[legal strategery] Meaning of driving without pants?

LOL This thread is crazy

 

The defendant’s lawyer asked her about a retainer she said she had to take it out in the car.

 

Sounds like a pretty decent defense to me, considering all she wants to prove was that she was not driving at the time. Of course, she could have been driving and performing oral sex at the same time, which would have been negligent to say the least.

I wouldn't necesarily expect any loss of body parts. The car veered off the road and hit some trees. That's enough time for the driver to yell some expletives and swirve all over the place, which would prompt her to sit up.

I don't understand why they are prosecuting anyway. Why would they think she was driving his car in the first place? And, even if she was driving, how often do they bring manslaughter charges when there's a car accident? She didn't hit a pedestrian; she was in the same car he was in and easily could have been killed herself.

Also, the prosection's other explanations about why the man's pants could have been down are much less believable. Mooning? Urinating out a window? Wasn't feeling well (I don't even understand this one)? Not only are these unlikely, but, if he were engaged in these things (the first 2), he'd be engaging in some reckless activity that would put his death on his own head. I predict the woman will win with this defense.

 

In a breaking development, investigators found out the victim was just trying to get aHead in traffic. He didn't want the other cars blowing by him over and over again.

The defendant wasn't surprised by the report as she was just gaging at the fact how stiff the penilty could be...

 

Well the defense can forget about any presumption of innocence, actually the case may be based entirely on circumcised evidence.

The defendant considered representing herself at first - she mistakenly felt she had passed the bar exam.