every minute, it is idiotic to question the juries intellect or motives.

Second, I allow for the possibility that while the doctor was indeed intoxicated, his intoxication played no role in what could have been a tragic accident if Ms. Rice swerved in front of him as the white paint seemed to indicate .

Third, while hard to believe, it is not impossible given the vehicle, that the Doctor did not know he hit a person.

 

To your first point, only a small number of people could be in the courtroom, but as more details come out via the statements of the jury foreman, etc. it is actually MORE unbelievable that they did not find this man guilty of any of the major charges.

Second, whether or not the victim veered in front of his vehicle, the act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated IS a crime in itself. It slows reaction time, so if someone did veer out from the side of the road, the intoxicated driver may not be able to react quickly enough to avoid them.

Third, the testimony I've read about so far all seems to indicate that the doctor did not "hear" anything and thus did not know he struck anyone/thing. I drove BMWs for many years and although they are very quiet cars, they are not soundproof. Any noise that could be heard by people in their living rooms watching TV could certainly be heard inside the car. Moreover, the impact must have been felt through the steering wheel and the structure of the car in general. This was a two-ton vehicle moving at 40-50 miles per hour striking a human being weighing 140 pounds. You will definitely feel that hit IF you are sober and have your wits about you. (As an aside, I currently drive a Ford F150 pickup truck. Last weekend I was driving home from Pennsylvania. A chipmunk ran out from the side of the road - I tried to avoid hitting him, but that would have made me cross over into the oncoming lane of traffic. So, unfortunately I ran over the poor creature. I FELT the hit (and frankly, it made me queasy for a while).

Lastly, Dr. Corasanti's actions after the incident are exactly what one would do if they wanted to avoid the drunk driving charge. He returned home an pulled his car into the garage out of sight. Upon inspecting the vehicle and finding major damage, including what I'm sure the doctor recognized as tissue from a living being, he did not call the police or return to the scene of the accident. His wife went (or was sent) to the scene to ascertain if the strike was an animal or a person. Upon finding out it was a person, she returned home and told the doctor, who then called his friend (who also happened to be a lawyer). I'm sure the doctor was advised to refuse a Breathalyzer test (which he did). Only when a court order was obtained did he give a blood sample to be tested for ethyl alcohol level - FIVE HOURS after the incident.

As for the jury's actions in this case, while true that the public wasn't there and didn't hear the evidence, I must say this. I was a juror on a single count criminal case about ten years ago. We heard just two days of testimony, much of it conflicting. Once charged by the judge, we still took nearly five hours to arrive at a unanimous decision. The fact that this jury deliberated only 13 hours tells me that they had already pretty much made up their minds to acquit before entering the jury room. As the evidence seemed to be so fully against the doctor's story, one HAS to wonder about the jurors state of mind and ability to understand some basic principles. They seemed to be swayed by the defense's "expert" witnesses more than the eyewitness testimony. I say that for the price paid to these "experts", they ought to have been able to spin a good yarn, which they apparently did.

I must say here that I am in the health care field, and indeed worked in the pathology field for many years. Forensic medicine was a major interest to me back then, and still is (a bit) today. I can only say that if I were presented the facts as they have been stated in reports (and to be fair, these are secondhand statements), I would have had no problem voting to convict on leaving the scene and the two evidence tampering charges. Not knowing the specifics of the two manslaughter charges, I can't say how those would have gone.

[LastPommerFan]

This whole situation is terrible, I don't know corsanti well but I have met him at a couple gatherings, from my judgement, the guy was an a$$. I also hear mixed reviews from patients that have seen him (which I suppose is typical of most doctors)

 

The cold facts= him operating a vehicle while intoxicated and him striking a young girl. Everything else is irrelevant. If he was sober then yes, this is more of a case, but when you drive intoxicated, you should lose some "privelages" as a driver in a court of law. Regardless of if she swerved or not, he was drunk! This overrules any chance of this not being his fault.

