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

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Welcome to American litigation!

Isn’t this a criminal trial ?

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

I mean when it comes to laying down a penalty it might matter

 

[McHelpus]

Them withholding the alcohol levels is a big deal, no? Could this change his sentencing?

 

[K1984]

The issue here is the treatment of driving a bike drunk and driving a car drunk as equivalent in the eyes of the law. They're not the same for pretty obvious reasons, but they are in the eyes of the law.

Lets say the Gaudreau's were driving a car drunk, followed the laws of the road and were driving perfectly while doing it, then Higgins who is less drunk, crashes into them and kills them. The Gaudreau's impairment had absolutely nothing to do with the crash (as is likely in the bike scenario as well), but their level of intoxication absolutely would play a role in charges and sentencing for Higgins in the case where both are in cars.

Pretend they were in a car, not on a bike. It makes no logical sense, but that's pretty much how it needs to be looked at legally.

 

[hatterson]

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.

He hasn't been tried yet, much less been found guilty and sentenced. This is about evidence presented to the grand jury in order to secure a indictment.

They filed for a dismissal of the charges, not a mistrial.

 

[Crow]

I really question how defense attorneys sleep at night.

Filing shit like this to try to get clients they know are guilty as f*** out of facing the music. And knowing that sometimes they succeed.

They have a duty to represent their clients to the best of their ability.

I doubt many of them are bothered by adhering to one of the principles of the oath they took.

 

[TooManyHumans]

If that information was withheld from the jury at the time of sentencing, the case the attorney is making here is completely valid.

Why do you keep saying this? He has been charged. He has not even had a trial or been convicted, and certainly has not been sentenced.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

They have a duty to represent their clients to the best of their ability.

I doubt many of them are bothered by adhering to one of the principles of the oath they took.

True, you have to have a soul to be affected by getting murderers, rapists, etc. off the hook.

 

[hatterson]

The issue here is the treatment of driving a bike drunk and driving a car drunk as equivalent in the eyes of the law. They're not the same for pretty obvious reasons, but they are in the eyes of the law.

Lets say the Gaudreau's were driving a car drunk, followed the laws of the road and were driving perfectly while doing it, then Higgins who is less drunk, crashes into them and kills them. The Gaudreau's impairment had absolutely nothing to do with the crash (as is likely in the bike scenario as well), but their level of intoxication absolutely would play a role in charges and sentencing for Higgins in the case where both are in cars.

Pretend they were in a car, not on a bike. It makes no logical sense, but that's pretty much how it needs to be looked at legally.

I'd say the real issue is that people think it's remotely acceptable to drive drunk in the first place.

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

f*** this guy so much

I could go on a nice rant, but I’d probably violate forum rules.

Appreciate your self restraint!

 

[K1984]

I'd say the real issue is that people think it's remotely acceptable to drive drunk in the first place.

Cool.

Not relevant to anything I said, but cool.

 

[MoneyManny]

But isn't the issue his driving, not the blood alcohol levels? I feel like we're getting the cause and effect badly mixed up here.

That's what lawyers are paid the big bucks for.

 

[Johnnucleo]

I mean, yeah guys a scum bag, but are we really shocked that he would be willing to try any defense to reduce his sentence? If it meant reducing life to 10-15 years, would any of you really be like "no. i have too much honor, give me life". I think desperate people do desperate things in desperate times.

As far as Lawyers they are all scumbags, and just doing whatever to win.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Why do you keep saying this? He has been charged. He has not even had a trial or been convicted, and certainly has not been sentenced.

Yes, I was using the incorrect word. What I meant was that if this information was withheld when he was indicted, he has a case for the charges to be dismissed due to not providing evidence to the grand jury.

I don't think it works, but there is a case to be made.

 

[robertocarlos]

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.

It shouldn't even depend on his BAC.

 

[Crow]

True, you have to have a soul to be affected by getting murderers, rapists, etc. off the hook.

These are people who became defense lawyers in the first place. Pretty sure a lot of them are in it for the money as much or more than the justice. Human beings are pretty damn good at justifying their own behavior.

 

[Empoleon8771]

The issue here is the treatment of driving a bike drunk and driving a car drunk as equivalent in the eyes of the law. They're not the same for pretty obvious reasons, but they are in the eyes of the law.

Lets say the Gaudreau's were driving a car drunk, followed the laws of the road and were driving perfectly while doing it, then Higgins who is less drunk, crashes into them and kills them. The Gaudreau's impairment had absolutely nothing to do with the crash (as is likely in the bike scenario as well), but their level of intoxication absolutely would play a role in charges and sentencing for Higgins in the case where both are in cars.

Pretend they were in a car, not on a bike. It makes no logical sense, but that's pretty much how it needs to be looked at legally.

Biking while drunk isn't considered a DUI in New Jersey.

The only relevance the Gaudreaus being drunk may have is possibly lessening the charges against Higgins. Obviously the lawyer is shooting to have the charges be dropped due to this information not being presented, which I doubt works but he has a case for.

 

[majormajor]

I think it’s safe to say the defense has implied it is by pleading not guilty.

Just generally eyewitnesses are not as reliable as some seem to think.

I’d rather wait to make judgement. Very likely that people are right to be outraged but not at this particular part of the case.

I've almost been killed before by impatient drivers. It was the first thing I reacted to here - beyond the horror of losing Gaudreau - it was the impatience not the drunk part that upset me the most.

 

[Crow]

Biking while drunk isn't considered a DUI in New Jersey.

The only relevance the Gaudreaus being drunk may have is possibly lessening the charges against Higgins. Obviously the lawyer is shooting to have the charges be dropped due to this information not being presented, which I doubt works but he has a case for.

Well, as much as some people might hate it, if evidence was withheld, the charges really should be dropped and then they can have another grand jury and try to charge him with the same thing and/or a lesser crime with all of the evidence.

 

[Richard]

In PA if you are above the legal limit, or even slightly under, and an accident occurs you are automatically at fault. I think Florida is one of the only states where you can argue the "accident would have occurred anyway" defense (had a client get a DUI while stopped at a red light when a teen on her phone rear-ended him, not only DUI but was automatically at fault by the insurance companies).

A bicycle is a mechanical device, like a riding lawnmower, and riding it intoxicated is the same thing, under color of law, as driving any other vehicle.

This will absolutely, at the very least, mitigate his sentence.

 

[hatterson]

It shouldn't even depend on his BAC.

I think the fact that he was drunk should be an aggravator to his sentence, but if the alleged behavior is accurate (driving aggressively, passing on the right, etc.) it should still absolutely meet the criteria for reckless vehicular manslaughter.

In some ways, being completely sober seems like it would actually be worse because then theoretically you chose to drive like and endanger other people while fully in control of your faculties as opposed to when you were drunk (not that being drunk is remotely an excuse, I actually think the DUI penalties are far, far too lenient)

 

[Crow]

I've almost been killed before by impatient drivers. It was the first thing I reacted to here - beyond the horror of losing Gaudreau - it was the impatience not the drunk part that upset me the most.

Maybe not almost killed but I have been hit by someone going around someone else as I was walking in a crosswalk. Broke my left arm.

 

[MoneyManny]

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.

WIthout supporting evidence that the Gaudreau brothers were driving their bikes recklessly, i don't think their blood alcohol level matters at all as it's not illegal. Any baseless assumptions are just hearsay.

What we DO know is the driver was commiting a crime driving under the influence and killed them both using his car.

 

[Esq]

I really question how defense attorneys sleep at night.

Filing shit like this to try to get clients they know are guilty as f*** out of facing the music. And knowing that sometimes they succeed.

Because the police and prosecutors cut corners.

 

[Killer Orcas]

This non sense is expected in litigious USA however feel terrible for Gaudreau family for having to go through more pain.

 

[93LEAFS]

Lawyers rightfully are gonna give the defendent the best defence they can get, and bring up any mitigating factors. They would be irresponsible if they didn't and then would leave a ton open for appeals if they didn't.

At the end of the day, regardless of anyone's liquor intake, he made an illegal road maneuver that would be considered insanely dangerous and reckless even if he blew a 0.000.