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

[Hazy Little Thing]

Look, I get wanting to defend the Gaudreaus from fault, either legal or moral but it's illegal to ride a bike while intoxicated in New Jersey. It's not necessarily a DUI charge, but it's still illegal in other forms such as public intoxication or disorderly conduct, or whatever else the law wants to call it. It's punishable misconduct.

The truth is that all of this sucks, the lawyers are doing their jobs, and we'd all rather have the Gaudreau boys alive and that the ugliness of this all never happened. I hate all of this. I can't imagine how his family feels.

It’s specifically not illegal to ride a bike drunk in NJ. Quit saying it is. Words have meanings

 

[Barsky]

It’s specifically not illegal to ride a bike drunk in NJ. Quit saying it is. Words have meanings

The Kugel Law firm of New Jersey disagrees with your assertion and states pretty clearly it is illegal, so what is your proof it's not?

 

[Frank Drebin]

That would be crazy if you were allowed by law to ride a bike while intoxicated on a public road. I don't know if it is legal or not in NJ but I would be surprised if it was legal.

On a very quick google search it looks to be illegal.

 

[Hazy Little Thing]

The Kugel Law firm of New Jersey disagrees with your assertion and states pretty clearly it is illegal, so what is your proof it's not?

The law as it is written. Just because they have an incorrect interpretation doesn’t change how it’s written.

That would be crazy if you were allowed by law to ride a bike while intoxicated on a public road. I don't know if it is legal or not in NJ but I would be surprised if it was legal.

On a very quick google search it looks to be illegal.

They weren’t on the road, they were on the shoulder of the road. How do people keep getting confused by this?

 

[swiftwin]

If they were intoxicated (big if) then yes they did something wrong and would be a big contributing factor to the incident.

What did they do wrong?

 

[Barsky]

The law as it is written. Just because they have an incorrect interpretation doesn’t change how it’s written.


They weren’t on the road, they were on the shoulder of the road. How do people keep getting confused by this?

Right, you know better than a New Jersey law firm, real believable. And again, you offer no proof other than "cause I said so", lol, ok then

 

[ColbyChaos]

Lawyers are scum of the earth

 

[AlwaysSunnyInDetroit]

Oh you asked the internet did you? Case closed then, that's never wrong, why even have a trial?... It's a lawyer doing his job, I hate them as much as the next guy, but such is life. This guy is still going away for a long time, just a matter of due process

a lawyer doing their job by vigorously defending their client bothers me a lot less than some weirdo on the internet going out of their way to baselessly speculate on the morality and innocence of the victims. just because the trial hasn't taken place yet doesn't mean that there are not verifiable facts from which any reasonable person should be able to conclude who was responsible for the events of that evening. actually, maybe that's why you're doing this. a complete inability to use reason

 

[Hazy Little Thing]

Right, you know better than a New Jersey law firm, real believable. And again, you offer no proof other than "cause I said so", lol, ok then

My proof is the law as it is written and as it has been interpreted by the judicial system, do you need it read to you?

 

[1989]

The law as it is written. Just because they have an incorrect interpretation doesn’t change how it’s written.


They weren’t on the road, they were on the shoulder of the road. How do people keep getting confused by this?

So by your mental gymnastics, if a drunk driver is on the shoulder of the road and not the road, they're no longer a danger to those on the road, right?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to argue any more. People with far more experience than you or I, with full knowledge of litigation in the state of New Jersey, are confident in their ability to define and prosecute/defend the laws regarding the use of bicycles while intoxicated in that jurisdiction. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, but you certainly haven't been showing your work otherwise.

I personally don't even know if the Gaudreaus were confirmed to be under the influence in the first place. I'm not here to try and play internet lawyer with you. I'm not your enemy and nobody needs to be fabricating hostilities in a situation that is just ugly and shit all around. Can you just get off that train even for a minute?

 

[Barsky]

What did they do wrong?

They were biking drunk apparently, which is illegal in New Jersey according to at least one law firm. Not that that should change anything, but again, we're talking about a legal system with more loop holes than can be counted and that let Cosby walk free. Best not to assume anything, but that's a lost concept on some people

 

[wmupreds]

I don't understand what people expect lawyers to do if not advocate for their client. Should he not have a lawyer?

 

[Barsky]

My proof is the law as it is written and as it has been interpreted by the judicial system, do you need it read to you?

So you're a lawyer who has passed the bar in the state of New Jersey then?

I don't understand what people expect lawyers to do if not advocate for their client. Should he not have a lawyer?

Of course not, once the court of public opinion has passed a verdict, no trial is necessary

 

[Hazy Little Thing]

So by your mental gymnastics, if a drunk driver is on the shoulder of the road and not the road, they're no longer a danger to those on the road, right?

Are you conflating a couple bikes that are not on the road and a car driven by a drunk driver that drove over a couple bikers that weren’t on the road because the driver was drunk and tried to pass another vehicle off the right side of the road?

Get this, a drunk driver is dangerous because you never know when they might drive off the road and the consequences that result.

The DA has presented no evidence, nor is there any witness testimony that the brothers were posing any danger to the drivers of vehicles.

 

[Barsky]

So by your mental gymnastics, if a drunk driver is on the shoulder of the road and not the road, they're no longer a danger to those on the road, right?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to argue any more. People with far more experience than you or I, with full knowledge of litigation in the state of New Jersey, are confident in their ability to define and prosecute/defend the laws regarding the use of bicycles while intoxicated in that jurisdiction. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, but you certainly haven't been showing your work otherwise.

I personally don't even know if the Gaudreaus were confirmed to be under the influence in the first place. I'm not here to try and play internet lawyer with you. I'm not your enemy and nobody needs to be fabricating hostilities in a situation that is just ugly and shit all around. Can you just get off that train even for a minute?

