But it is something the jury might want to consider. When the only issue is the defendant's state of mind at the time of the accident, a callous silence in the face of the suffering you have caused is evidence that you had a callous disregard for life, especially if you were drunk and speeding at the time.
To deny the jury access to that information when deciding the case is to deny the parents the justice they deserve.
If you were the judge, would you have kept the undisputed FACT that the defendant did not utter a single word after killing an 8 year old from the jury?
Okay, but you’re reasoning that there is only one reason why he would remain silent. Is there only one reason why he would remain silent? No.
He could just as easily have remained silent because he felt terrible about what he had done and surmised there was absolutely nothing he could do to undue the damage he had done.
He could have thought that saying he was sorry might actually hurt the parents more, because it would have sounded self-serving.
Perhaps there’s additional information that shows callous. I’m not sure.
It appears I’m trying to defend this guy. I’m actually trying to run interference on where this might lead.
If it’s only frame of mind, it’s not quite so dangerous. I do think silence is open to interpretation. It’s subjective what it really means IMO.
To be clear, this evidence was necessary to convict the man. He clearly was the drunken driver of the car that killed the little girl and injured the mother. The court had to REINSTATE his conviction after it was overturned by the appeals court. IOW, he was going to get away with killing a little girl and walking away from it.
Is that what we want?
This evidence was not used to convict of the crime. It was used to distinguish between whether he had shown callous disregard or had shown simple disregard (by his drunken driving.)
It seems to me that it would have made a difference in the level of charge against him (manslaughter) and in the punishment. Not at all in his guilt or innocence. That was a given.
You tell me why it’s wrong for the police at the scene to be asked about the defendant’s behavior/demeanor while a woman was screaming in the background and a child was dying or had died? The jury gets to infer what it wants.
The drunkenness and speed of auto were more telling signs of callous disregard, and I’m sure they were also the highlighted FACTS. The silence seems like only an additional circumstantial tidbit that wasn’t even crucial...or even necessary. I don’t want the guy walking over something like that when there’s no doubt he is the guy who had murdered a little girl.