Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KSDK St. Louis)   DA to throw book at "affluenza" teen on retrial   (ksdk.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, new trial, Ethan Couch, Tarrant County, district attorneys, intoxication manslaughter, teens  
•       •       •

13050 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2013 at 12:05 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-18 11:28:22 AM  
IANAL and all that, but I thought that the DA only gets one shot per criminal act -- meaning all charges stemming from an event have to be brought together, otherwise it's double jeopardy.
 
2013-12-18 11:41:58 AM  
Frankly, I'm half surprised that the man whose wife and daughter were both killed by the spoiled brat wasn't waiting outside the courthouse with a handgun after the verdict was handed down.

Also, hadn't seen the info that BOTH parents had issues with driving recklessly and even DUIs- seems the rotten apple didn't fall far from the tree...
 
2013-12-18 11:46:38 AM  

Donnchadha: IANAL and all that, but I thought that the DA only gets one shot per criminal act -- meaning all charges stemming from an event have to be brought together, otherwise it's double jeopardy.


DAs have a huge arsenal of charges to draw from, conveniently bypassing all semblance of "double jeopardy" as a layman would understand it.  As long as it's not the same charge, it's OK.
 
2013-12-18 11:47:50 AM  
Good. I have heard it said that technicality is the soul of law. Nice to see it applied to getting justice instead of getting someone out of justice.
 
2013-12-18 11:48:53 AM  

Donnchadha: IANAL and all that, but I thought that the DA only gets one shot per criminal act -- meaning all charges stemming from an event have to be brought together, otherwise it's double jeopardy.


Yeah, the article says he's filing charged based on the injured passengers instead of the dead ones this time around.
 
2013-12-18 12:09:11 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Donnchadha: IANAL and all that, but I thought that the DA only gets one shot per criminal act -- meaning all charges stemming from an event have to be brought together, otherwise it's double jeopardy.

Yeah, the article says he's filing charged based on the injured passengers instead of the dead ones this time around.


I get that much, but the idea behind what I'm saying is that the DA can't break up the act like that. Dude got drunk once and crashed his car once -- so the DA gets once change to present the evidence that he got drunk and crashed his car. The fact that six people were hurt or killed doesn't mean that the DA gets six chances to convict him.
 
2013-12-18 12:09:21 PM  

Ambivalence: Good. I have heard it said that technicality is the soul of law. Nice to see it applied to getting justice instead of getting someone out of justice.


You are technically correct.  Which is the best kind of correct.
 
2013-12-18 12:09:56 PM  
Isn't it the judge the normally "throws the book" at the defendant?

Point of parliamentary procedure!
 
2013-12-18 12:11:23 PM  
Someone wants to run for Texas governor.

Just because the DA CAN file new charges doesn't mean the DA SHOULD file charges. A plea deal was offered and accepted. The kid will just recant, the original verdict will be thrown out, the new case on the new charges will be thrown out, the retrial on the original charges will end up with a hung jury and the kid goes free. No prison, no probation.

/of course since this was juvenile...who knows...I'm not even a caveman let alone a lawyer...
 
2013-12-18 12:11:41 PM  

Donnchadha: Marcus Aurelius: Donnchadha: IANAL and all that, but I thought that the DA only gets one shot per criminal act -- meaning all charges stemming from an event have to be brought together, otherwise it's double jeopardy.

Yeah, the article says he's filing charged based on the injured passengers instead of the dead ones this time around.

I get that much, but the idea behind what I'm saying is that the DA can't break up the act like that. Dude got drunk once and crashed his car once -- so the DA gets once change to present the evidence that he got drunk and crashed his car. The fact that six people were hurt or killed doesn't mean that the DA gets six chances to convict him.


Tell it to the judge, kid. :)

If the law worked like it did in the movies, there would be about 98% less lawyers.
 
2013-12-18 12:12:14 PM  

Feel_the_velvet: Isn't it the judge the normally "throws the book" at the defendant?

Point of parliamentary procedure!


Can't we all throw books at him. I have some nice engineering books that would weigh just about the right amount.
 
2013-12-18 12:12:52 PM  
The judge and DA need to be investigated for corruption.
 
