[ale] OT: Court tomorrow

[Christopher Fowler]

That is a reason for a jury trial.  Jurors can make decisions on their
beliefs. 

OT: 

I have this felling that the Judge in the Peterson case himself became a
juror. The jurry could not make a decision and he let go of two jurors
in the process.  As a result a conviction was created.  I did not follow
all the evidence so I can not make a decision.  But I believe you'll see
an appeal based on the Judges behavior in that trial.

It is human nature to be loyal to your party or your county, etc.  You
can be fair but the other is so much easier.  




On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 08:57, Sergio Chaves wrote:
> I can  verify that.
> Two years ago I was on a intersection, merging to a freeway.
> The driver in front of me and myself made a complete stop waiting for
> traffic to clear so we could merge.
> The car in front of me "took off" and I followed  behind it.
> The other driver *suddenly* hit the brakes thinking she would not have 
> enough
> room/speed/etc. to complete the merge and I hit her.
> 
> ALL of that was acknowledge by the other driver and myself in court but
> it seemed that the judge did not hear a single sentence . All the Judge 
> kept
> saying was that I should have (a) waited for the other driver to complete
> the merge or (b) given more distance between the cars.
> 
> The hammer came down hard; my checking account got $150.00 poorer,
> I "earned" points on my MVR and, my insurance went up a little for
> having to pay for both car repairs. :-(
> 
> Sergio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geoffrey wrote:
> 
> > Jeff Hubbs wrote:
> >
> >> Having not seen what actually happened, all I can offer is this: 
> >> "Following too closely" is indeed a catch-all and is typically tossed at
> >> anyone who rear-ends anyone else.  However, the logic behind that is
> >> that you should be able to get your car stopped without hitting anyone
> >> even if the car in front of you pulls the worst-case scenario, i.e, the
> >> car comes to an immediate dead stop right in front of you.  You can
> >> deflect the charge only if you can show - or at least persuasively
> >> assert - that something about the circumstances would have worked
> >> against a reasonable person with a fast foot *and* a sufficient stopping
> >> distance.  For instance, if the car didn't have working brake lights,
> >> costing you some time to react,
> >
> >
> > Generally, you will lose this as well, since the argument can well be 
> > made that the impact disloged, damaged or destroyed the brake lights.
> >
> > I've known two folks who rear ended vehicles, both claimed the vehicle 
> > they hit had no functioning brake lights and they both lost.  In both 
> > cases the judges (different judges, different states) told them that 
> > when following a vehicle, you should stay a reasonable distance away 
> > such that you could stop safely without the need for brake lights.  
> > This is where they come up with the 1 car length per 10 mph distance 
> > measure.  It's made based on the assumption this will give you enough 
> > space to stop based on recognizing the vehicle in front of you is 
> > stopping without the use of brake light notification.
> >
> > 9 times out of 10, the vehicle that hits another from behind is found 
> > at fault.
> >