An Appalling Example of California Justice . . .

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Marksman

I had thought the same thing at first, but now think the judge alowed things to continue so evidence could be presented and made public. As I wrote before, Perdock will never be charged, but with the trial, everyone is now aware of him and what he is, not to mention the whole LCPD. He will have to go pretty far away to escape his reputation.

I agree. I think the defense had a winning argument regarding Dinius having no obligation to see that the lights were on. The judge denied the argument on the most vague grounds. Meaning, I think, he took the jury's temperature and felt he knew the verdicts. He didn't need to protect Dinius. Further, it was a good appeal point if the jury screwed up and convicted. The judge knew what he was doing. The case was really never about Dinius, it was about the Sheriff's department and DA's office.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Bash

For justice to have been served, this "case" should have been summarily dismissed the moment it showed up on the court docket. The defendant has been ruined financially, including the loss of his job, and confidence of Californians in our law enforcement is at an all-time low. For this trial to have made it all the way to a jury decision is an absolute travesty, and even the judge ought to be hanging his head.

This type of travesty will continue unless the bad actors are outed and punished for their actions. It's really that simple. For there to be real justice, this 'case' must be just beginning.

If this case just fads away as a bad memory, in other context something like it will happen again. And again and again.

If this DA is disbarred, the likelihood of another DA elsewhere in CA pulling a similar stunt goes way down. If this DA is not disbarred, you can practically guarrantee this kind of abuse of power will replicate itself.

Society can have no reasonable expectation that the ordinary citizen will obey and respect the law when those in power are obviously beyond the reach of the law.

How many people watching this drama will conclude, for just one example, that cheating on their taxes is entirely justified next spring? This kind of dynamic is corrosive and cancerous. There is more riding on a high profile case like this than just the verdict for the defendant. The system itself has unwittingly put itself on trial.

[scotte]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

Justice has been served, in part.

When Perdock and all his crooked cronies are behind bars, then justice will be serviced. Poor Dinius...

[Ex-Calif]

So what have we learned?

If you boat and drink you could get involved in a problem of nightmare proportions.

If you operate a boat at night - make sure you have a good lookout and plenty of light - Flashlights

Everyone was drunk, everyone was impaired. Small lake sailing at night exposes you to all kinds of idiots.

If you are becalmed at night in a sailboat be especially vigilant.

It is one thing to be right and quite another to be dead right.

Needless to say this has been a tragedy for everyone involved.

[imagine2frolic]

You can't say everyone was drunk. Dinius was only .08, and from my understanding that equals one drink within an hour. If this is true then that's far from drunk.......i2f

[sabray]

Originally Posted by imagine2frolic

You can't say everyone was drunk. Dinius was only .08, and from my understanding that equals one drink within an hour. If this is true then that's far from drunk.......i2f

I thinks Dinius was .12 .08 is the limit. .08 is 4 drinks in an hour and 1 for every hour after to maintain the smiley state. .12 would be 6 drinks in an hour etc..

[imagine2frolic]

Originally Posted by sabray

I thinks Dinius was .12 .08 is the limit. .08 is 4 drinks in an hour and 1 for every hour after to maintain the smiley state. .12 would be 6 drinks in an hour etc..

Thanks for that information. 4 drinks in an hour with definately keep you smiley face unless caught driving any vehichle......i2f

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by sabray

I thinks Dinius was .12 .08 is the limit. .08 is 4 drinks in an hour and 1 for every hour after to maintain the smiley state. .12 would be 6 drinks in an hour etc..

See Blood Alcohol Concentrations
(How many drinks = 0.08?) at:
➥ http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...718#post320718

[TaoJones]

Gord has provided all of the science on BAC, and it is certainly worth knowing. Almost without exception, everyone thinks that he/she is not impaired after a few drinks, but all of the evidence says otherwise.

