Sean Higgins' attorneys files a motion to dismiss charges- Claims the Gaudreau brothers were more intoxicated than Sean Higgins was.

[Bounces R Way]

Much harder to cause serious bodily harm to others drunk on a bicycle than it is drunk driving a car. That's why the rules are different Sean, you pondscum.

 

[cowboy82nd]

It doesn't matter if the brothers were drunk or not, he still caused their death.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I don't even blame the lawyer, that's what they're paid to do.
Still, even if Higgins somehow gets off he'll never have a life to live again.

This case really should put a bigger spotlight on drunk driving and the lives it ruins.

 

[ShootIt]

I don't care for it, but it's their job to "fight" for their client.

 

[Prettyisland]

As absolutely awful and deplorable this motion is. They would be a terrible lawyers not to pursue it. Being on the defensive side of a crime like this just makes you look like a complete asshat.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

Sounds like he's from Alberta.

Not to stereotype but I’ve lived all across Canada and overseas, hands down the worst drunk driving/angry culture I’ve seen is Alberta. Lost a coworker (killed by a drunk driver) and a roommate (killed himself and his friend drunk driving) while I lived there.

 

[winnipegger]

Imagine the nerve of this ****ing idiot - and his legal team, no doubt - to actually try and shame two people who were in the process of doing the responsible thing and NOT DRIVING after a night of drinking.

Something Higgins himself failed to do.

I hope the judge doesn't even give them the time of day. What an absolute joke.

Eh, it actually does matter if the G brothers were cycling on a highway while intoxicated. You are less likely to kill people with your bike to be sure, but if you are driving your bike erratically you can cause crashes quite easily. I hate to say it because I hate drunk drivers and this guy needs prison time. But if this was a crash involving 3 intoxicated drivers it matters.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It's illegal. New Jersey law treats cycling under the influence (CUI) similarly to driving under the influence (DUI) when it comes to penalties and enforcement.

Source?

Because the only stuff I found said it could result in public nuisance charges but that's about it. And that case precedent is contradictory.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Imagine the nerve of this ****ing idiot - and his legal team, no doubt - to actually try and shame two people who were in the process of doing the responsible thing and NOT DRIVING after a night of drinking.

Something Higgins himself failed to do.

I hope the judge doesn't even give them the time of day. What an absolute joke.

Biking at night with a 0.13 BAC is absolutely not a "responsible thing to do".

I really think people are missing the point of what the lawyer here is arguing. The argument being made is that there was evidence withheld that could have at least partially lessened the responsibility he has for the accident, which is a basis for dismissing the case.

He objectively drunk drove and killed the Gaudreau brothers, but if the Gaudreaus were drunk while biking and causing a hazardous situation, his crime/sentencing would be lighter due to that factor. If that factor was withheld, that is an absolutely legitimate case to bring up.

 

[dirtydanglez]

obviously he should still be charged but it's disappointing to hear the gaudreaus were so intoxicated

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

How the f*** would he know if they were intoxicated??

Did he roll down his window and ask them before he plowed into them??

Moron.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Biking at night with a 0.13 BAC is absolutely not a "responsible thing to do".

I really think people are missing the point of what the lawyer here is arguing. The argument being made is that there was evidence withheld that could have at least partially lessened the responsibility he has for the accident, which is a basis for dismissing the case. It's an argument for a mistrial.

He objectively drunk drove and killed the Gaudreau brothers, but if the Gaudreaus were drunk while biking and causing a hazardous situation, his sentencing would be lighter due to that factor. If that factor was withheld at the sentencing, that is an absolutely legitimate case to bring up.

I disagree.

The only one who "caused a hazardous situation" that night was Higgins, when he got behind the wheel of his car or truck and plowed into two unsuspecting cyclists. The Gaudreaus were riding their bikes on the shoulder and were no risk to any other motorist at the time. They may as well have just been walking, considering the cars passing them.

Their apparent intoxication was not in any way the cause or reason they died - Higgins was. 100%.

 

[majormajor]

I mean, I actually think Higgins' attorney has a legitimate case here

Whether the Gaudreau brothers were drunk doesn't change that he was also drunk while driving, but it does impact the responsibility of whether he was fully at fault or partially at fault for their deaths. The difference between fully at fault and partially at fault likely has a significant impact on his sentencing.

If that information was withheld at his initial sentencing, I absolutely believe they have a case for a mistrial and to dismiss the case.

He impatiently sped around a vehicle on its right side, plowing over two cyclists on the shoulder - that level of criminality shouldn't depend on the BAC of the cyclists.

 

[sabremike]

I can't post what I'm thinking reading this because I would lose my board account.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Hell yeah, another dozen pages of hard hitting legal analysis from HF’s best and brightest coming up let’s go

 

[hatterson]

How the f*** would he know if they were intoxicated??

Did he roll down his window and ask them before he plowed into them??

Moron.

Presumably the autopsy performed on both brothers included, among other things, BAC analysis and the state shared that information with the defendant because that's what they're legally obligated to do.

 

[Crow]

Filing stuff like this is literally a defense attorney's job.

It sucks because it looks like it's shaming the victims, but a defense lawyer *not* doing this is committing gross negligence.

You have to be a complete moron to think he is doing it to shame them.

It doesn't matter if the brothers were drunk or not, he still caused their death.

Seems at least debatable now. I guess if we are are ever privy to all the details we don’t yet have we can find out.

 

[Coffey]

Not to stereotype but I’ve lived all across Canada and overseas, hands down the worst drunk driving/angry culture I’ve seen is Alberta. Lost a coworker (killed by a drunk driver) and a roommate (killed himself and his friend drunk driving) while I lived there.

Sorry for your loss, dude.
And yes as someone that has lived here for 37 years, I agree.
It's like everyone here sniffed leaded gas in their youth.

 

[Crow]

He impatiently sped around a vehicle on its right side, plowing over two cyclists on the shoulder - that level of criminality shouldn't depend on the BAC of the cyclists.

I mean that’s an account of the events. Is it accurate? I wouldn’t 100% assume so without more information.

 

[BHD]

And this is why lawyers have work

 

[hatterson]

Also, to clarify, the defense attorney did not *claim* that the Gaudreau brothers were more intoxicated than the defendant rather he noted the fact that the State of New Jersey alleged that.

He filed a motion to dismiss because potentially exculpatory evidence regarding what his client was charged with may not have been presented to the grand jury. That's a completely standard motion to make in a situation like this even if it's almost guaranteed to fail.

He filed a completely standard motion to get more evidence regarding the chain of custody, testing protocols, training, etc. of everyone related to the testing. That's also a completely standard thing for a lawyer to do in a drunk driving case.

 

[centipede2233]

I mean, I actually think Higgins' attorney has a legitimate case here

Whether the Gaudreau brothers were drunk doesn't change that he was also drunk while driving, but it does impact the responsibility of whether he was fully at fault or partially at fault for their deaths. The difference between fully at fault and partially at fault likely has a significant impact on his sentencing.

If that information was withheld at his initial sentencing, I absolutely believe they have a case for a mistrial and to dismiss the case.

His lawyer is just doing his Job so I agree with your take. For the people saying what human garbage he is for trying to mitigate his sentence, guess what, humans in general are garbage, we are the most selfish species to have ever lived. Everything we do, we do for selfish reasons, step on whoever we need to step on for personal gain. It’s just how human beings work. It’s not right, it is what it is.

 

[majormajor]

I mean that’s an account of the events. Is it accurate? I wouldn’t 100% assume so without more information.

Is it under despite? I was under the impression that that is what the witnesses were all saying.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I disagree.

The only one who "caused a hazardous situation" that night was Higgins, when he got behind the wheel of his car or truck and plowed into two unsuspecting cyclists. The Gaudreaus were riding their bikes on the shoulder and were no risk to any other motorist at the time. They may as well have just been walking, considering the cars passing them.

Their apparent intoxication was not in any way the cause or reason they died - Higgins was. 100%.

I mean no one on this board was there, so it's impossible to say whether the Gaudreaus were drunk and swerving around or if their level of drunk was purely irrelevant to the accident.

That's why withholding this information would be a problem and could be justification to call for a mistrial. He still 100% committed a crime, but those kind of factors absolutely do impact the sentencing and specific crime he committed. If that information was withheld from the jury at the time of sentencing, the case the attorney is making here is completely valid.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Thread title should be changed because that’s not what the motion to dismiss is about - very misleading!