Posted on 12/08/2003 4:31:56 PM PST by Bubba_Leroy
The jury foreman read "guilty" to each of the four counts: speeding, running a stop sign, reckless driving and second-degree manslaughter in the death of a motorcyclist.
The last is a felony and carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Janklow (pictured) sat next between his lawyers and appeared stunned as the verdict was read.
Jurors deliberated less than five hours. The judge excused the jury and plans to meet with the lawyers.
In closing arguments Monday at a Flandreau court house, a defense attorney said it makes no sense to accuse Janklow of recklessly speeding through a stop sign before the fatal crash because he suffered from a diabetic reaction shortly before the collision that killed motorcyclist Randy Scott, of Hardwick, Minn. Janklow suffered a broken hand and a head injury in the Aug. 16 crash.
But the prosecution countered that Janklow, 64, should be convicted even if he did have a diabetic reaction.
"The defendant's driving is like a deadly game of Russian roulette," a prosecutor said Monday. "On August 16, Randy Scott took the bullet."
The prosecution contends Janklow was speeding and that he lied to police at the scene of the crash. Janklow had told two troopers and a deputy that he was trying to avoid a white car when the accident occurred.
I suppose that is what passes for legal arguments these days.
It sounds like an excerpt from his closing statement to the jury. And it's not bad. You shouldn't ever talk down to a jury, but you should never talk "like a lawyer" to them, either. This quoted bit was simple but effective---it sure did the trick for this prosecutor.
Janklow got what was coming to him. Stop whining about it.
Why was the man not taken immediately into custody and off to the nearest county jail to await sentencing?
It sounded pretty true, to me.
Thank you providing yet another example of the dumbing down that is pervasive in our judicial system - it has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of law or making distinctions in punishment as they relate to the offense as long as he "got what was coming to him." Oh, and anyone who raises so much as the slightest concern over the pervasive stupidity in this country is "whining" about it. Yeah. That's how it all works...
Cause non-violent offenders who have no indication of being a flight risk are allowed to stay free on bond until the trial is finished.
Sounds to me like the jury wasn't dumb enough to buy into this weasel defense. Sounds like they did their job. Sounds like youre just whining about it.
You sound like the "dumbed down" one, standing up for this guy with such a disregard for others' lives, evidenced by 12 speeding tickets and near misses. Jury = smart. Verdict = correct and just. You = dumb.
But is Daschle "deeply saddened" by the verdict?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.