Per The Ticket: Josh Brent sentenced to 10 years Probation and 180 days in jail.

[Seven]

Well. Now that this is all as clear as mud..............

Who needs a hug?

 

[waving monkey]

Well. Now that this is all as clear as mud..............

Who needs a hug?

I do

 

[waving monkey]

Yes, boo hoo for Josh Brent, it must be so lonely knowing your former teammates are off doing things with their lives besides driving drunk and accidentally killing their homies. I will pour one out for poor ole Josh and his hurt feelings.

silliness a muck

 

[trueblue1687]

I'm not talking from a legal perspective here. Only saying, from my perspective, I consider getting in the car with a drunk driver and not wearing a belt to be as dangerous as the drunk driving itself.

Brent deserves what he gets. The fact that Jerry Brown also showed poor judgement is not an excuse or a mitigating factor for his sentence, in my opinion.

Gotcha...well, it obviously wasn't smart, and it ended up costing poor Brown his life. I've seen it argued a sum total of once and the jury turned on opposing counsel...there was literally scuttle and animosity on several newspaper forums for weeks afterward for suggesting the victim is culpable (even if he made a VERY poor choice).

 

[OhSnap]

Its actually not that hard to live through your life without getting in a massive DUI wreck going 100+ MPH and killing your friend. People that make such insane decisions get judged harshly.[/quot]


You should just be careful with your judgements and your lack of sympathy for someone who makes a mistake and instead hope that he learns from this because they can't keep him locked up and off the road forever.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

my decision is to have compassion for both thats my decision

Nice gesture.

Meanwhile the victim is still dead

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Nobody half answered my question:

If the victim's mom is all huggy-hug with the accused, who then she gonna sue?
The tire maker? The Texas DOT for bad roads? The other drivers who made him go over 100 mph? She gonna sue the bar for making her son's friend drink? What is her plan?
I would be really surprised if she dont sue someone.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

my decision is to have compassion for both thats my decision

I feel a group hug coming on . . . .

 

[waving monkey]

how about a bro gathering around the camp fire

 

[17yearsandcounting]

No sympathy for Brent. This is the same clown that was setting off his alcohol sensor and failing drug tests when he had ONE THING TO DO IN HIS LIFE and that was not drink alcohol or use drugs.

Prison is going to do this man a world of good.

 

[waving monkey]

Nice gesture.

Meanwhile the victim is still dead

He is and thats terrible. The jury will decide his fate. A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render a finding of facts on the question officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or punishment.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Nobody half answered my question:

If the victim's mom is all huggy-hug with the accused, who then she gonna sue?
The tire maker? The Texas DOT for bad roads? The other drivers who made him go over 100 mph? She gonna sue the bar for making her son's friend drink? What is her plan?
I would be really surprised if she dont sue someone.

It's in the article I posted earlier in the thread. Both of Brown's parents are suing the club.

 

[Kaiser]

No discussion on the absolute definition of the word. But there is presenting evidence to a jury who has the fate of another human being on their hands. So it plays to mercy and compassion.

Brent took a blood test and it wasn't administered on the scene, it was done later. Alcohol takes a certain amount of time to absorb into your system so if you drink at 10, get pulled over at 1015 and take the blood test at 1115 you are going to have different levels of impairment at each of those three times. It wouldn't surprise me if Brent is convicted on the lesser count and not manslaughter, there have been things discussed in the trial that are enough to think some jurors could see reasonable doubt.

 

[17yearsandcounting]

Brent took a blood test and it wasn't administered on the scene, it was done later. Alcohol takes a certain amount of time to absorb into your system so if you drink at 10, get pulled over at 1015 and take the blood test at 1115 you are going to have different levels of impairment at each of those three times. It wouldn't surprise me if Brent is convicted on the lesser count and not manslaughter, there have been things discussed in the trial that are enough to think some jurors could see reasonable doubt.

He told the cops that he was buzzed. Pretty open and shut case when the defendant directly implicates being intoxicated.

 

[Kaiser]

He told the cops that he was buzzed. Pretty open and shut case when the defendant directly implicates being intoxicated.

Saying you are buzzed and appearing buzzed on video are called "reasonable doubt" in a jury trial where you are charged with manslaughter for being so falling down, commode hugging drunk that no reasonable person would have ever gotten behind the wheel in the same circumstances.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

It's in the article I posted earlier in the thread. Both of Brown's parents are suing the club.

Oh. Thx. I hate clubs that don't know when to say "when"!
Hope the family get all they ask for.

