An Appalling Example of California Justice . . .

[Hiracer]

Charlie,

I'm not a member either. I just clicked the link above and then refresh the screen every so often.

I didn't even know you are supposed to be a member.

[slomotion]

Yeah, it seems to be stalled. Maybe it's a recess, but Noyes would have told us that. Probably his battery died.

[idpnd]

sigh

[Charlie]

talk about a cliff hanger. BTW what happened with the motion to dismiss from the defense. I didn't catch that.

[idpnd]

"Out of presence of jury, Haltom renews request to dismiss case. Judge denies "based on California law." Two sides at judge's bench."

[Charlie]

Thanks Idpnd. Missed that.

[Christian Van H]

He's back! Wifi issues...

[sailorboy1]

I'm going to wait for the Law and Order show based on this

[slomotion]

OK, it's done and goes to the jury tomorrow. Of course, it would help to hear the jury instructions (also tomorrow), but predictions:

1. Short deliberation - not guilty of felony BUI, guilty of misdemeanor BUI. However, press accounts say that Dinius is charged with 2 counts of misdemeanor BUI - I can't begin to explain that; or

2. Long deliberation - not guilty on all charges; or

3. Longer deliberation - not guilty on felony BUI, hung jury on misdemeanor(s).

[Ex-Calif]

So did the defense concede the lights were NOT on on the sailboat? Witnesses say they were but I have always held that forensics will determine the state of the nav lights.

I know I have always taken a somewhat contrarian view of this and if, in fact the lights were not on, someone on that sailboat is culpable - maybe equally with Perdock - driving too fast for conditions - for not following the regs.

I could not fathom sailing my boat at night without the lights on and without a couple of big beam flashlights.

It is also pretty clear that everyone on both boats was hammered. All the more reason to be extra cautious.

Boy, I hate small lake boating...

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

So did the defense concede the lights were NOT on on the sailboat?

No, the defense maintains that they were on and they were not Dinius' responsibility anyway. And in closing argument the prosecution came close to conceding that they were on at some point prior to the collision.

Many witnesses say that they saw the lights on before the collision. Others say they didn't see any lights on at the time of the collision. One expert testified that the stern light was not on when it was broken in the crash; one expert testified that the stern light was on when it was broken in the crash. It does not seem that any reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the stern light was not on at the time of the collision based on the reported evidence.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

always held that forensics will determine the state of the nav lights.
..

By Forensics - do you in fact mean some form of scientific examination.

The word forensic simply means connceted iwth the proceedings of court - it does not mean scientific or similar examination. It is a misuse of that word that has been prepetrated by television.

All that aside - was there any expert evidence based on after the event testing as to the state of the lights.

[Ex-Calif]

Yes Factor, I mean scientific evidence. I have been involved in a few accident investigations over my 30 year career and the method for determining whether a bulb was lit or not when it was broken is pretty simple.

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

the method for determining whether a bulb was lit or not when it was broken is pretty simple.

Would that it were so. The method maybe simple, but:

A California DOJ criminalist called by the prosecution examined the stern light and concluded that it was off when it was broken. A marine safety engineer called by the defense examined the stern light and concluded it was on when it was broken.

[sarafina]

You can open this link and follow the twitter on your computer;
Dan Noyes (dannoyes) on Twitter

don't have to be *on* twitter or join anything.