Mulva;841608 wrote:She got a year of probation. No jail time. Plus a chance to clear her name in a new trial.

http://news.yahoo.com/ga-mom-gets-probation-sons-jaywalking-death-152407635.html

That seems highly unusual...By offering a new trial, is the judge basically saying the jury was on crack?

Glory Days;841701 wrote:No, the lesson is use a crosswalk and not walk out into the middle of a 4 lane highway and stop in the median with your kids.

Exactly. that is the lesson and whomever said that what you quoted is a moron.

I'm sure there's room in the federal budget to give cars to people who can't afford one.

Glory Days;841701 wrote:No, the lesson is use a crosswalk and not walk out into the middle of a 4 lane highway and stop in the median with your kids.

It wasn't a highway. If it were I'd think entirely different.

gut;841710 wrote:That seems highly unusual...By offering a new trial, is the judge basically saying the jury was on crack?

I was a little confused about that too. Obviously I don't have all of the facts of the case, but it seems to me that its a parents responsibility to not have their 4 year old child jaywalk across a highway. I'm not sure how that verdict could be overturned.

A year of probation seemed like a fair punishment to me though. I'm sure she's already punished herself enough already mentally.

gut;841710 wrote:That seems highly unusual...By offering a new trial, is the judge basically saying the jury was on crack?

I am not legal beagle, or is it legal eagle, but I think that if the judge really thought the case was total BS he can throw out the verdict, or, I think after the prosecution rests their case I think that defense routinely asks for it to be thrown out as they did not prove their burden. It rarely does, but is a formality.


I could be wrong though, and probably am

Not really a highway in the sense of an interstate, but still a decent-sized road: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=somerpoint+apartments+marietta+ga&ll=33.908294,-84.557776&spn=0.007319,0.015396&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&fb=1&gl=us&cid=0,0,14109594701877403980&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.909416,-84.559385&panoid=6i_GgObE8bQ0oQlYClZMyg&cbp=12,64.57,,0,13.17

thavoice;841831 wrote:I am not legal beagle, or is it legal eagle, but I think that if the judge really thought the case was total BS he can throw out the verdict, or, I think after the prosecution rests their case I think that defense routinely asks for it to be thrown out as they did not prove their burden. It rarely does, but is a formality.


I could be wrong though, and probably am

I think you're correct, but not a very politically popular thing to do. He may simply be acknowledging that she has some air-tight reason to get a new trial (which, again, not sure why the judge wouldn't have declared a mistrial unless maybe he thought she was going to be exonerated anyway).

And I don't know if the writer took some liberties, but for the judge to say "chance to clear your name" would indicate pretty strongly that he disagreed with the verdict.

WebFire;841758 wrote:It wasn't a highway. If it were I'd think entirely different.

by definition it is a highway. i know you thought i meant freeway though.