 

[CooterBrown]

I have stayed out of this thread up until this point, because we are all just spectators anyway, but after reading some of these posts I would like to give you a defense attorney's legal view of the case.
1. Josh Brent is charged with Intoxication Manslaughter. You all know that, but in order to be found guilty of that, not only must he be found to have driven while he was intoxicated, but the jury has to find that Brent's intoxication caused the death. If the defense can make the jury believe that Brent always drove over 100 miles per hour and that the accident and Brown's death would have occurred without the intoxication, then he is not guilty of intoxication manslaughter.
2. BAC is not an absolute guarantee of intoxication at the time of driving. A person's body absorbs alcohol, and eliminates alcohol at different rates depending on many factors, such as food, exercise, water, body weight, and time. On the average a person will eliminate alcohol at about .02 per hour through sweat and the lungs. If you turn up a bottle of whiskey and drink it down, you can walk out, get in your car and drive a mile without being DWI, but 10 minutes later, you will be very intoxicated. It takes time for the body to feel the effects. What type of drink he had, and when he had his last in relation to when he drove, compared to when the blood is drawn are factors the jury must consider.
3. Not even a blood test is absolute for the same reason given above.
4. The criticism of the defense attorney is absolutely off-base. In our system of justice, a person is entitled to a vigorous defense and most defense attorneys do their best to provide that. What kind of system would we have if our defense attorneys said, "oh, well, he is guilty so I won't insult your intelligence by mounting a defense"?
5. Brent's attorney does not have to prove he is not guilty. All he has to do is create a "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury.
6. Last January, I represented a young lady in a DWI trial. Her BAC, by blood test was .19. The jury found her "not guilty." Reasonable doubt can be found many ways.
7. Most jury trials are a crap shoot. Because you aren't privy to their thought processes and discussions, you never can predict what a jury will do. There is no way a casual observer, much less an slightly informed internet poster can say, whether Brent is guilty or not.
8. And lastly, just for informational purposes, in Texas we use a bifurcated trial system. What that means is that the trial is separated into two parts. First is the guilt-innocence phase where the jury decides only that, guilt or innocence. If they say, "not guilty" the trial is over. If they say "guilty" then the second part of the trial starts and that is when any mitigating or aggravating circumstances are presented. Sentence can be done by the judge or the jury, and the defendant has to choose which, before the trial even begins. I haven't followed this trial, so I do not know what election Brent made in that regard. I would expect that his attorney would choose the jury simply because our judges are elected and he could use this as a political stage to proclaim himself tough on crime. So, if the jury in this case says, "guilty" they will then hear more evidence, including any previous DWI that Brent may have had (they aren't allowed to consider that, or even hear about that, during guilt-innocence) Then they will retire to deliberate about the proper punishment. (and, even though I never predict a jury's decision, the fact that they have not yet reached a decision on guilt-innocence means there is a disagreement among them. When that happens, they will often make compromise decisions and agree to find him guilty but not to send him to prison. They are all instructed not to do that, but experience says they do it anyway.)
9. It is easy to sit behind a computer, read a newspaper or internet account of the evidence and consider this a slam-dunk for the prosecution. It is not that easy.

 

[Idgit]

I have stayed out of this thread up until this point, because we are all just spectators anyway, but after reading some of these posts I would like to give you a defense attorney's legal view of the case.
1. Josh Brent is charged with Intoxication Manslaughter. You all know that, but in order to be found guilty of that, not only must he be found to have driven while he was intoxicated, but the jury has to find that Brent's intoxication caused the death. If the defense can make the jury believe that Brent always drove over 100 miles per hour and that the accident and Brown's death would have occurred without the intoxication, then he is not guilty of intoxication manslaughter.
2. BAC is not an absolute guarantee of intoxication at the time of driving. A person's body absorbs alcohol, and eliminates alcohol at different rates depending on many factors, such as food, exercise, water, body weight, and time. On the average a person will eliminate alcohol at about .02 per hour through sweat and the lungs. If you turn up a bottle of whiskey and drink it down, you can walk out, get in your car and drive a mile without being DWI, but 10 minutes later, you will be very intoxicated. It takes time for the body to feel the effects. What type of drink he had, and when he had his last in relation to when he drove, compared to when the blood is drawn are factors the jury must consider.
3. Not even a blood test is absolute for the same reason given above.
4. The criticism of the defense attorney is absolutely off-base. In our system of justice, a person is entitled to a vigorous defense and most defense attorneys do their best to provide that. What kind of system would we have if our defense attorneys said, "oh, well, he is guilty so I won't insult your intelligence by mounting a defense"?
5. Brent's attorney does not have to prove he is not guilty. All he has to do is create a "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury.
6. Last January, I represented a young lady in a DWI trial. Her BAC, by blood test was .19. The jury found her "not guilty." Reasonable doubt can be found many ways.
7. Most jury trials are a crap shoot. Because you aren't privy to their thought processes and discussions, you never can predict what a jury will do. There is no way a casual observer, much less an slightly informed internet poster can say, whether Brent is guilty or not.
8. And lastly, just for informational purposes, in Texas we use a bifurcated trial system. What that means is that the trial is separated into two parts. First is the guilt-innocence phase where the jury decides only that, guilt or innocence. If they say, "not guilty" the trial is over. If they say "guilty" then the second part of the trial starts and that is when any mitigating or aggravating circumstances are presented. Sentence can be done by the judge or the jury, and the defendant has to choose which, before the trial even begins. I haven't followed this trial, so I do not know what election Brent made in that regard. I would expect that his attorney would choose the jury simply because our judges are elected and he could use this as a political stage to proclaim himself tough on crime. So, if the jury in this case says, "guilty" they will then hear more evidence, including any previous DWI that Brent may have had (they aren't allowed to consider that, or even hear about that, during guilt-innocence) Then they will retire to deliberate about the proper punishment. (and, even though I never predict a jury's decision, the fact that they have not yet reached a decision on guilt-innocence means there is a disagreement among them. When that happens, they will often make compromise decisions and agree to find him guilty but not to send him to prison. They are all instructed not to do that, but experience says they do it anyway.)
9. It is easy to sit behind a computer, read a newspaper or internet account of the evidence and consider this a slam-dunk for the prosecution. It is not that easy.

