Canadian Bills Fan Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Stallworth Team Hoping For DUI Charges Only Posted by Mike Florio on April 2, 2009, 9:45 a.m. The media still isn’t focusing on the distinction between the Thursday booking of Browns receiver Donte’ Stallworth on charges of DUI manslaughter and the eventual decision by prosecutors to charge him with DUI manslaughter. On Wednesday, a member of Stallworth’s legal team stressed to us that, in this case, there’s a significant potential difference. As we now understand it, the significant potential difference was/is that prosecutors could ultimately decide not to charge Stallworth with DUI manslaughter, but to charge him only with DUI. The key here is the precise language of Section 316.193(3)©(3)(b) of the Florida Statutes. A person who is driving while drunk doesn’t commit DUI manslaughter simply by driving drunk and being involved in an accident resulting in another person’s death. To be liable for DUI manslaughter, the drunk driver also must have caused or contributed to the causation of the incident. The DUI laws impose strict liability on the driver. Even if the driver is not actually impaired, he’s deemed to be intoxicated as a matter of law if his blood alcohol concentration exceeds the legal limit. For DUI manslaughter in Florida, there’s no strict liability. The prosecution must prove — beyond a reasonable doubt — that the driver caused or contributed to the causation of the collison. The key, as it always is in criminal cases, is reasonable doubt. Experts in accident reconstruction can readily testify as to the reality that, as in this case, a man jaywalking in a multiple-lane highway with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour might very well have been struck by Stallworth even if his BAC had been 0.0 percent. If the expert is good — and there are plenty of them out there – he or she could to inject more than enough reasonable doubt into the question of whether Stallworth’s driving actually caused the collision. As a result, prosecutors might decide not to spend the time and money necessary to prosecute Stallworth for DUI manslaughter. It’s a decision that will be driven by many factors, and apparently those factors will still be weighed and assessed over the next few weeks, despite the fact that Stallworth will formally appear in Court today to answer to the preliminary charges that the police have filed against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Stallworth Team Hoping For DUI Charges OnlyPosted by Mike Florio on April 2, 2009, 9:45 a.m. The media still isn’t focusing on the distinction between the Thursday booking of Browns receiver Donte’ Stallworth on charges of DUI manslaughter and the eventual decision by prosecutors to charge him with DUI manslaughter. On Wednesday, a member of Stallworth’s legal team stressed to us that, in this case, there’s a significant potential difference. As we now understand it, the significant potential difference was/is that prosecutors could ultimately decide not to charge Stallworth with DUI manslaughter, but to charge him only with DUI. The key here is the precise language of Section 316.193(3)©(3)(b) of the Florida Statutes. A person who is driving while drunk doesn’t commit DUI manslaughter simply by driving drunk and being involved in an accident resulting in another person’s death. To be liable for DUI manslaughter, the drunk driver also must have caused or contributed to the causation of the incident. The DUI laws impose strict liability on the driver. Even if the driver is not actually impaired, he’s deemed to be intoxicated as a matter of law if his blood alcohol concentration exceeds the legal limit. For DUI manslaughter in Florida, there’s no strict liability. The prosecution must prove — beyond a reasonable doubt — that the driver caused or contributed to the causation of the collison. The key, as it always is in criminal cases, is reasonable doubt. Experts in accident reconstruction can readily testify as to the reality that, as in this case, a man jaywalking in a multiple-lane highway with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour might very well have been struck by Stallworth even if his BAC had been 0.0 percent. If the expert is good — and there are plenty of them out there – he or she could to inject more than enough reasonable doubt into the question of whether Stallworth’s driving actually caused the collision. As a result, prosecutors might decide not to spend the time and money necessary to prosecute Stallworth for DUI manslaughter. It’s a decision that will be driven by many factors, and apparently those factors will still be weighed and assessed over the next few weeks, despite the fact that Stallworth will formally appear in Court today to answer to the preliminary charges that the police have filed against him. interesting...didn't know the guy was jaywalking...-maybe people shouldnt be so quick to throw away the key....-But I'd have to hear the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 interesting...didn't know the guy was jaywalking...-maybe people shouldnt be so quick to throw away the key....-But I'd have to hear the facts. Yeah, this changes everything. I still think the civil side is pretty solid against DS but he can make more money being on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Yeah, this changes everything. I still think the civil side is pretty solid against DS but he can make more money being on the field. How is liability done in Florida? Do they break it up by %? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 interesting...didn't know the guy was jaywalking...-maybe people shouldnt be so quick to throw away the key....-But I'd have to hear the facts. Yes the original report was that he was not crossing in a crosswalk. I think I also read that he was trying to get to the bus stop...perhaps the pedestrian was concerned about catching a bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 interesting...didn't know the guy was jaywalking...-maybe people shouldnt be so quick to throw away the key....-But I'd have to hear the facts. Most stories I read on this have stipulated all along that there may be evidence showing the victim not obeying normal jay walking/traffic laws...so we will see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts