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

[hatterson]

It sucks because we see all the time the DA with holding evidence which gives legal president for a mistrial.

It way very well have been a mistake or just them being incompetent but it opens the door for the defense to say they purposely did it because it would weaken their case and now This guy might get off on a technicality, free to possibly put someone else at risk.

It seems unlikely that the DA intentionally withheld it from the grand jury knowing it could be exculpatory. More likely is that they didn’t believe it was exculpatory and thus didn’t think they needed to present it or because it wasn’t viewed as exculpatory they simply forgot to include it in their materials like a billion other irrelevant facts that a grand jury never sees.

 

[General Fanager]

Seems to me that they were drinking and did the right thing by not driving.....Mr Higgins should have done the same.

 

[Schennanigans]

Imagine being a lawyer and representing this scum bag.

 

[LaCarriere]

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.

Cant believe it took until the 32nd post for someone to realize this.

Evidence, including the drivers BAC was presented to a grand jury which lead to his indictment, but not the BAC of the Gaudreaus? As horrible as DD is, if the Gaudreaus BAC was that high it's a relevant piece of information for the defense to know for their defense strategy.

Would it have changed the grand jury's outcome? I'm going to say probably not, but if the prosecution has that information at the time of indictment, they have a legal responsibility for disclosure/discovery to his defense team, because unfortunately, it does have some relevance to the case.

It's stupid legal mistakes like this why bad people sometimes walk free. This is why the defense is likely asking how the BAC evidence of the Gaudreaus was collected, and when it became known by the coroner, prosecution, etc. This isn't so much the defense team saying Higgins isn't responsible, or that the Gaudreaus are at fault. It's questioning if the prosecution was withholding information that may be relevant to the defense team, and withheld information until after he was indicted

 

[LaCarriere]

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.

Easy. An autopsy would be done in order to determine cause of death. Look up when an autopsies are done in NJ, and you'll understand why.

Part of an autopsy would have been blood tests, to see if the Gaudreaus had any drugs/alcohol, etc in their system, because their death is part of a criminal investigation and that information is relevant to that investigation.

If the prosecution withheld information from the defense for whatever reason (wanted to nail this guy, wanted to protect the Gaudreaus reputation, didn't think their BAC was relevant, or whatever their motivation), that's a potentially huge failure of discovery of evidence.

Also to anyone saying the Gaudreaus BAC isn't relevant, ...if the prosecution had this information before the indictment (they had Higgins BAC), so they probably had the Gaudreaus. They have a legal responsibility to share that information. It's not up to the prosecution decide what information is or isn't relevant before going infront of a grand jury... That's the courts and grand jurys job. To decide what is relevant, and if there's enough evidence to go to a trial.

 

[LaCarriere]

It seems unlikely that the DA intentionally withheld it from the grand jury knowing it could be exculpatory. More likely is that they didn’t believe it was exculpatory and thus didn’t think they needed to present it or because it wasn’t viewed as exculpatory they simply forgot to include it in their materials like a billion other irrelevant facts that a grand jury never sees.

It isn't the prosecutions job to decide what is/isn't relevant, or what may/may not be viewed as exculpatory prior to indictment.

That's sort of the courts/jury's job. Now if a judge rules that it was relevant, and withheld, this guy could possibly get off on a legal technicality.

An autopsy would have been performed on the Gaudreaus due to the circumstances of their death, and the criminal investigation, and I find it hard to believe that the prosecution wouldnt have had the full results before going infront of a grand jury.

 

[Jumptheshark]

It isn't the prosecutions job to decide what is/isn't relevant, or what may/may not be viewed as exculpatory prior to indictment.

That's sort of the courts/jury's job. Now if a judge rules that it was relevant, and withheld, this guy could possibly get off on a legal technicality.

An autopsy would have been performed on the Gaudreaus due to the circumstances of their death, and the criminal investigation, and I find it hard to believe that the prosecution wouldnt have had the full results before going infront of a grand jury.

That is one reason why some people believe that the prosecution ran quickly through things in hope of getting the guy to cut a deal

 

[swiftwin]

I'm absolutely appaled with the victim blaming in this thread.

The Gaudreaus did nothing wrong.

Higgins was a road raging piece of shit who swerved across the road to undertake another car that was giving the Gaudreaus a wide pass.