2013-12-18 12:13:01 PM  
I love that the original judge decided the best way to teach a kid that you can't buy your way out of harsh consequences for a crime is to let him buy his way out of harsh consequences for a crime.
 
2013-12-18 12:13:05 PM  
I think it sets a dangerous precedent either way.  This kid should have been tried as an adult and convicted the first time on all counts with a hefty jail sentence, the "affluenza" defense was a joke.  Yet if the prosecution is allowed to re-try on charges he already admitted to that would seem like it sets up for re-trial in politically charged cases when the public does not get the verdict popular demand desires.

/IANAL
//Still thinks kiddo should have gotten significant jail time
 
2013-12-18 12:13:49 PM  
It's going to depend on the specific Rules of Procedure for Texas.  The default rule is that each injured victim is entitled to their own separate charge in an indictment, but many states have consolidation rules that would require that all applicable controversies arising out of the same incident be filed under the same indictment for the purposes of judicial economy.

/Indiana lawyer
 
2013-12-18 12:14:57 PM  
This is the kind of incident that mob justice is appropriate for.  That kid and his parents should be torn apart.
 
2013-12-18 12:15:10 PM  
He's only doing his job because people made a stink about it.
 
2013-12-18 12:15:59 PM  
Yeah, I'm not really comfortable with this. The original "sentence" was and is a travesty; that doesn't mean the system should be gamed by the DA reacting to the outrage. That's a precedent we really don't need to set
 
2013-12-18 12:17:36 PM  

jackrazz: It's going to depend on the specific Rules of Procedure for Texas.  The default rule is that each injured victim is entitled to their own separate charge in an indictment, but many states have consolidation rules that would require that all applicable controversies arising out of the same incident be filed under the same indictment for the purposes of judicial economy.

/Indiana lawyer


Consolidation rules! That was the equation!

img294.imageshack.us
 
2013-12-18 12:18:07 PM  
What do we want?

Mulligan Justice!

When do we want it?

Now!
 
2013-12-18 12:19:08 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Donnchadha: IANAL and all that, but I thought that the DA only gets one shot per criminal act -- meaning all charges stemming from an event have to be brought together, otherwise it's double jeopardy.

DAs have a huge arsenal of charges to draw from, conveniently bypassing all semblance of "double jeopardy" as a layman would understand it.  As long as it's not the same charge, it's OK.


Per the article, these charges relate to injuries to passengers in the truck.  These were not included in the previous trial, so jeopardy does not attach.
 
2013-12-18 12:19:12 PM  
Why am I the only one who thinks that even if it is a really stupid mistake, that a kid shouldn't have his life ruined because of it.

/I'm sure you never did anything stupid when you were young.
 
2013-12-18 12:19:13 PM  
Afflatulence.
 
2013-12-18 12:20:24 PM  

Quinzy: Why am I the only one who thinks that even if it is a really stupid mistake, that a kid shouldn't have his life ruined because of it.

/I'm sure you never did anything stupid when you were young.


Stupid things?  Yes.

Stupid things that resulted in the death of innocents?  No.
 
2013-12-18 12:20:34 PM  
"The District Attorney's Office is asking the court to incarcerate the teen on the two intoxication assault cases."

The DA can ask a lot of things.  Doesn't meant the court (or the law) will go along with it.  But the DA can say he tried, and voters like that...
 
2013-12-18 12:21:23 PM  

Quinzy: Why am I the only one who thinks that even if it is a really stupid mistake, that a kid shouldn't have his life ruined because of it.

/I'm sure you never did anything stupid when you were young.


Question-when is it valid for anyone's life to be ruined, per your logic?  If I kill someone, putting me in jail won't bring them back.  Why ruin my life for an action that is irrevocably in the past and cannot be changed?
 
2013-12-18 12:21:47 PM  
Call me harsh but, I'm okay with this.
 
2013-12-18 12:22:29 PM  

Mad Scientist: What do we want?

Mulligan Justice!

When do we want it?

Now!


That's right! Getting 10 years probation for drunkenly killing people is justice!
 
2013-12-18 12:22:52 PM  
Um, well, for one thing, it's not a retrial. It's not even new charges. It's stuff he's already pleaded guilty to, and has yet to be sentenced for.