More to the point, in the Dinius case, is the highly questionable collection and handling of all of the participants' blood, and the fact that a sergeant from the Lake County Sheriff's Office ordered that Chief Deputy Perdock not be administered a breathalyzer. The curious fact that his blood was not drawn and handled in the same manner as Dinius' and Weber's, that he was driven around for hours by another cop and that his sample had been dated as having been drawn and tested the next day makes the entirety of the BAC evidence unreliable and almost meaningless in this case.

If transcripts of the trial are ever made available, it will be interesting to read what Dinius' attorney, Victor Haltom, made of the mess the LCSO created with the drawing and testing of blood samples for BAC in an accident that resulted in a person's death.

TaoJones

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by Chief Engineer

Does double jeopardy play into this?

The answer, of course, is Yes and No.

Jeopardy attached when jury selection began. Thereafter double jeopardy would bar refiling any charge that was dismissed or resulted in a not guilty verdict while jeopardy was attached: manslaughter, felony BUI, misdemeanor BUI.

However, once the court declared a mistrial on Count 3, .08 BAC, jeopardy was removed from that charge. Presumably, the subsequent dismissal of that charge was "with prejudice", meaning that it cannot be refiled for that reason alone.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by TaoJones

If transcripts of the trial are ever made available
TaoJones

I could be wrong, but I believe trial transcripts are public information. Any person willing to pay for them can have them.

If may be that you get a digital recording file from the court (for an administrative fee) and then have your own transcription done at your cost.

Just guessing.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

So what have we learned?

If you boat and drink you could get involved in a problem of nightmare proportions.

If you operate a boat at night - make sure you have a good lookout and plenty of light - Flashlights

Everyone was drunk, everyone was impaired. Small lake sailing at night exposes you to all kinds of idiots.

If you are becalmed at night in a sailboat be especially vigilant.

It is one thing to be right and quite another to be dead right.

Needless to say this has been a tragedy for everyone involved.

Agree 100%

[Marksman]

Not to beat this whole thing to death, but, one point I think has importance but has not been addressed (or has and I just missed it) is that impaired or not, no one at the helm of the sailboat would have been able to avoid the speeding powerboat. Unfortunatly, our laws share blame or inflict it entirely if alchohol is involved even if it was not a factor in the cause of the accident. I'm not condoning or condeming drinking while boating, everyone should know their own limitations, but I do believe it should be delt with as it's own issue when not the root cause of said accident instead used as a scape goat so the prosecution can have an easy out.

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by Marksman

Not to beat this whole thing to death, but, one point I think has importance but has not been addressed (or has and I just missed it) is that impaired or not, no one at the helm of the sailboat would have been able to avoid the speeding powerboat.

Well it was dealt with at least indirectly. The jury was instructed that if they did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the sailboat's navigation lights were off, they must acquit on the felony BUI. In other words, and regardless of who was in charge, the only possible conduct on the sailboat which could have substantially contributed to the accident was failure to display lights, not steering or maneuvering or failing to do so, or being drunk for that matter.

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

I could be wrong, but I believe trial transcripts are public information. Any person willing to pay for them can have them.

If may be that you get a digital recording file from the court (for an administrative fee) and then have your own transcription done at your cost.

Just guessing.

Unless California departs from the norm (and it frequently does), you are correct. Criminal trial transcripts are public records in Florida and anyone can order one. Also, all criminal trials have electronic recordings which can be burned to CD for $10 per disk. A 3 week trial will generate a fair number of CDs, and it would take, well .... about 3 weeks to listen to them.

A written transcript is prohibitively expensive for persons of casual interest - $3 to $5 per page, depending on several factors. A written transcript of a 3 week trial will be thousands of pages. And, your tax dollars pay for one every time an indigent defendant files an appeal.

Transcripts are double spaced; every question and answer is at least one paragraph; and they look something like this:

Q. Are you related to the defendant?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever been convicted of a felony?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it perjury?

A. Yes.

Q. Why should I believe you?

MR. SMITH: Objection.

SIDEBAR: