"Death by Driving" on 20/20 on ID

[blueamy66]

I just watched this rerun this morning. The episode was originally aired in 2004.

To summarize, Wendy Sue Anderson hit a motorcycle carrying a father and son while making a turn. The son died and the father suffered brain damage.

She had a BAC of .244.

But, both the father and son were found to have marijuana (THC) in their system. The judge ruled that this information was not admissible in court in this case. I cannot find the reason that the judge ruled this way.

She was ultimately sentenced to 10.5 years in prison. She served 9 years.

My question is....should the fact that a victim is under the influence be admissible in court? And if you believe it should be admissible, what does that mean for victims in the states that have now legalized marijuana?

[aikoaiko]

1. Not if it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Anderson hit the motorcycle

In a civil case where shared negligence might be an issue, then maybe so.

[hobbit709]

2. Problem is that you can test positive for THC long after the effects are gone, unlike alcohol.

[blueamy66]

5. Okay, then that begs the question...

How are DUI laws going to be enforced in Colorado?

Who's to say if the "effect" were present when an accident or traffic violation occurs?

Will it be up the officer? Or the amount still present?

[2pooped2pop]

8. I think in Colorado you have to have a certain level of THC in your system

but it is a very low level.

[2pooped2pop]

7. In Indiana u r automatically DUI and at fault if test shows pot from a month ago.

fucked up world set to take down and keep down the poor and anyone who might vote dem.

[blueamy66]

6. Interesting.

Shouldn't the father have been charged with DUI as well though?

[aikoaiko]

9. DAs have discretion to not prosecute the victims of crimes even if they were committing crimes.

[LegallyBlonde]

18. Wouldn't that be a question of fact for a jury to decide?

In my opinion, the judge erred by not permitting the victim's THC level(s) to be introduced at trial. The bottom line in ANY criminal trial is this: The prosecution MUST prove BEYOND AND TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY REASONABLE DOUBT,that the defendant committed the offense(es) they are charged with. They maintain the burden of proof. The defendant doesn't need to prove that he or she is innocent; the prosecution MUST prove the defendant is guilty. It may introduce any and all *relevant* evidence (either through physical evidence or witness testimony) to prove its case. However, once the prosecution enters something into evidence, it is then subject to discrimination by the defense. Meaning, a defendant can't just bring something up at trial if it wasn't first brought in by the prosecution (with the exception of an affirmative defense, like self defense, diminished capacity, etc.). If I were the defense attorney in this case, I would've argued that the victims' TCH levels could have absolutely affected the father's reaction time, perception, and judgement with regard to the navigating on the motorcycle, and it was his impairment, not Wendy's, that directly resulted in the collision. Yes; Wendy was drunk. In fact, she was FUBAR. She excercised abhorrent judgment by getting in her vehicle and driving in her condition. She not only put herself, but everyone she passed, in jeopardy by making that poor decision. But so did the victim's father. Knowing that THC remains in a person's system for up to 30 days, didn't he also make the poor decision to drive his vehicle while under the influence? Had he not been impaired, he might've been able to maneuver his vehicle so as to minimize the collision. In fact, had he not made the choice to drive his vehicle while impaired, he may have avoided the collision all together. Whether or not that was the case is a question of fact, which a jury must consider. The jury may have thought, "no; based on the evidence and testimony presented, it wouldn't have mattered WHAT state the father was in, the collision and subsequent damage are due to Wendy's actions, which resulted from her intoxication." At the very least, though, the THC levels may have provided the defense with legitimate reasonable doubt. The judge's decision to exclude that info from being presented at trial, essentially denied the defendant due process, and I've wouldve appealed that shiz the moment that jury presented a guilty verdict. NOTE: I'm basing my above opinion on limited information. I am not familiar with Colorado's criminal code or criminal procedure. I rationalized my argument on basic crim pro procedural and evidence rules.

[AllTheFactsPlz15]

19. It should absolutely be entered as evidence. Its called Disclosure. No truth shall be held out...

I think we agree, lets see...
Yes, Wendy was drunk. Yes, she exercised poor decision-making while getting in the car to drive. Yes, there was an accident and Yes someone died, but how does that make her guilty? When the jurors were making their decision all around the table-11 of them decided that she was drunk and she was reckless just getting into the car she's automatically reckless but that still doesn't make her guilty! She's ONLY guilty of DUI, she's not guilty of taking a life. When that 12th juror started questioning the 11 others I said "Yes!! Finally someone see's it!" Saying she was reckless driving and DUI. S he was asking the same questions I'm asking.. how does that make her guilty of this ACCIDENT?? She's just DUI.. They all agreed that the motorcycle pushed her car back so that means that this motorcycle going in excess of 92 miles per hour caused the accident therefore it is just that, an accident. The death is no one's fault it is an accident.