Great post, Cooter, no matter how people feel about the issue at hand. Thanks for sharing your experience here.

 

[speedkilz88]

I have stayed out of this thread up until this point, because we are all just spectators anyway, but after reading some of these posts I would like to give you a defense attorney's legal view of the case.
1. Josh Brent is charged with Intoxication Manslaughter. You all know that, but in order to be found guilty of that, not only must he be found to have driven while he was intoxicated, but the jury has to find that Brent's intoxication caused the death. If the defense can make the jury believe that Brent always drove over 100 miles per hour and that the accident and Brown's death would have occurred without the intoxication, then he is not guilty of intoxication manslaughter.
2. BAC is not an absolute guarantee of intoxication at the time of driving. A person's body absorbs alcohol, and eliminates alcohol at different rates depending on many factors, such as food, exercise, water, body weight, and time. On the average a person will eliminate alcohol at about .02 per hour through sweat and the lungs. If you turn up a bottle of whiskey and drink it down, you can walk out, get in your car and drive a mile without being DWI, but 10 minutes later, you will be very intoxicated. It takes time for the body to feel the effects. What type of drink he had, and when he had his last in relation to when he drove, compared to when the blood is drawn are factors the jury must consider.
3. Not even a blood test is absolute for the same reason given above.
4. The criticism of the defense attorney is absolutely off-base. In our system of justice, a person is entitled to a vigorous defense and most defense attorneys do their best to provide that. What kind of system would we have if our defense attorneys said, "oh, well, he is guilty so I won't insult your intelligence by mounting a defense"?
5. Brent's attorney does not have to prove he is not guilty. All he has to do is create a "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury.
6. Last January, I represented a young lady in a DWI trial. Her BAC, by blood test was .19. The jury found her "not guilty." Reasonable doubt can be found many ways.
7. Most jury trials are a crap shoot. Because you aren't privy to their thought processes and discussions, you never can predict what a jury will do. There is no way a casual observer, much less an slightly informed internet poster can say, whether Brent is guilty or not.
8. And lastly, just for informational purposes, in Texas we use a bifurcated trial system. What that means is that the trial is separated into two parts. First is the guilt-innocence phase where the jury decides only that, guilt or innocence. If they say, "not guilty" the trial is over. If they say "guilty" then the second part of the trial starts and that is when any mitigating or aggravating circumstances are presented. Sentence can be done by the judge or the jury, and the defendant has to choose which, before the trial even begins. I haven't followed this trial, so I do not know what election Brent made in that regard. I would expect that his attorney would choose the jury simply because our judges are elected and he could use this as a political stage to proclaim himself tough on crime. So, if the jury in this case says, "guilty" they will then hear more evidence, including any previous DWI that Brent may have had (they aren't allowed to consider that, or even hear about that, during guilt-innocence) Then they will retire to deliberate about the proper punishment. (and, even though I never predict a jury's decision, the fact that they have not yet reached a decision on guilt-innocence means there is a disagreement among them. When that happens, they will often make compromise decisions and agree to find him guilty but not to send him to prison. They are all instructed not to do that, but experience says they do it anyway.)
9. It is easy to sit behind a computer, read a newspaper or internet account of the evidence and consider this a slam-dunk for the prosecution. It is not that easy.

Would you rather have women on the jury or men? I noticed he has quite a few more women and I would think they would show more compassion especially when he has Mrs. Brown's support.

 

[Corso]

This thread stinks like the entire situation.

I think I'm going to avoid this thread for the rest of it's existence.