 

Im a very big advocate against driving intoxicated, I've slept in my car at the hospital or in an on call room before, many people in corsantis status feel they are above that, and that is the kind of arrogance that is disgusting.

 

I wont blame the jurors, as several others have mentioned, we don't know all of the facts, the judge also has a right to overturn a verdict as well. I didn't follow this case closely enough to say they got it right or wrong, it just is what it is and it just Appears to me that this one should have probably gone the other way

 

What you are advocating here is a change in the Vehicular Manslaughter Statute, Which I agree with. Currently the law requires a causal relationship between the BAC and the death. I would advocate rewriting the law to simply require proof of a BAC above .08 and a death caused by a collision with the pedestrian regardless of a causal relationship between the BAC and the collision. But the Jury has to work with the laws as they stand.

[shrader]

What you are advocating here is a change in the Vehicular Manslaughter Statute, Which I agree with. Currently the law requires a causal relationship between the BAC and the death. I would advocate rewriting the law to simply require proof of a BAC above .08 and a death caused by a collision with the pedestrian regardless of a causal relationship between the BAC and the collision. But the Jury has to work with the laws as they stand.

 

My major concern out of all of this and other recent cases is that you are now basically encouraged to leave the scene of an accident.

[Sabre Dance]

My major concern out of all of this and other recent cases is that you are now basically encouraged to leave the scene of an accident.

 

All too true - and if you feign ignorance that you even knew that it WAS an accident, you can basically beat the system. Truly tragic. I fear that this will not be the last such incident that we will see.

[That Aud Smell]

Any noise that could be heard by people in their living rooms watching TV could certainly be heard inside the car. Moreover, the impact must have been felt through the steering wheel and the structure of the car in general.

 

this is what just makes my mind asplode. 12 people sat around a table and convinced themselves that a $90k bmw is the equivalent of the fookin' batmobile.

 

("batmobile" is not my line - i saw it somewhere in a comment in TBN website).

 

What you are advocating here is a change in the Vehicular Manslaughter Statute, Which I agree with. Currently the law requires a causal relationship between the BAC and the death. I would advocate rewriting the law to simply require proof of a BAC above .08 and a death caused by a collision with the pedestrian regardless of a causal relationship between the BAC and the collision. But the Jury has to work with the laws as they stand.

 

this is an excellent point. there will be momentum for "alix's law" - making that statute into a sort of "strict liability" statute - eliminating the need to show a causal link between the intoxication and the accident itself. under the new law, if you were legally intoxicated and someone died when your car hit them, it's case closed. and, really, it's sort of amazing that that's not what the law currently provides.

 

then again, this jury could not agree that corasanti had a .08 either (they hung on that one).

[dEnnis the Menace]

I hit a groundhog last month. It ran out in front of me at night. I never saw it. How did I know i hit it? my BMW 525i made a loud thud that made me sick. the damn cars aren't sound proof. I felt the thing when I hit it. I was not intoxicated, and it was BEYOND obvious that I hit something. How can someone say, and 12 others believe that, even in a drunken stupor that they did not feel or hear something that is ten times the size of a groundhog?! it is beyond me! I am dumbfounded how the jurors were able to get lost in the "expert testimonies" and lose all common sense! that really disturbs me.

[darksabre]

I hit a groundhog last month. It ran out in front of me at night. I never saw it. How did I know i hit it? my BMW 525i made a loud thud that made me sick. the damn cars aren't sound proof. I felt the thing when I hit it. I was not intoxicated, and it was BEYOND obvious that I hit something. How can someone say, and 12 others believe that, even in a drunken stupor that they did not feel or hear something that is ten times the size of a groundhog?! it is beyond me! I am dumbfounded how the jurors were able to get lost in the "expert testimonies" and lose all common sense! that really disturbs me.

 

Exactly. You will always feel it when something hits your car. And all of the soundproofing in the world isn't going to prevent you from hearing that dull "thunk" of something smacking the bumper. If you can hear police sirens, you can hear a grown woman's body smack off the hood.