Anyone see this trial?

I heard about this on the Mike Gallagher Show last week... They were debating the merits of the trial. Sounds dumb if you ask me. What if the drunk guy had a spare set of keys at home and decided to go back to get his car and gotten into an accident? Would the buddy be responsible for not absconding any extra set of keys? How far does the responsibility of the buddy go?

Apparently a pair of cops told his buddy that he had to take the drunk guy home. If the cops were so concerned, why didn't they drive the guy home, tow his car, or at least put a boot on it so it couldn't be driven? Are the cops responsible too?

Slippery slope.

 

I don't understand the chain of events here.

The first guy gets arrested for DUI. The second guy goes and bails him out and takes him to the second guy's house where they drink some more. As the first guy is leaving the second guy's house, he gets into a wreck and kills himself and another?

Wouldn't they have had to go back for the first guy's car (which would've been at the impound lot probably) at some point?

 

I hadn't heard about them going back and drinking some more. I thought the friend simply dropped him off at his car.

 

This is what I remember from the Gallagher show:

Chain of events (which occured in the Summer of 2000)

Friend picks up drunk guy from jail for drunken driving arrest.
Police release drunk guy into friend's custody.
Friend took drunk guy back to his car
Friend went home.
Drunk guy went to a bar to drink some more
Drunk guy drives again after more drinking and gets in a head-on collision that kills him and another guy.

Police say that b/c friend didn't take drunk guy home (when he was released into his custody), that friend is guilty.

Friend charged with manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and aggravated assault.

COPS DID NOT TOW AWAY CAR, BUT LEFT IT AT ORIGINAL SITE.

If the friend is guilty, than I feel the cops are just as guilty for not fulfilling their duties. However, I don't believe either should be charged for the negligence and stupidity of the drunk guy.

 

sorry.

 

Riiiight.

 

In my mind, it somewhat makes a difference whether the guy on trial here took the first guy to his car. If he took him to his car, he actually did something. Whether that something is criminal I don't know.

But if it was just a case where the prosecutors are bringing this guy to trial because he didn't keep the drunk guy from driving, that's a different story. What obligation does one person have to control the behavior of another?

**EDIT - Nevermind. I got my answer while I was typing this.**

 

good point. he's a bad friend, but i don't think he should be charged for his actions. why wasn't the car towed away? why aren't the cops being held responsible for not towing the car?

i'll try to find an article to post.

edit

SALEM, New Jersey (CNN) -- Jurors in a New Jersey trial are wrestling with the fate of a man in a drunken driving fatality case that could have nationwide implications on third-party liabilities.

Jurors resumed on Thursday morning deliberations in the trial of Kenneth Powell, who faces charges of manslaughter, vehicular homicide and aggravated assault in connection with a crash that left his friend and another man dead.

The case is unusual because Powell, 40, was not present at the crash site, and it is a criminal trial rather than a civil trial. If convicted, Powell could face up to 15 years in prison.

The case stems from July 2000, when Powell picked up his friend Michael Pangle, 37 -- both of New Jersey -- from jail after Pangle's drunken driving arrest.

Police had released Pangle to Powell, who took Pangle back to his car. Powell went home and prosecutors say Pangle drank some more before driving again.

Three hours after he had been dropped off at his car, Pangle was involved in a head-on collision that killed him and U.S. Navy Ensign John Elliott, also of New Jersey.

New Jersey prosecutors contend that because Powell did not take Pangle home, he served as an accomplice and is liable for the deadly crash.

Legal analysts say it would be unprecedented if Powell were convicted for drunken driving deaths if he was neither in the car, present at the accident or provided any alcohol.

Many states carry "dram shop" liability laws, which hold alcohol servers responsible for harm that intoxicated or underage patrons cause to other people, or in some cases, to themselves. These laws are established at the state level through common law, legislation, or both.

Suppliers of alcohol, such as bars and clubs, are usually the target of third-party liability civil suits, said Atlanta, Georgia, attorney William Cromwell. They are, Cromwell said, because a defendant's insurance company may have limits on how much can be paid out to victims.

Cromwell said holding third-party individuals accountable in deaths caused by drunken driving might be difficult, and raises the question of how liable third parties might be in a wide range of civil action or criminal scenarios.

"What duty does have a friend have?" Cromwell said. "It seems to me that prosecutors are seeking a lot of control on people's civil liberties."

Argued attorney Warren Dennis: "This case stretches the legal concept of foreseeability. I don't have an obligation to see if a person I pass on the street is a diabetic. There is no duty to take care of others."

At the end of Wednesday, the jury reported it was deadlocked. The judge, however, insisted jurors stay with the case.

"I would ask you to deliberate with a view toward reaching a unanimous verdict," said Superior Court Judge William Forrester.

Elliott, who was 22 at the time of the crash, had graduated from the Naval Academy just two months before his death. His father said he hopes for a guilty verdict in the case against Powell, but wants a message to be sent, regardless of the verdict.

"It would be hard, if there is acquittal, not to take it personally, but we know there is a greater good that will come out of this, regardless of this verdict," said William Elliott.


so the friend took him to his car. but like i said earlier, what if the friend took him home, and the guy had a spare set of keys at home and went to pick up his car, drink more, and get in an accident? would the friend still be responsible? how far can we go with third party blame? i don't like the precedent this may set!

 

There is no way this can stand up against an appeal if he was convicted. Isn't America about freedom? Isn't this like the "Good Semaritan" Law that ruined Seinfeld...

I am a USA citizen - you can't make me do anything!!!

 

I guess if the guy took his friend by the house to get a jacket or something before taking him to his car, he'd be in the clear. Or if there had been a third person with them who helped them return the car to the house. Even though the events could've ended up the same.

What if the guy on trial had followed the drunk guy home after getting his car? Would he then be in the clear even though the events ended up the same? He would've made sure the guy got home, but getting to his home did not prevent the later crash. The drunk guy did get to his home. He then went out again and got in the crash.

Does not following a suggestion given by the police make one an accomplice? They talk about the drunk guy being released into the friend's custody. Is the friend then responsible for anything the drunk guy does until trial? There's too many questions. Strange case.

All I know is that I'm never bailing anyone out of jail again or helping them out by giving them rides to their cars.

 

If the drunk was released into his friend's custody I think that friend bears some responsibility for the drunk driving. Probably not manslaughter, but he would be responsible in some way of not fulfilling his responsibilities as custodian of the drunk. But, if there was never any implication of a custodial relationship when the friend bailed the drunk out of jail, I don't see how he could be held responsible. Did he sign anything or make any formal promises?

 

i think you might be able to get at him in a civil case...you could build a case around gross negligence, even, perhaps...but criminal charges?? geez!!!

 

How long, though, is the friend responsible? Had this wreck occurred a week later, would the friend still be an accomplice?

The place where this all falls apart for me is that the guy got home but the wreck was still not averted. Not taking the guy to his house did not contribute to the accident. It was helping him with his car that made the difference.

Under their theory, had the friend's wife picked up the drunk's car and taken it to the house where they met up and dropped the drunk off, the friend would be in the clear even though the two people would still be dead. Or even if the friend followed his buddy home and watched him enter the house. He's no longer an accomplice (he made sure the guy got home) even though the two people are still dead.

 

mrpaige, you're a lawyer, right? I'll say you're right if you go here http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39204 and advise me.