FTFA:  "During his recent trial, the 16-year-old admitted his guilt in four cases of intoxication manslaughter and two cases of intoxication assault. There has been no verdict formally entered in the two intoxication assault cases. Every case deserves a verdict," Shannon said. "The District Attorney's Office is asking the court to incarcerate the teen on the two intoxication assault cases."

I'm no fan of prosecutorial shenanigans, but this seems legit. If there was any plausible fuss to be made over which charges were being brought, his attorneys presumably would have made it before they had him plead guilty.

As long as the sentence he gets for two counts of "intoxication assault" is proportional  for that offense, I can't really see a problem with this from a legal standpoint. And I'd be the first one screaming for the DA's head, on behalf of this pampered, murderous little shiat, if he were trying to do some sort of sneaky post-hoc end-around.
 
2013-12-18 12:23:22 PM  

Quinzy: Why am I the only one who thinks that even if it is a really stupid mistake, that a kid shouldn't have his life ruined because of it.

/I'm sure you never did anything stupid when you were young.


Sure I did stupid things.

I never did anything that resulted in 4 deaths, one person paralyzed, and another with serious injuries.

He ruined 6 lives.

/Plus the lawsuits against the parents (and their companY) should take care of that whole "we're rich" thing
 
2013-12-18 12:24:11 PM  
Don't forget this is Texas. Ask any felon who's been through the Texas justice system. Wheeeeeee!
 
2013-12-18 12:24:16 PM  
If I was on a jury for his murder by one of the family members of his victims I wouldn't vote guilty even if I saw him get shot myself.  Same goes for his parents.  Human garbage, the sooner they are off this rock the better off the rest of us will be.
 
2013-12-18 12:25:23 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Tell it to the judge, kid. :)

If the law worked like it did in the movies, there would be about 98% less lawyers.


I'm not complaining that the kid might actually face justice for the crime -- but this is something I remember from a criminal law / procedure class I took back in college many years ago.

A little digging brings up Ashe v. Swenson where the Court states that a man who was acquitted of robbing one person could not be brought up on subsequent charges for robbing the other six people present, since the facts of the robbery were already presented in court.

This is what I'm guessing will be brought up on appeal -- the evidence of drunken driving was already presented in court, and therefore he cannot be brought up on additional charges based on the same evidence.
 
2013-12-18 12:25:28 PM  

MycroftHolmes: Marcus Aurelius: Donnchadha: IANAL and all that, but I thought that the DA only gets one shot per criminal act -- meaning all charges stemming from an event have to be brought together, otherwise it's double jeopardy.

DAs have a huge arsenal of charges to draw from, conveniently bypassing all semblance of "double jeopardy" as a layman would understand it.  As long as it's not the same charge, it's OK.

Per the article, these charges relate to injuries to passengers in the truck.  These were not included in the previous trial, so jeopardy does not attach.


Indeed.  The charges before were purely related to the dead and not the injured.  If a serial rapist rapes 5 people and has enough evidence to bring 4 of those to trial, tries the case, and the guy is found innocent on all four counts, but then the 5th person comes forward with evidence for their case, the 5th untried case can be tried at a separate trial because that particular instance was not addressed in the original charges.
 
2013-12-18 12:26:29 PM  

Quinzy: Why am I the only one who thinks that even if it is a really stupid mistake, that a kid shouldn't have his life ruined because of it.

/I'm sure you never did anything stupid when you were young.


It's only stupid if it doesn't involve a crime rising to the level of a felony.
 
2013-12-18 12:27:35 PM  
I said it before, and I'll say it again.  I do no understand how the defence attorney got away with making up a word for a made up mental condition, and actually got a judge to buy it.

They both need to be investigated for corruption.

For that matter, the prosecuting attorney should have had plenty of legal precedent to strike that one down.  And clearly he did nothing of the sort.
 
2013-12-18 12:28:01 PM  

bhcompy: MycroftHolmes: Marcus Aurelius: Donnchadha: IANAL and all that, but I thought that the DA only gets one shot per criminal act -- meaning all charges stemming from an event have to be brought together, otherwise it's double jeopardy.

