Marvelo Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Wrong is right, up is down, perverted is moral and rich people buy justice...I'm starting to get used to this concept and the Corasanti verdict is the latest proof. I just don't understand our justice system. These random people they select for juries are completely unqualified. By the time the corrupt lawyers get through presenting their confusing mountains of information at them, these stupid people's heads are about to burst. Morons should not decide what is just. But it looks like we're stuck with this system. http://blogs.artvoic...9h3NHQ.facebook On another note, I'm baffled...I can't access any articles on TBN. Has it become a paysite overnight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I haven't been following the case closely, but I am aware of it and the major details. At first glance it seems to me that justice was not served. I cannot imagine the rage I would have towards "the system" right now if it was my daughter that got plowed into by a drunk driver who fled and got off the hook on everything but a misdemeanor. I'm sure the resulting civil suit will have a huge monetary verdict in favor of that girls family but I'm equally sure the good Dr. is very, very well insured and won't financially suffer for it very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted May 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Even an idiot knows you don't run someone over and leave the scene. I wonder about the jury makeup. I doubt they give a **** about the law, like OJ. Completely terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I'm sure the resulting civil suit will have a huge monetary verdict in favor of that girls family but I'm equally sure the good Dr. is very, very well insured and won't financially suffer for it very much. I have no idea how insurance works in these cases, but would they actually cover you when you're convicted of a crime like DWI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I have no idea how insurance works in these cases, but would they actually cover you when you're convicted of a crime like DWI? The policy wording would stipulate the coverage. Typically insurance will not cover you while knowingly committing a felonious act. The insurance company would have to prove the bad doctor didn't know what he was doing was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I have no idea how insurance works in these cases, but would they actually cover you when you're convicted of a crime like DWI? Yes, all liability would be covered. It's the only way to ensure the victims are protected. Otherwise, if you were hit by a poor drunk driver you'd get nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 As someone who normally enjoys arguing case law for the sake of devil's advocate, I have no way of doing that here. How a jury couldn't convict him of both charges based on the fact that he had been intoxicated absolutely blows my mind. The facts of the case could not possibly fit the letter of NYS Penal Law any better. I am stunned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Here's what I don't understand about it--the front end of his 7 series was caved in like he smashed into a deer at high speeds, neighbors inside their homes heard the collision....and somehow he didn't know he hit anything? It's not like his side mirror clipped the girl. Also...who cares if she was partially in the driving lane? It's okay now to run over pedestrians if they're not entirely out of your way? Not to mention, if his BAC wasn't .24 (rough estimate...if it was .1 5 hours after the fact....) there's no way he would have nailed her. Unreal. That said, cases like this tend to give juries a bad reputation as by and large they do a really good job, it's just if the big story cases go wrong it really creates a poor stereotype. The only thing I will say is that juries tend to have a higher standard for evidence than judges do. Basically, given the exact same evidence, judges tend to think the evidence is stronger than juries view it. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Bud judges aren't perfect either...in states where they are elected, judges give out harsher sentences during election years. Whatever their flaws, at least juries aren't playing politics with peoples' lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 What's also crazy is that the prosecution could easily have charged Aggravated Vehicular Homicide because of his BAC and that he killed someone, but they went for the lesser charges figuring it was a slam dunk. The jury bought his testimony. That's the only factor that decided this case. The letter of the law fit. "Sorry Mr. Shanahan, I didn't mean to kill her, I just wanted to drive home wasted." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted May 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Here's what I don't understand about it--the front end of his 7 series was caved in like he smashed into a deer at high speeds, neighbors inside their homes heard the collision....and somehow he didn't know he hit anything? It's not like his side mirror clipped the girl. Also...who cares if she was partially in the driving lane? It's okay now to run over pedestrians if they're not entirely out of your way? Not to mention, if his BAC wasn't .24 (rough estimate...if it was .1 5 hours after the fact....) there's no way he would have nailed her. Unreal. That said, cases like this tend to give juries a bad reputation as by and large they do a really good job, it's just if the big story cases go wrong it really creates a poor stereotype. The only thing I will say is that juries tend to have a higher standard for evidence than judges do. Basically, given the exact same evidence, judges tend to think the evidence is stronger than juries view it. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Bud judges aren't perfect either...in states where they are elected, judges give out harsher sentences during election years. Whatever their flaws, at least juries aren't playing politics with peoples' lives. This guy is obviously guilty, the decision is wrong. There IS something wrong bigtime with the jury system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Won't say either way if he was guilty or not because the only evidence any of us have, is what they media tells us and in todays world, the media/news isn't always about getting out the truth & Facts, its about what makes the best story to get ratings. But theres a reason why they go to trials and court, and lawyers are all about doing whatever they can, finding any tiny loophole and method to convince the jury that their client should not be punished no matter if they are guilty or not. Chances are he was 100% guilty of driving drunk and hitting something then leaving the scene, possibly while texting apparently. But being a big shot doctor and having money, he was able to get some of the best legal representation available who managed to do everything possible to convince a jury that theres may have been a sliver of doubt he was at fault and should be punished for the incident. I would believe that he hit something and didn't realise it was a person until later, I would believe he was drunk and didn't want to stop at the scene, I would even believe that maybe, at night, he didn't see the victim and she may haveswerve in front of him at the last moment getting hit (something that could have happened even if he was sober, kids don't always pay attention on the road with earphones in thinking they will be seen). Its just surprising that with the way the media portrayed the case, it was supposed to be such a slam dunk case for the prosecution (you have to wonder if they thought it was such a slam dunk too and maybe didn't give it their all) and yet the defence wins like in the OJ case. But the worst part is that theres no doubt she was hit by him, and that he had been drinking, and now her family has to live with the fact that this guy goes unpunished for something we are all told is against the law and you will go to jail for (drunk driving) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 This guy is obviously guilty, the decision is wrong. There IS something wrong bigtime with the jury system. I agree that it was the wrong decision, but as apuszczalowski mentioned, without being in the courtroom every single day we don't know the whole story. Regardless, several high profile "wrong" decisions doesn't mean the system is broken. Not to mention, plenty of people have spent 20+ years in prison for being "clearly guilty" only to be exonerated later on with new evidence or witnesses. No system is perfect, there's always going to be some false convictions and some guilty defendants who walk free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I agree that it was the wrong decision, but as apuszczalowski mentioned, without being in the courtroom every single day we don't know the whole story. Regardless, several high profile "wrong" decisions doesn't mean the system is broken. Not to mention, plenty of people have spent 20+ years in prison for being "clearly guilty" only to be exonerated later on with new evidence or witnesses. No system is perfect, there's always going to be some false convictions and some guilty defendants who walk free. Agreed. This case really isn't an indictment that something is wrong with our justice system. It's the high profile and public disagreement with the verdict that makes it seem broken. There are a lot of ways the CJ system is broken. Jury trials are one of the smallest issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5th line wingnutt Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Some countries have professional jurors. Maybe that is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 our system of justice is the best one going. but it is a human institution, and, like all such institutions, sometimes it serves up a turd burger. not trying to be flip -- i just think that's what happened here. the jury believed every single thing that corasanti said (save maybe for his review of the wine he had that night (what was up with that piece of direct testimony?)) and did not buy what the prosecution was selling. I'm equally sure the good Dr. is very, very well insured and won't financially suffer for it very much. i've heard rumors to the contrary. without being in the courtroom every single day we don't know the whole story. and even the jury only got a selected slice of the whole story -- the one the lawyers decided to put on, and the one the judge decided to allow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I agree that it was the wrong decision, but as apuszczalowski mentioned, without being in the courtroom every single day we don't know the whole story. Regardless, several high profile "wrong" decisions doesn't mean the system is broken. Not to mention, plenty of people have spent 20+ years in prison for being "clearly guilty" only to be exonerated later on with new evidence or witnesses. No system is perfect, there's always going to be some false convictions and some guilty defendants who walk free. Although I do agree with you in that no system is perfect, the local, state and federal court systems in this country are basically screwed. Bought by money over generations. If you cannot clearly see that, I don't know