Posted on 04/12/2025 8:19:30 PM PDT by xxqqzz
Prosecutors want a judge to bar admission of the Gaudreau brothers’ toxicology reports from the trial of the man charged with killing them last year.
Those toxicology reports show that hockey star Johnny Gaudreau, 31, and Matthew R. Gaudreau, 29, were intoxicated when Sean M. Higgins, 44, of Pilesgrove, hit them with his vehicle as they bicycled along a rural road in Salem County on the evening of Aug. 29, according to court documents.
Higgins, who prosecutors say was also intoxicated at the time, was indicted in December on two counts of first-degree aggravated manslaughter, two counts of second-degree vehicular homicide, second-degree leaving the scene of a fatal accident and fourth-degree tampering with physical evidence.
Defense attorneys argue the indictment should be dismissed because the grand jury wasn’t told about possible “contributory negligence” by the Gaudreau brothers in their own deaths, namely the fact that they were drunk.
Prosecutor Michael Mestern countered that the brothers’ toxicology reports are irrelevant to the case because there is no law against bicycling while intoxicated. He also pointed to multiple witness accounts as proof that the crash was entirely Higgins’ fault.
Higgins’ attorneys revealed in February court filings that Johnny Gaudreau had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.129% when he was killed, while his brother Matthew Gaudreau had a reading of 0.134%.
Both readings were higher than Higgins’ alleged blood alcohol concentration of 0.087%, which was above the legal limit of 0.08% for drivers.
No evidence has been presented to claim the brothers were riding their bikes improperly and witnesses to the crash told detectives the men were not in the roadway when they were hit.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Good gosh, is anyone in the article NOT intoxicated? Crazy stuff.
So he literally drove off the road and hit them.
I guess he wins the prize for most impaired that day.
Uh huh,
Well, I think he was driving a jeep, so it might drive OK partly on the grass at 70 mph or so.
The hockey brothers bicycling was perfectly legal. However, maybe their being drunk might have led them to go bicycling at night on an unlit rural highway without a shoulder. The defense is arguing that is contributory negligence, but the prosecution is saying it is irrelevant.
Bob Dylan singing “Everybody’s trying to get Stoned!!”
I think second degree murder is about right.
It's illegal to:
If they did not have lights on their bikes they were breaking the law.
They weren’t driving a car.
Ha. I’ve heard of that singer. A shame his quotation in my tagline is coming true.
Is that quote; re; A Battle Outside, from Dylan? Not familiar with it.
I heard several popular songs back then with soft, though ominous cello-like tones of revolution. i.e. “..what it is, ain’t exactly clear!..”
😂
Somehow, for some reason, I would guess the Jeep would be slightly heavier and moving slightly faster than the bicycles. Jeeps are designed with a ‘crumple zone’. On a bicycle, the rider IS the crumple zone!
The Jeep driver was intoxicated and tried to pass on the right. Impaired driving and two counts of vehicular manslaughter, at the minimum, seems appropriate.
The fact that the two bike riders were intoxicated does not lessen the guilt of the driver. Lock him up for the appropriate time ‘earned’ by his actions.
RE: Not familiar with it.
Was from The Times they Are A Changin’.
Context is different now but the Trump Revolution and the beginnings of the Left’s physical war with burning Tesla dealers and attempted assassinations are definitely shaking the windows and rattling the walls.
“I accept chaos. I am not sure if it accepts me.”
——Back of Another Side of Bob Dylan album sleeve.
((After he and his family were harassed at home by hippie types and druggies including one who confronted his wife, one who hung upside down to peek into their bedroom window and a couple they discovered in the bed after having sex, he complained to the local sheriff who warned him sternly that he—Dylan—would be arrested if they did anything to the intruders and the guy who peered in the window could sue if he had fallen—said to a friend “Anyone who comes in my house, I am ready for them. I have the firearms and I’ll use them.”
“If they did not have lights on their bikes they were breaking the law.”
They probably did have their bicycle lights (LED these days) on and the drunk driver homed in on these lights.
-
-
-
The phenomenon where a tired or distracted driver is drawn toward a light by the side of the road is commonly referred to as the “moth effect.” This term draws an analogy to how moths are attracted to light sources. In this context, drivers may unintentionally fixate on bright or flashing lights, such as emergency vehicle lights, and inadvertently steer toward them. This can increase the risk of collisions, particularly at night or in low-visibility conditions
I didn’t know about Bob’s personal experience with
fan(-ATICS). I never followed him that closely, and only enjoyed a few of his songs, but I know he became very famous, very quickly, compared to other acoustic performers of his day.
**Rorshach Effect:People saw what they wanted to see/ what they demanded to see in his persona.
Rudolph Valentino/ Frank Sinatra/ Elvis/Lennon...Same Story
Joan Baez was a long time lover and friend of Bob Dylan. (She recently revealed in the dvd I Am A Noise that she was diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, which can stem from childhood trauma. Her father molested her.)
She said that in all the years people thought they were following him as an activist, Dylan never even once was in a protest march or action. Young people would come up to her and say “If we go to the march tomorrow will Bob Dylan be there?” “I’d say no, you morons, he never goes to marches.”
One guy friend claims “He was only into all that antiwar stuff in songs to try to impress Suze Rotolo. Once that thing broke up he dropped the whole pose.”
The question should be, “Which one is the Democrat?”
I believe that the jury should not have facts hidden from them. In this case this detail would have no effect on any person with a brain. But in some cases the Judge does keep relevant information from the jury in order to unjustly throw the verdict. For instance like that judge in NY throwing Trumps trial by selecting the evidence that fits the verdict that the judge desires.
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.