Anyway, this is a taped trial, so the verdict is in.
The Verdict:
After 25 hours of deliberations, the jury cleared Powell of manslaughter, but were deadlocked on the remaining charges. Prosecutors have the option of retrying Powell for vehicular homicide and assault.
During a Sept. 12, 2002, hearing that followed, lawyers said that prosecutors offered Powell two plea deals, both of which he refused. The terms of the offers were not disclosed.
The judge encouraged the parties to continue negotiating, and set a plea cut-off date of October 4, which is when the next hearing in this case is scheduled. If no deal is reached, the retrial, as presently scheduled, will begin on Jan. 6, 2003.
The Elliotts say they support whatever decisions the prosecutors make, whether that means a plea deal or a retrial.
The Elliotts have civil suits pending against Kenneth Powell and the two bars that continued to serve drinks to a drunk Michael Pangle. The family is not suing the state police. The Hohenwarters have also sued Powell and the two bars.
It is this kind of John Walsh, Carolyn McCarthy, Sarah Brady, Million Mom syndrome nonsense that causes me to lose ALL sympathy for what should normally be very sympathetic people. They have suffered a loss, therefore they need to feel better by passing all sorts of laws that violate our rights and freedoms.
Does this mean that juries can write/interpret law? I thought you could only convict a person if there was a standing law you could accuse him of breaking and that the law had to be presented to the jury so they understood "the letter" of it...
I just read the whole article and believe Powell got screwed. Don't New Jersey cops keep drunks in the tank overnight like most intelligent jurisdictions? If you put it to a vote, my guess is that most people would rather have it that way anyway. Who wants to get a call at 2am to pick up somebody?
Interestingly, no mention of whether John the Ensign had been drinking at mom's party before the accident. Charging Powell would be one way of avoiding an unpleasant fact such as that....
It's more fallout from a trend of judicial legislation and activism that plagues the nation with theories being upheld in court that have no connection to sane reality. This is the same mentality that has had burglars suing property owners for injuries they sustain climbing through windows, and winning!
We need tort reform, and we need it about forty years ago.
However, the one question that I have had from the beginning is: Since Pangle was only arrested for DWI, Not Convicted (and assumed innocent until proven guilty), then how can another party be responsible at all? Does this open up the possibility that bail bondsmen can be responsible if their clients go out and commit additional similar crimes prior to conviction?