Boating Accident

[MAXUM]

This is amazing.

Let's just for a minute subtract the entire case here for a minute and think about this in a more technical manner versus an emotional one. The very foundation of this country was that we as people can and should be free to do as we wish. In order to maintain a civilized society it's also necessary to put reasonable barriers or laws in place for the overall good of the citizens. These laws exist to protect our way of life and maintain a safe and orderly society. In order for things to function correctly these laws must be followed and if broken then with due process those violators will either be punished or exonerated. Now what good is it to have these laws if they are either not enforced or selectively enforced? What does that set as an example for everyone else as observers? What some are allowed to break the law and get away with no punishment but others may not? Sorry that's neither fair nor a precedent that should be set, or followed for that matter. As sad as this story may be, the facts of the case stand on themselves and there is just cause for punishment, and whatever personal suffering that may also be caused does not count in my opinion. Although there was no intention to cause harm, that doesn't mean a get out of jail free card. The fact there was alcohol involved lessens my sympathy. Either way harm was done, although not pre-meditated, it comes with consequences. As this circles back to where I started, we are given the right to choose what we do with our freedoms, but must also take responsibility for those choices. Anything less is a slap in the face to all of us law abiding citizens.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

This is amazing.

Let's just for a minute subtract the entire case here for a minute and think about this in a more technical manner versus an emotional one. The very foundation of this country was that we as people can and should be free to do as we wish. In order to maintain a civilized society it's also necessary to put reasonable barriers or laws in place for the overall good of the citizens. These laws exist to protect our way of life and maintain a safe and orderly society. In order for things to function correctly these laws must be followed and if broken then with due process those violators will either be punished or exonerated. Now what good is it to have these laws if they are either not enforced or selectively enforced? What does that set as an example for everyone else as observers? What some are allowed to break the law and get away with no punishment but others may not? Sorry that's neither fair nor a precedent that should be set, or followed for that matter. As sad as this story may be, the facts of the case stand on themselves and there is just cause for punishment, and whatever personal suffering that may also be caused does not count in my opinion. Although there was no intention to cause harm, that doesn't mean a get out of jail free card. The fact there was alcohol involved lessens my sympathy. Either way harm was done, although not pre-meditated, it comes with consequences. As this circles back to where I started, we are given the right to choose what we do with our freedoms, but must also take responsibility for those choices. Anything less is a slap in the face to all of us law abiding citizens.

Have you ever gone through a stop sign or a red light and only realized after it was too late that you needed to stop? What if your actions resulted in an accident that killed someone because you were negligent? So should you lose your freedom because you committed a negligent act and enforcing the laws on the books is important?

What I can't stand through all of this had been the stance of some people who act as if they have never made a single bad decision or action in their life. I'll even wager that some on this board have driven while over the limit and may simply have never been caught.

The problem with her going to jail and anyone who may drive drunk is the punishment is reactionary. A mandatory jail sentence for first-time OUI would be more appropriate to be a deterrent BEFORE an accident happens.

Also, it appears that during the trial nobody on our expert law forum brought up the x-factor that if her face was maimed that it would lead to sympathetic jurors.

In the end, this will be about money. I suspect that Blizzard will or already has been sued in civil court.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Have you ever gone through a stop sign or a red light and only realized after it was too late that you needed to stop? What if your actions resulted in an accident that killed someone because you were negligent? So should you lose your freedom because you committed a negligent act and enforcing the laws on the books is important?

What I can't stand through all of this had been the stance of some people who act as if they have never made a single bad decision or action in their life. I'll even wager that some on this board have driven while over the limit and may simply have never been caught.

The problem with her going to jail and anyone who may drive drunk is the punishment is reactionary. A mandatory jail sentence for first-time OUI would be more appropriate to be a deterrent BEFORE an accident happens.

Also, it appears that during the trial nobody on our expert law forum brought up the x-factor that if her face was maimed that it would lead to sympathetic jurors.

In the end, this will be about money. I suspect that Blizzard will or already has been sued in civil court.

Why is it that under certain circumstances it's somehow OK to break the law? If that's the case why bother having them? If you blow through a stop sign, whether it be on purpose or for the most innocent of reasons you've still failed to stop and as a result yes you should get a ticket. Using this as an example if that law is never enforced then what's to prevent anyone from blowing through stop signs? Nothing cause there is no penalty for doing so. To expand on your example, now an accident is caused and somebody dies as a result. Yes absolutely you should face the consequences of those actions even if it were an honest mistake. Intent in this case is what makes a difference and the reason why in a case of a true accident with a death involved you'd be likely charged with something like manslaughter versus first degree murder which carries a much stiffer sentence.

I won't even begin to suggest that I've never ever broken the law especially in my younger days. Yes I did get caught some times other times not. When I did get caught there was no excuse and I had to face the music. I made my mistakes and paid for them, just like anyone else should. I lost my driver's license when I was 18 years old because I was stupid and I deserved it. At the time I thought it was unfair, looking back I can only say I was an arrogant little punk and a few days in the slammer probably would have done me some good. As it turns out the military did that for me, thankfully I might add.

Now I'm no lawyer and would never claim to be an expert on our legal system, but I do know that if anyone who gets charged with a crime has their day in court to explain themselves and it's up to a jury to decide what the appropriate punishment should be. Mandatory sentences aren't always the answer, but I would agree with you that anytime alcohol is involved yes there should be as anyone who operates a vehicle under the influence has made a conscience decision to do so and in doing so puts society as a whole in danger and that is simply unacceptable. I don't think that mandatory sentences in these cases would be a deterrent though, drunk drivers tend to be repeat offenders.

Finally while some may have sympathy for personal losses the perpetrator may have suffered, that should not in any way sway the jury into a lighter sentence - at least it wouldn't if I were there in the jury pool.

[john60ri]

Are you kidding? What nonsense! If you can't comment unless you have personal knowledge of a particular event or subject, then you better close down most of this forum. I wasn't in Dallas on November 22, 1963, but I certainly have made an informed judgement about what happened that day, based on my reading and the evidence. Same thing applies to the Blizzard trial. There has been enough evidence made public to make a rational judgement about her guilt or innocence.

[Airwaves]

I didn't say you couldn't comment. It just puts those comments into perspective.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I didn't say you couldn't comment. It just puts those comments into perspective.

Airwaves...if I may...let me point out a flaw in your thinking. I assume, first of all, that your point is that only the jurors would have all the evidence.
However, one must also remember that the jurors are also subjected to the defense attorney's "spin" on that evidence. And, such spin doctoring, can indeed lead to a jury being convinced to ignore common sense.
Although it may be a bit of a stretch, I'm sure you recall the OJ trial. The defense lawyers came thru with flying colors in spining and dismissing evidence.
It is indeed quite possible, given the many undisputed facts in this case (Erica's case) , that jurors put common sense aside, and became convinced of the "reasonable doubt" that the defense fabricated. A non-juror was not subjected to such nonsense.

[Woodsy]

WOW!!! Its a mighty slippery slope there SA (and others).... Welcome to the Brave New World!

Your willing to second guess the JURY and convict someone just from the information YOU gleaned from various media outlets? Because the media outlets dont put thier bias into any articles? They only report facts, all the facts? There is no way you could be that naive! Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open!

The only people who heard ALL of the unfiltered evidence was the Judge and Jury and whatever people attended the trial every day. In this case the jury convicted her of 1 charge and deadlocked on the alcohol related charges. When the jury was polled after trial, the jury was split 60/40 in her favor for aquittal on the alcohol charges. Apperently more jurors believed the defense than the state in regards to this evidence! There was an article in the Citizen with this info....

Perhaps you folks might want to reread the Constitution? Presumed Innocent until PROVEN beyond REASONABLE DOUBT of GUILT! The tone of your post suggests that facts presented by the prosecution (any prosecution) are irrefutable! Thats a load of crap! Defense attorney spin? What about prosecutorial spin? We all know that NEVER happens! (That was sarcasm for those who dont quite get it).

The purpose of a JURY trial is that no one person decides another persons fate. The guys that wrote the CONSTITUTION (you know our forefathers) were painfully aware how flawed that type of legal system is. The state puts thier spin on the evidence and the events in question, the defense trys to find the mistakes and the holes in the prosecutions version of events. Its called checks and balances (another BIG part of the American legal system)! There is no automatic presumption of guilt in the american legal system... the state has to PROVE its case!

I know we are discussing the Blizzard case, but my post applies to all cases. I am not going to second guess the folks that served on this jury or any jury. I thank them for doing a thankless job.

Woodsy

[sa meredith]

Woodsy...you have many good points in your post. But I would ask...
You believe all defense attorneys are of equal talent?
It does not matter which one you hire?
Some are not better than others at spin doctoring?
It is not possible for a jury to be mislead?
Just questions...things to think about.
I mean there are indeed lawyers who advertise that they are DWI specialist...but if the jury get's it right every time, why would you need one? Answer...Because a DWI specialist know how to create the doubt. That's my only point.
Here, we have a case, where a boat crashed into an island, and a woman was killed. There were empty beer cans and an open vodka bottle on the boat. The women admit to drinking in a bar for several hours. The captain made some decisions about the way she operated the boat that would have you question her state of mind.
And before the trial, which was delayed several times, the defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the blood test, which showed .15??!!
I'm sure he had a decent "legal" arguement to file such a motion. He was doing his job. Trying to keep the facts that hurt his case, from a courtroom. He was playing the game. And only those with legit $$$ can play.

[NoBozo]

Does anyone know if the Waitperson who served the food and drink at The Wolfetrap Restaurant Testified at the trial...and if they did, was it for the prosecution or the defence..? NB

[Woodsy]

SA....

Of course I do not believe all attorneys are of equal talent. There are a few brilliant attorneys who get paid the big bucks and a few attorneys that are not qualified to argue a parking ticket.... and there are lots that fall inbetween. This is not an argument of the rich vs. poor and who can afford a better defense.

The prosecution wants a conviction, the defense an aquittal! The prosecution is going to try to lead a jury down one path, while the defense is trying to lead them down another... both the prosecution and defense put thier "spin" on the evidence and events in question to get the best possible outcome. If the prosecution brings in an expert from the state evidence lab to spin it thier way, the defense has a RIGHT to bring in thier own expert to discredit that evidence. If Erica had a court appointed attorney, the state would have paid for her "defense expert" as well as the rest of cost of trying her!

Somewhere in the middle usually lies the truth.... and that is for the JURY to decide. The jury unamimously found her guilty of negligent homicide by failure to keep a proper lookout. Yet those same jurors found reasonable doubt on the alcohol counts after hearing all of that damning evidence (as portrayed in the media)!

My point is perhaps there was some reason (known only to the jury) that they deadlocked in her favor. I dont know because I wasnt a juror and didnt hear all of the evidence and testimony or the discussion in the jury room! My issue is with how some people take for granted the BS the media or the government shovels up to them as irrefuteable fact and formulate absolute opinions and convictions without any other research.

I dont always believe what I am told especially by the media and the government.... I question everything!

Woodsy

[Pineedles]

I don't want to advocate ending this thread, but I have nothing more to say.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

.... The only people who heard ALL of the unfiltered evidence was the Judge and Jury and whatever people attended the trial every day. ...

Having served on a jury many times over the years I can say with confidence that the jury did NOT hear unfiltered evidence, they never do. The jury hears what the judge allows after the numerous bench conferences and chamber conferences where both sides argue over what should be admitted. Granted, the jury may have heard more that what was reported by the press but they also heard LESS than what was reported by the press.

[john60ri]

My apologies to "Airwaves". My comments yesterday were a bit harsh. Let's see how the sentencing goes. The judge usually has a clearer understanding of the facts and the law than the jury does.

[Airwaves]

john60ri No harm, no foul.

I think Woodsy has very eliquently pointed out my position on what is being said regarding the issue and why I am taking the stand I am taking. I wasn't there and I have to rely on media coverage of the trial. There is no way in those few column inches that we got a true sense of the hours and days of testimony and evidence presented in the week long trail.

As I posted in the other thread on this topic, it was interesting to read the 4 different newspaper's coverage of the trial and see what they each reported, and did not report, in the same day's coverage.

Keep in mind that the prosecution has the option of re-trying her on the charges in which the jury could not reach a verdict. I predict that if the sentence is stiff there will be no retrial, but if the prosecutor is not satisfied with the sentence there will be a retrial.

APS wrote

If there's an appeal (and I'd expect one) we'll have transcripts of exactly what went on—eventually.

I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet that the transcript is available right now. Unless things in the NH court system are very different from elsewhere, those transcripts are the property of the court reporter (stenographer). He or she makes them available to anyone, for a price. So you can have them now if you want them.

RI Swamp Yankee wrote:

Having served on a jury many times over the years I can say with confidence that the jury did NOT hear unfiltered evidence, they never do. The jury hears what the judge allows after the numerous bench conferences and chamber conferences where both sides argue over what should be admitted. Granted, the jury may have heard more that what was reported by the press but they also heard LESS than what was reported by the press.

Having served on a jury myself, they take the duty very seriously including the fact that the state must prove its case, the defense does not have to prove anything. The jury hears what is allowed by law for them to hear while those of us that are not sitting on the jury have the luxury of listening and reading all kinds of speculative theorys.

[ApS]

It's a fact that a jury is massively kept from details in criminal cases.

One example:

If Erica's traffic stop had occurred while the jury had their day off, the judge would have been compelled to order a new trial. (Even after ordering that the jury not view any Media).

In the new trial, that traffic stop—and any and every previous offense—would have never been heard by a jury.

As to transcripts:

Reams upon reams of paper are produced in a single criminal case with the contents double-spaced—with 2" footers and 2" headers— and printed only on one side.

At a charge of a dollar a page, most of us aren't going to read of extensive voir dires without falling asleep. (Although a judge's voir dires can tell a juror what verdict to arrive at!)

As to the Constitution:
There is no explicit "presumption of innocence" in the U. S. Constitution.

Quoting Amendments 5, 6, and 14, Roman law—and Medieval Law—an implicit case was made in Coffin vs. US.

As to 'Prosecutorial misconduct':

"...allegations of 'prosecutorial misconduct' too often surface as defense trial tactics that are superficially aired in the popular media. In truth, allegations of 'prosecutorial misconduct' are rarely substantiated and are confused with occasional 'prosecutorial error' which does not involve professional misconduct..."

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/...debarsb&aid=34

As to 'Defense misconduct':

"... If a defense attorney errs, the court simply refers to it as ineffective assistance of counsel, ['Rule-3'], or some other less damaging word.

"If the court errs, the judge is not designated as having committed 'misconduct..."

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/...debarsb&aid=34

We'll never hear of the suborning of witness Erica, which can be done carefully through leading questions. "Suborning of a witness" is simply "private coaching".

A "blanket-denial" is a typical defense tactic, whose fingerprints can be seen in defense-witness testimony throughout this trial. (And by the attorney himself—on the very first day he was hired).

"Suborning of a witness" is an illegal act for any attorney, which typically would not be recorded or appear in transcripts. "Suborning of a witness" was one charge of many in a recent impeachment trial.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

It's a fact that a jury is massively kept from details in criminal cases.

One example:

If Erica's traffic stop had occurred while the jury had their day off, the judge would have been compelled to order a new trial. (Even after ordering that the jury not view any Media).

In the new trial, that traffic stop—and any and every previous offense—would have never been heard by a jury.

Right, because the traffic stop has absolutely NOTHING to do with the boating accident. While parts of the story regarding the traffic stop may speak to her character, the 2 events are completely unrelated.

[NoRegrets]

Accidents will always happen. The notion that we have all slipped at one time or another is accurate. Those that claim this has never happened to them either live in a bubble or are oblivious to their surroundings.
Momentary lapses in focused operation lead to a death. The series of events in this accident should give us all the chance to reflect on ourselves. Many like to judge the actions of this case. I prefer to feel bad for all involved and would look to improve my own awareness as I control machinery and equipment around others. How do you keep alert and lasor forcussed 100% of the time? How easy is it to take things for granted that we have done hundreds of times and got "over confident"? We can all be judged after an event but what can we do to keep hightened awareness?

These are the questions and challenge I am placing on my own activities based on this case and much of the testomony from all of you.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

Accidents will always happen. The notion that we have all slipped at one time or another is accurate. Those that claim this has never happened to them either live in a bubble or are oblivious to their surroundings.
Momentary lapses in focused operation lead to a death. The series of events in this accident should give us all the chance to reflect on ourselves. Many like to judge the actions of this case. I prefer to feel bad for all involved and would look to improve my own awareness as I control machinery and equipment around others. How do you keep alert and lasor forcussed 100% of the time? How easy is it to take things for granted that we have done hundreds of times and got "over confident"? We can all be judged after an event but what can we do to keep hightened awareness?

These are the questions and challenge I am placing on my own activities based on this case and much of the testomony from all of you.

No Regrets:

News Flash: If one doesn't drink and speed in total darkness in the middle of the night his/her chance of having a "momentary lapse" on the lake are greatly reduced.

This trial is all about money. More specifically, it is about Erica trying to avoid a large judgement in Civil Court for causing the death of Stephanie B. Unfortunately, she was found guilty of negligence by a jury of her peers and she now will face the consequences which will likely include both jail time and a subsequent monetary judgement.

[NoRegrets]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

No Regrets:

News Flash: If one doesn't drink and speed in total darkness in the middle of the night his/her chance of having a "momentary lapse" on the lake are greatly reduced.

That is a no-duh Darwin statement. I do not think anyone will ever be so simple or stupid to argue that bonehead fact. I give more credit to the posters than that. Many choose to point and blame everyone else and some have decided to be introspective.