Vert well said

 

[AlwaysSunnyInDetroit]

I don't understand what people expect lawyers to do if not advocate for their client. Should he not have a lawyer?

i personally think its a terrible defense strategy. if i were that man's attorney, my advice would be that it's time to get down on your hands and knees and beg for forgiveness

the fact that higgins can even stand in that courtroom without bawling his eyes out after killing 2 people is insane to me

 

[1989]

Are you conflating a couple bikes that are not on the road and a car driven by a drunk driver that drove over a couple bikers that weren’t on the road because the driver was drunk and tried to pass another vehicle off the right side of the road?

Get this, a drunk driver is dangerous because you never know when they might drive off the road and the consequences that result.

The DA has presented no evidence, nor is there any witness testimony that the brothers were posing any danger to the drivers of vehicles.

Again, I am not playing lawyer with you. I am telling you, by not my own words but by quoting those professionals who interpret, defend and prosecute the law in New Jersey.

If you have an issue with that, take it up with the courts. I can't even pretend to have half the facts that have either come to light in trial let alone the ones in discovery behind the scenes so therefore it is worthless to make a judgement... and neither should you.

 

[AlwaysSunnyInDetroit]

So by your mental gymnastics, if a drunk driver is on the shoulder of the road and not the road, they're no longer a danger to those on the road, right?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to argue any more. People with far more experience than you or I, with full knowledge of litigation in the state of New Jersey, are confident in their ability to define and prosecute/defend the laws regarding the use of bicycles while intoxicated in that jurisdiction. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, but you certainly haven't been showing your work otherwise.

I personally don't even know if the Gaudreaus were confirmed to be under the influence in the first place. I'm not here to try and play internet lawyer with you. I'm not your enemy and nobody needs to be fabricating hostilities in a situation that is just ugly and shit all around. Can you just get off that train even for a minute?

or they could be grasping at straws knowing full well that what their client did was indefensible

 

[Barsky]

or they could be grasping at straws knowing full well that what their client did was indefesible

Of course they are, again, just lawyers being lawyers and this is all part of the process

 

[1989]

or they could be grasping at straws knowing full well that what their client did was indefesible

In this specific case, they could be, and the motion to dismiss would be struck down.

But for what it's worth, I am, and was not, talking about this case in particular but the general interpretation of NJ traffic law as provided by law firms. Like I said before, neither you or I or anyone in this thread have complete information on the proceedings so far; at best I'd guess it's third-hand information and I am not pretending to be a judge or juror who gets to decides the fate of this drunk driver.

Someone in the thread earlier mentioned something about a young MLB baseball pitcher who was killed in a DUI accident and the perpetrator received 51 years to life imprisonment. I don't recall which state it took place in, but I'd be surprised if the punishment was not at least 20 years if that's any reference point.

 

[Frank Drebin]

The law as it is written. Just because they have an incorrect interpretation doesn’t change how it’s written.


They weren’t on the road, they were on the shoulder of the road. How do people keep getting confused by this?

That road did not have a shoulder. Anyway seems like you’re moving the goalposts here

 

[Neil Racki]

What did they do wrong?

Nothing, from what we know right now. But that is not stopping people here.

Victim being drunk in and of itself is not relevant unless their intoxication led to some actions they took that was relevant (swerving into traffic). Even then, prob value has to substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect.

I could be shooting up heroin in a parked car and it you hit my car and kill me ... my heroin use is not relevant and is not admissible.

 

[93LEAFS]

I don't think the lawyer here is directly arguing that the Gaudreau's were directly at fault here, which seems to be what this thread has become about. The lawyer seems to be arguing that it was a procedural error by the prosecution in evidence disclosure to the grand jury. While it's obviously easier to speculate on that based on level of intoxication here, I think it's mostly a discussion about NJ state laws in regards to evidence disclosure to a grand jury, which personally, probably only someone who practices criminal law would know in detail (and more specifically, someone who practices law in NJ).

 

[Frank Drebin]

What did they do wrong?

Nothing, from what we know right now. But that is not stopping people here.

Victim being drunk in and of itself is not relevant unless their intoxication led to some actions they took that was relevant (swerving into traffic). Even then, prob value has to substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect.

I could be shooting up heroin in a parked car and it you hit my car and kill me ... my heroin use is not relevant and is not admissible.

Im not sure about that

If im impaired, but driving my vehicle within the laws, adhering to speed limits etc., and you’re speeding while texting but not impaired, and run a red light and t bone me, your lawyer could make a pretty convincing argument that if my drunk ass stayed off the road like i should have the accident would have never happened.

 

[Neil Racki]

I don't think the lawyer here is directly arguing that the Gaudreau's were directly at fault here, which seems to be what this thread has become about. The lawyer seems to be arguing that it was a procedural error by the prosecution in evidence disclosure to the grand jury. While it's obviously easier to speculate on that based on level of intoxication here, I think it's mostly a discussion about NJ state laws in regards to evidence disclosure to a grand jury, which personally, probably only someone who practices criminal law would know in detail.

Without reading the actual motions/pleadings .. This seems to be the actual articuable issue. Def have very little rights at a GJ proceeding. The saying "you can idict a ham sandwhich" is 100% true.

But prosecutors can mostly do what they want at GJ level .. you dont have to show exculpatory evidence or witnesses and here, from facts known public .... brothers having a BAC is not relevant to begin with, let alone exculpatory ..

In Maryland .. a defendant cant even have his attorney in the courtroom with him during the GJ proceedings. They'd have to take breaks and go outside and relay things to their atty.

- state and fed trial atty; former GJ bailiff, former law clerk