DAs have a huge arsenal of charges to draw from, conveniently bypassing all semblance of "double jeopardy" as a layman would understand it.  As long as it's not the same charge, it's OK.

Per the article, these charges relate to injuries to passengers in the truck.  These were not included in the previous trial, so jeopardy does not attach.

Indeed.  The charges before were purely related to the dead and not the injured.  If a serial rapist rapes 5 people and has enough evidence to bring 4 of those to trial, tries the case, and the guy is found innocent on all four counts, but then the 5th person comes forward with evidence for their case, the 5th untried case can be tried at a separate trial because that particular instance was not addressed in the original charges.


That's different though. The serial rapist didn't rape all 5 people at the same time during the same criminal transaction.
 
2013-12-18 12:28:13 PM  

Ashyukun: Frankly, I'm half surprised that the man whose wife and daughter were both killed by the spoiled brat wasn't waiting outside the courthouse with a handgun after the verdict was handed down.

Also, hadn't seen the info that BOTH parents had issues with driving recklessly and even DUIs- seems the rotten apple didn't fall far from the tree...


If I were that father I'd wait years. Let the kid finish rehab. Finish college. Fall in love. Every day is a chance to take away all he is and all he's ever going to be. Wait til he really has something to lose.

/ITG
 
2013-12-18 12:29:09 PM  

jackrazz: /Indiana lawyer


Is this were I make Indiana jokes?

Indiana: Where the State Motto is, "Yup, You're in Indiana".
 
2013-12-18 12:29:35 PM  

Quinzy: Why am I the only one who thinks that even if it is a really stupid mistake, that a kid shouldn't have his life ruined because of it.

/I'm sure you never did anything stupid when you were young.


If this 16 year old was black you think the media would be calling him a 'kid'?  Throw the book at him, give him life, no parole.  Same for his parents.  Seize their company and assets to pay off the victims of this horrible mess.

/I'm a libby lib lib but this is absolute proof that there are two justice systems in this country
//Treat the rich like the poor in court and see how long it takes to have our 'justice' system reformed
 
2013-12-18 12:30:03 PM  
 
2013-12-18 12:30:08 PM  

Donnchadha: Marcus Aurelius: Donnchadha: IANAL and all that, but I thought that the DA only gets one shot per criminal act -- meaning all charges stemming from an event have to be brought together, otherwise it's double jeopardy.

Yeah, the article says he's filing charged based on the injured passengers instead of the dead ones this time around.

I get that much, but the idea behind what I'm saying is that the DA can't break up the act like that. Dude got drunk once and crashed his car once -- so the DA gets once change to present the evidence that he got drunk and crashed his car. The fact that six people were hurt or killed doesn't mean that the DA gets six chances to convict him.


Yeah, I'm afraid it does.

Sometimes they'll even get you with the old state-fed one-two.  You'll face state charges for a crime, and then the feds will turn around and charge you with the exact same damn thing in federal court.

It's not right, but the Supremes allow it anyway.
 
2013-12-18 12:30:11 PM  
As part of his probation, he should be required to wear deer antlers when in public places.

This is Texas, after all.
 
2013-12-18 12:32:08 PM  

Quinzy: Why am I the only one who thinks that even if it is a really stupid mistake, that a kid shouldn't have his life ruined because of it.

/I'm sure you never did anything stupid when you were young.


Of all the stupid stuff I did, 4 people never died because of it.
 
2013-12-18 12:32:34 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Quinzy: Why am I the only one who thinks that even if it is a really stupid mistake, that a kid shouldn't have his life ruined because of it.

/I'm sure you never did anything stupid when you were young.

Sure I did stupid things.

I never did anything that resulted in 4 deaths, one person paralyzed, and another with serious injuries.

He ruined 6 lives.

/Plus the lawsuits against the parents (and their companY) should take care of that whole "we're rich" thing

CSB: My grandmother was clerk of court where I grew up. When I was 15 she sat me down and explained that if I did anything stupid enough to get arrested for she would make my life hell. She said "I know every cop, judge, lawyer, and jailer in this town. I decide when you've had enough. I will lose your file again and again if I have to."

Years later I asked her if she remembered saying this. She said "Hell yes, and I meant it."