[LDR4]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

No Regrets:

News Flash: If one doesn't drink and speed in total darkness in the middle of the night his/her chance of having a "momentary lapse" on the lake are greatly reduced.

This trial is all about money. More specifically, it is about Erica trying to avoid a large judgment in Civil Court for causing the death of Stephanie B. Unfortunately, she was found guilty of negligence by a jury of her peers and she now will face the consequences which will likely include both jail time and a subsequent monetary judgment.

This trial was not about money, it was about a jury of her peers hearing evidence provided by the State of NH. Is money involved?? Yes it is. The prosecutor is getting paid by the state to do his job and the defense attorney is getting paid by the defendant to do his job.
I am sick of hearing about "the best defense money could buy" and how Erica and her family have "money" and that is why she is not going to do any jail time. Well you know what...any one of us if put in the same situation would hire the best defense attorney we could afford. That is what she did.
Her attorney did what he was supposed to do. He defended her within the parameters of the law. He showed reasonable doubt.

If all of you out there crying for blood in this case want to play the "best that money can buy" card, maybe you should look at the prosecutor and ask yourself if he did the best job he could for the State.

I am not a friend of Erica's. I hardly know who she is (other than seeing her at the gas pumps a few times over the years) but IMO she and her family worked for what they have, they were not handed the money, they did not win the lottery, so if they choose to use their money to defend Erica, so what?? Anyone complaining about her being a "rich girl" is (IMO) reeking of jealousy.
In about 30 minutes, she will be sentenced and then you can all rejoice (if she gets jail time) or continue to complain (if she does not) but I say...let it go. Get a life. Three families’ lives have been affected forever, we have all had our chance to vent, and I don't think that you need to keep this story alive anymore.
Personally I will remember what happened that night every time I get behind the wheel of my boat (or car for that matter) but that has nothing to do with the postings on this forum, but rather the event itself.
This is a boating forum, the season is here, let's talk boating

[jack1706]

Well, it's in : Erica gets 6 months in jail and 6 months home confinement.
I hope it is over ...

Let's all hope no more accidents at lake Winni !

Boat Safely All..............

[NoBozo]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...04-21-10-47-32

[Happy Gourmand]

6 months in jail....6 months home confinement

[Mink Islander]

And 200 hours of community service. A reasonable and balanced sentence all things considered. Did she lose her boating license at all?

[Mr. V]

This trial is all about money. More specifically, it is about Erica trying to avoid a large judgement in Civil Court for causing the death of Stephanie B. Unfortunately, she was found guilty of negligence by a jury of her peers and she now will face the consequences which will likely include both jail time and a subsequent monetary judgement.

Whether a large civil judgment is rendered is essentially independent of the outcome of the criminal trial.

True, a guilty verdict would make a civil judgment easier to prove, but were Erica to have been adjudged Not Guilty of the crime, she'd still face the prospect of a civil judgment in a different action, i.e. in a lawsuit.

A criminal case and a civil lawsuit are two different things.

[SAMIAM]

Pretty strong stuff from Topwater.........uses a lot of caps because he (or she) must think we're not smart enough to get the point without them.

[jrc]

After getting over the intial gut feeling.

I think she got a "within reason" punishment for what she was convicted of.

A first offense, not convicted of alcohol, nothing crazy reckless or fast (18-33 MPH doesn't sound fast to a non-boater. We all drive are cars at night in bad weather much faster than that).

IMHO Now her lawyer should be making the big deal. They won't appeal, if the state doesn't re-try on the alcohol charges. One summer in jail and it's over.

[jrc]

BTW the judge did not address her right to drive a car or a boat, but the MP and DMV still can.

The MP has the ability under RSA 270- D:13

" II. Once issued, the certificate of safe boater education shall be valid for the lifetime of the person and may not be revoked by the department of safety or a court without cause and a hearing in accordance with RSA 541-A."

And of course the DMV has wide discretion to revoke and suspend motor vehicle licenses related to her recent driving infraction.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

"...we are given the right to choose what we do with our freedoms, but must also take responsibility for those choices. Anything less is a slap in the face to all of us law abiding citizens..."

1) She has surgeries ahead to remind her of her bad decisions, and must live forevermore with having killed a friend.

2) I'd favor "community service" for Erica, following a permanent revocation of her boating certificate from any state and in any state.

(And probation).

BTW: Littlefield was banned from Lake Winnipesaukee for the long period preceding his trial.