Well maybe this is just me being stupid and lazy and not reading the article but how does the person who is not present and did not purchase the alcohol get charged with involuntary manslaughter while the person who DID purchase the alcohol and corrupt the minors does not get charged with that?
The magic of the modern legal system. The Mad Mothers have stacked the deck in DUI cases. A DUI with a death? Someone is going to go down ‘pour encourager les autres’ as Voltaire would put it.
That’s probably why she went to trial and will have a shot on appeal, at least you came to the same conclusion as her experienced defense attorney: “Bare said he was “not exactly sure how the jury got to this particular verdict with these facts and this law,” “