Crazy old bat scared me straight.... God bless her.

If you haven't gotten your whelps attention by 16 they're better off in jail.

 
2013-12-18 12:34:49 PM  

alizeran: Afflatulence.


In Fart Worth?
 
2013-12-18 12:35:28 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Donnchadha: Marcus Aurelius: Donnchadha: IANAL and all that, but I thought that the DA only gets one shot per criminal act -- meaning all charges stemming from an event have to be brought together, otherwise it's double jeopardy.

Yeah, the article says he's filing charged based on the injured passengers instead of the dead ones this time around.

I get that much, but the idea behind what I'm saying is that the DA can't break up the act like that. Dude got drunk once and crashed his car once -- so the DA gets once change to present the evidence that he got drunk and crashed his car. The fact that six people were hurt or killed doesn't mean that the DA gets six chances to convict him.

Yeah, I'm afraid it does.

Sometimes they'll even get you with the old state-fed one-two.  You'll face state charges for a crime, and then the feds will turn around and charge you with the exact same damn thing in federal court.

It's not right, but the Supremes allow it anyway.


If only he had Stopped In the Name of Love....
 
2013-12-18 12:35:50 PM  

part of the problem: scottydoesntknow: Quinzy: Why am I the only one who thinks that even if it is a really stupid mistake, that a kid shouldn't have his life ruined because of it.

/I'm sure you never did anything stupid when you were young.

Sure I did stupid things.

I never did anything that resulted in 4 deaths, one person paralyzed, and another with serious injuries.

He ruined 6 lives.

/Plus the lawsuits against the parents (and their companY) should take care of that whole "we're rich" thing

CSB: My grandmother was clerk of court where I grew up. When I was 15 she sat me down and explained that if I did anything stupid enough to get arrested for she would make my life hell. She said "I know every cop, judge, lawyer, and jailer in this town. I decide when you've had enough. I will lose your file again and again if I have to."

Years later I asked her if she remembered saying this. She said "Hell yes, and I meant it."

Crazy old bat scared me straight.... God bless her.

If you haven't gotten your whelps attention by 16 they're better off in jail.


Heh, my parents said if I was ever arrested to not bother wasting my one call on them and I would probably be better off behind bars where they couldn't get to me.
 
2013-12-18 12:37:10 PM  

Donnchadha: UrukHaiGuyz: Tell it to the judge, kid. :)

If the law worked like it did in the movies, there would be about 98% less lawyers.

I'm not complaining that the kid might actually face justice for the crime -- but this is something I remember from a criminal law / procedure class I took back in college many years ago.

A little digging brings up Ashe v. Swenson where the Court states that a man who was acquitted of robbing one person could not be brought up on subsequent charges for robbing the other six people present, since the facts of the robbery were already presented in court.

This is what I'm guessing will be brought up on appeal -- the evidence of drunken driving was already presented in court, and therefore he cannot be brought up on additional charges based on the same evidence.


TIL: the phrase : Defensive Mutual Collateral Estoppel

Interesting, I don't think that's what they'd be litigating on. I'm sure the DA can find many more charges that occurred as a result of the drunk driving (don't know the actual statutes) without rehashing the previous charges. It seems like any incident this messy would leave plenty of room for a halfway competent DA.
 
2013-12-18 12:38:31 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Donnchadha: Marcus Aurelius: Donnchadha: IANAL and all that, but I thought that the DA only gets one shot per criminal act -- meaning all charges stemming from an event have to be brought together, otherwise it's double jeopardy.

Yeah, the article says he's filing charged based on the injured passengers instead of the dead ones this time around.

I get that much, but the idea behind what I'm saying is that the DA can't break up the act like that. Dude got drunk once and crashed his car once -- so the DA gets once change to present the evidence that he got drunk and crashed his car. The fact that six people were hurt or killed doesn't mean that the DA gets six chances to convict him.

Yeah, I'm afraid it does.

Sometimes they'll even get you with the old state-fed one-two.  You'll face state charges for a crime, and then the feds will turn around and charge you with the exact same damn thing in federal court.

It's not right, but the Supremes allow it anyway.


We're a vindictive country.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report