Posted on 02/02/2011 9:45:12 PM PST by TruthHound
LONG BEACH -- After two days of deliberations, a jury found a Long Beach man guilty of second degree murder and four other charges in the vehicular dragging death of a 13-month-old Long Beach girl, and severely injuring her 2-year-old brother.
Neely Lejon Dinkins, dropped his head Wednesday afternoon in Long Beach Superior Court, and his family members wept as the verdicts were read. Dinkins was found guilty of murder and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in the death of 13-month-old Kaylee Alvarez and of several counts of causing gross bodily injury to Oscar Alvarez while driving drunk, and of leaving the scene of the accident.
Sentencing is scheduled for March 8.
Two special allegations of causing gross bodily injury to both Oscar and Kaylee also apply to the charges.
Jennifer Cops, the prosecuting attorney, said she hadn't added up the jail time Dinkins could face but it is substantial. She said the murder charge alone calls for a term of 15 years to life without other considerations.
The defense had argued Dinkins, who had a .20 blood alcohol content at the time of the accident, couldn't be guilty of murder because he was too drunk to know what he was doing. The legal blood alcohol limit is .08.
(Excerpt) Read more at presstelegram.com ...
My wife has sat on four juries that I can recall.
I register as an Independent. She registers as a Democrat.
Since most jury pools are skimmed from the voter roles, I imagine they just don't bother with me.
That’s why we need zero tolerance for drunk drivers!
And Freepers who defend them should get the ZOT!
Starting the criminal level at 0.15 matches medical reality. 0.10 and under is as impairing as talking on a cell phone, being elderly and confused, or teen-aged and inexperienced. Deserving of a citation if it causes an accident, but not prison.
Cops waste too much time on easy roadside stings and checkpoints, instead of cruising to observe apparently-impaired drivers (I see them).
Bully for you. All that proves is that you can always find idiots on a jury or idiot judges.
Driving is not a right.
Don’t know what they do with poor drunks in Norway. Perhaps they realize then that the drinking is because of his poverty, and take the fines from the rich and build a nice house, clothes, etc. for the poor drunk.
Stupidest statement ever made.
As I said believe the propaganda if you want but you are wrong.
Fair enough — I do always have respect for those of you who hew to your ethical canons. But in the harsh light of day, the cost can clearly be quite high...
And if it makes you feel better I have successfully represented a number of actually innocent people.
It feels good to help a falsely accused citizen get his life back.
That bears repeating. Intelligent, informed jury service is as essential to the functioning of this great Republic as intelligent, informed voting. Jury service is a form of "serving your country", same as military service. It just doesn't last as long.
Freepers who defend the nanny state should get the ZOT.
The MADD moms have done more to erase freedoms in this country than any other thing or group in the name of safety.
Thanks to them and the cooperation of various individuals (and FReepers), we now have soviet-style roadblocks for everything.
This was reckless driving and vehicular homicide.
We do not need a bunch of Driving While Whatever laws.
I was recently t-boned by a driver who was too short and fat to adequately look for me, operate the steering wheel, brake and accelerator.
Do we need a Driving While Fat law or a Driving While Short law?
After we go through the alphabet of driving while something, we can add characters and make the woman that hit me guilty of DWFSF (that would be driving while female, short and fat).
Where does it end?
Sure is.
How can a person be found guilty of second degree murder if they were not, at least to some degree, TRYING to kill the person?
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
Exactly. I thought it was voluntary manslaughter unless you intentionally killed someone. And premeditating it made it first degree.
I’ve been a juror on two complicated jury trials. I’m pretty black and white with how I decide stuff. If I did not believe that when that man saw that girl he purposed in his mind to run her down, the worst thing I could find him guilty of is manslaughter.
Based on this: “second-degree murder
: a murder that is committed without premeditation but with some intent (as general or transferred intent) or other circumstances not covered by the first-degree murder statute”
From here: http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/murder.html
I don’t think it was second degree murder. And based on this:
Manslaughter: Involuntary
“Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called “criminally negligent homicide”) is a crime in which the victim’s death is unintended.”
From here:http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/manslaughter_involuntary.html
The above even describes this case at a high level.
Well I’m glad you weren’t on the jury. Both the prosecutor and the judge explained it in detail. The parameters of the law as it exists called for the charge of 2nd degree murder in this case. Period.
And as the judge put it, if you disagree with the parameters of the law, then run for office and try to change it. As it stands, justice was done.
“Well I’m glad you weren’t on the jury. Both the prosecutor and the judge explained it in detail. The parameters of the law as it exists called for the charge of 2nd degree murder in this case. Period.
And as the judge put it, if you disagree with the parameters of the law, then run for office and try to change it. As it stands, justice was done.”
Point taken. I will add, however, that when I was on jury duty I reminded the rest of the jury that we were the final say, no matter what the judge said. He gives us instruction and then each one of us gets to decide for himself for his own reasons.
And yes, I would not have found him guilty of first or second degree murder unless the prosecution could prove that at the time he killed the girl he was intending to kill (someone, anyone). Otherwise it is simply not murder. Murder literally means “intent”. It is why, in the ten commandments it says “you shall not commit murder”. It is an intentional act.
Did the prosecution in your case prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver intended to kill someone?
Exactly what part of “a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life” do you not understand? Intent need not apply.
Hey, F. Lee.
The defense attorney argued with your “logic” and “reason.”
The prosecutor, the judge, and the jury deliberated with my logic.
How did your logic and reasoning stand up in court?
And we should show no emotion, even when a baby’s is run over, caught under a vehicle, and dragged for such a distance that the baby’s head was ground down like a pencil eraser (not my words, the words of the alternate juror)?
To hell with that. I was pissed to read this post and I’m still pissed. And I will not shut off my emotions when I read about a story like this. Justice is to be blind — NOT the citizenry. So I will continue to show anger because it is the backwards reasoning of leftists whose anti-American, anti-justice (true justice, not Marxist justice), and anti-Judeo-Christian tradition that are destroying this country and that serves as an enabling ethics when scumbags like this murderer get loaded and then drive a vehicle.
How?
Because in the back of their mind runs the thought, “Go ahead. You’re not responsible. You are somehow a victim of all this. Someone owes you something. So go ahead. Someone else will get you out of your jams.”
>>Exactly what part of “a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life” do you not understand? Intent need not apply.<<
If a guy has a blood alcohol of .2, how much concern is possible? That is why the DUI example is in the involuntary manslaughter text above.
And what part of “Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called “criminally negligent homicide”) is a crime in which the victim’s death is unintended.” don’t you understand?
If a guy has a blood alcohol of .2, how much concern is possible? That is why the DUI example is in the involuntary manslaughter text above.
>>That’s why we need zero tolerance for drunk drivers!
And Freepers who defend them should get the ZOT!<<
I agree with the sentiment but I think your brush is too broad.
“For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.”
— G.K. Chesterton
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.