what to say then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 our system of justice is the best one going. but it is a human institution, and, like all such institutions, sometimes it serves up a turd burger. not trying to be flip -- i just think that's what happened here. the jury believed every single thing that corasanti said (save maybe for his review of the wine he had that night (what was up with that piece of direct testimony?)) and did not buy what the prosecution was selling. Out of curiosity, do you know enough about justice systems in other countries to definitively state this? It's one thing to be satisfied with our system, it's another thing entirely to say it's better than any alternative. Although I do agree with you in that no system is perfect, the local, state and federal court systems in this country are basically screwed. Bought by money over generations. If you cannot clearly see that, I don't know what to say then. It's no different than anything else. Yes, if you have more money, then you can retain a superior lawyer. If you have more money, you buy a better car, bigger house, better TV, go to better doctors, etc. I'm not necessarily happy with how that functions, but it's not like you can legislate that all lawyers must be equally good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 It's no different than anything else. Yes, if you have more money, then you can retain a superior lawyer. If you have more money, you buy a better car, bigger house, better TV, go to better doctors, etc. I'm not necessarily happy with how that functions, but it's not like you can legislate that all lawyers must be equally good. Very much agree. But then again, the question is, does money have to be a part of the justice system, since it has such a potential enormous impact on the citizens caught up in it? Not just criminal court either, but family court, civil, appeals and others. When wealth is a determining factor in the justice system to some extent, it has failed before it's started in my opinion. But you are correct in that no system is perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted May 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 I'd like an investigation to see if the jurors were corrupted or paid off but they never investigate themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/dr-james-corasanti-trial/article881178.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Out of curiosity, do you know enough about justice systems in other countries to definitively state this? i'm no scholar on the subject, but in my schooling years i was a research assistant for a prof whose work was based on comparative analysis of criminal justice systems throughout the developed, second, and third worlds. so i gained a flavor there. not that i could hold forth on the subject now. anyway, i won't purport to say anything "definitive" on the subject. just my 2 cents. It's one thing to be satisfied with our system, it's another thing entirely to say it's better than any alternative. who said i was satisfied? ;) to borrow an analogy from another area of law (product liability), our criminal justice system has many defects, but, imo, those aren't design flaws, they're implementation (manufacturing) flaws. I'd like an investigation to see if the jurors were corrupted or paid off but they never investigate themselves. straight up tinfoil-hat nonsense. everything i read/heard about that jury suggested that they were earnest, attentive, and serious-minded about their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Quick verdicts always leave me wondering if the jurors just wanted to go home. All that matters to me is that a young woman is dead because some jackass decided to have some drinks and drive home. I have to think if the "Doctor" gets out of his car and immediately gives her medical treatment it might have given this poor girl at least a chance of surviving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 Quick verdicts always leave me wondering if the jurors just wanted to go home. not unfair. All that matters to me is that a young woman is dead because some jackass decided to have some drinks and drive home. I have to think if the "Doctor" gets out of his car and immediately gives her medical treatment it might have given this poor girl at least a chance of surviving. the leaving the scene acquittal is the biggest head-shaker. as i heard it from mike taheri (a very good criminal lawyer) on wgrz, the D.A. needed to prove that corasanti (1) injured someone with his car, (2) was aware that he'd done so, (3) left the scene, and (4) the injury resulted in death. obviously, the jury bought what corasanti said in re #2. still, i heard the defense attorney argue in closing that the girl died instantly and so there was nothing that corasanti could've done to save her life, if he had stopped. that makes me wonder whether the jury was confused on the need for the D.A. to prove a causal connection between the leaving (#3) and the death (#4). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted May 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 straight up tinfoil-hat nonsense. everything i read/heard about that jury suggested that they were earnest, attentive, and serious-minded about their job. if that were true, they would've come up with a guilty verdict. The doctor's guilt isn't even debatable it's so obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 if that were true, they would've come up with a guilty verdict. The doctor's guilt isn't even debatable it's so obvious. I'm guessing that you would not have been picked for the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.