Posted on 11/18/2004 1:03:01 PM PST by george wythe
A state appeals court upheld the 90-day sentence and DUI conviction of a former FBI agent involved in a wrong-way crash that left two brothers dead.
David Farrall, then still an agent, was driving drunk on Interstate 95 in November 1999 when he smashed head-on into Lauderhill brothers Maurice Williams, 23, and Craig Chambers, 19.
Florence Thompson, the victims' mother, said Wednesday's ruling from the 4th District Court of Appeal came as welcome news but also as a painful reminder of loss and what she sees as injustice.
"They found him guilty of drunk driving. ... He's guilty of manslaughter," she said, fighting back tears. "He should have gotten 15 to 30 years at least."
Farrall was acquitted of DUI manslaughter in 2002, in part, because jurors said the Florida Highway Patrol mishandled the investigation.
Immediately after the crash, the highway patrol publicly blamed the brothers for driving the wrong way down Interstate 95. The agency later changed its position.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.winktv.com ...
No, he should have gotten 150 to 300 years at lest.
Defense attorney Bruce Udolf said Thursday he was evaluating the court's decision, in light of the court's action in the Limbaugh case.
Did Rush kill anyone? Did he hurt anyone but himself? Was he protected by the FBI, or gone after by a Florida Democrat DA?
why does this not surprise me?
All are NOT equal under the law
What is your point? What bearing would the name of the victim's have on this case? Would it at all influence you if you were in the jury box.
Ninety Days is quite a deal for murdering two people.
Since I don't live in the jurisdiction, what might happen were I on the jury is hypothetical, and frankly none too interesting. I always comment on names, mostly because I tend to notice names.
Putting drug users in jail is probably is misuse of our law enforcement resources, but that's the War on Drugs for you.
If you have doubts, look at what's happening with the state medical marijuana laws. The federal government claims that the "commerce clause" allows the federales to prosecute people for planting weeds in their gardens and/or smoking the weeds.
On the other hand, killing two people while driving drunk is a serious offense. Ninety days was a light sentence.
I'm surprised this FBI agent even bothered to appeal the verdict. I suspect the union is paying his legal bills.
Appeal a 90 sentence after two people were killed? They should give him 10 years in jail for stupidity alone.
Sweet! I wonder if the FBI intimidated the FHP so much the latter made mistakes under the pressure. So, their guy walks.
I do not believe the area has any bearing on this case. The former FBI agent should have been jailed for ten years. The two brothers were victims and blamed as at fault in this double fatality. This makes me sick,and it could have been me or my friends or family that that drunk killed. The FHP screwed up,and also should be held accountable,and I spent 22 years in South Florida Police Dept,and feel shame for the whole damned mess.
Well, Pete asked me what I'd do were I on the jury. I noted that I would never be on the jury, not living in the area. So no, the area has no bearing on the case, but it has plenty of bearing on what I was discussing with Pete.
Probably was unwinding from a drug raid by drinking
IIRC, that's exactly what happened.
The young men were accused of causing the accident, even though the FBI agent had been driving the wrong way on the freeway, like German geistfahren (ghost driver).
Eventually, the forensics experts looking at tire marks, etc, concluded that the young men did nothing wrong.
The "Commerce Clause" gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, not commerce within a state (intrastate). There are times, however, when this intrastate commerce affects the interstate commerce that Congress is attempting to regulate. Now what?
Was it the intent of the Founding Fathers that the states be allowed to undermine and subvert Congress' regulatory efforts? Seems strange that they would, in that they gave that power to Congress. I mean, why bother, if the states can undo it?
Well, the courts have ruled that if intrastate commerce has a substantial effect on regulated interstate commerce, then Congress can regulate the intrastate commerce also. That only makes sense.
Now, maybe Congress shouldn't be regulating marijuana at the national level. Arguments can be, and have been, made to this effect.
But, when Congress uses the power of the Commerce Clause to regulate, "it is of the essence of this power that, where it exists, it dominates."(1)
1) Mr. Justice Hughes, Shreveport Rate Cases, 1914
No excuses, no mercy.
That these people have different surnames means they deserved the death penalty?
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.