[chateu21]

21. (DUI) vs (THC & NO Helmets)

I Went Looking For Comments After Watching The Same Re-Run. Not Because I Agree Or Disagree With The Verdict But Once Again A JuryWas With Held Information & Evidence. I Wish They Would Have Questioned The Jury Afterwards Like On Other Shows. Because If They Decided She Was Guilty For The Decision To Drive After Drinking, How Would They Look At The Father & Son For Having THC But More Important Based On Their Deliberations Was Their Decision To Ride Witout Helmets. Which Would Have Prob Saved Their Lives & Head Injuries. Making Yhem Just As Culpable As Someone Not Wearing A Seatbelt Ect. Then Add BOTH Drivers Wear Impaired = Possible Reasonable Doubt...

[hawaii007]

25. Legally Blind to the Facts

I think that as a prime example there was this old woman on Kauai over 80 years old driving her car then turned in front of the Harley killing the driver instantly in broad day light. This driver was given Probation, didn't serve one day in Jail & still drives recklessly though she wasn't driving while drunk. Then add insult to further injury she was court ordered to pay $8,000 to pay for the victim's funeral & burial as a requirement of her criminal charges so then she had the State Compen$ation Fund pay for his burial & funeral. All I'm saying is that if you imagine you're on the road driving a Harley then some careless drive (with or without alcohol) then turns right in front of you there is little chance you would dodge the bullet because they wait until it's TOO LATE. That said, it's apparent that most think the poor victims are guilty judging the dead 18 year old son along with his brain damaged father for being 420 Friendly In fact Wendy turned in front of the motorcycle so even if THC wasn't found in either one of their system it's a given that there is no possible way to keep the the "accident" from happening other than taking the car keys away from the defendant. Wendy wasn't given enough time in prison due to the the Victim Impact Statement and by no means is the poor Harley driver and the rider now deceased to blame for her deciding to drive drunk then causing a fatal wreck. If she was the Harley driver then turned in front of the vehicle maybe we would just bury her as they did for her son because no motorcycle stands a chance against thousands of pounds of steel. My take.

[madokie]

3. Although I no longer smoke pot

my experience with it is at first it would have impaired my driving but after a while of smoking it, say if you've been a regular smoker for a few years, maybe even as little as a few weeks it doesn't have the same level of impairment on ones driving as it does at first. I know I drove a good couple hundred thousand miles while high on pot and never had a problem with my driving abilities, IE gettings tickets, driving too slow, speeding, having wrecks etc.

Everyones mileage may differ though

[chateu21]

22. Everyone's Different

I Agree With Much Of Your Statement But You Can Say The Same Thing With Alcohol Or All Substances Depends On Body Type/Size & Frequency & Longevity Of Use...
Either Way Specially After Hearing The Jury Deliberations Should Have Been Tild & Consider The Facts The Father & Son Had THC In Their Systems & Weren't Wearing Helmets...

[seveneyes]

4. No, and the paranoid laws against pot must be eliminated

The fact that our President has not taken a serious approach to this injustice is not comforting.

The party as a whole needs to get on this if Obama is not going to lead the way. If the GOP had a clue, they would push for federal legalization and likely bring out millions of young, intelligent voters. We should preempt that move.

[2pooped2pop]

10. yep. They can start by immediate reclassification

It is currently classified in the same group as heroin with no medical or other uses.

[chateu21]

23. President Not King

The President Has Admitted To Smoking Pot & Has Said Many Times Its No Worse Than Alcohol. The Problem Is Like Most All Our Problems Is Congress Specially This 2010+ GOP Congress Who We Pay $274,000 Who Only "Work" 3-4 Days A Week On Top Of Million Dollar Allowance Used For Staffers, Travel, Furniture, Ect. They WereAlso Giving Themselves $3k In Yearly Raises Last Time They Were In Power Under President Bush Wich Stopped With The Election Of Obama. We Also Have One Of The Richest Congress In Our History Most All Are $Millionaires Some $10s Of Millions & A Few $100s Of Millions. So Just Like They Give Themselves Undeserving Raises With 13% Job Approval & Against Raising Minimum Wage. Following The Financial Collapse They Helped Cause They Went After Unions & PPLs Pensions Wile They Continue To Collect Undeserving Lush Pensions That Only Adds To The Debt.
Lastly Like They Complain About Unions When Congress Is A (Super Union) Telling Us Their Bosses What To Pay & Decide How Little They Work Ect. But Beyond Their Union Busting Is Thei Complaints About "Socialist Europe" When In Reality WE (The US PPL) Help Pay For Without Any Of The Benefits. Because While Our Military Budget Has Nearly Doubled Since BUSH Took Office In 2000. The Us Not Only Spends MORE Than The Next Dozen Countries Combined & Everytime One Of Our European Ally Cut Their Military/Defense Budget We Fill The Gab & Increase Ours. Thos Is Beyound Wrong Because Its Not Only Making Us Weak Economically Lacking Investment At Home On Infrastructure Costing Jobs Economic Benefits Ect. It Also Makes Our Allies Weak. So While The US Shouldn't Be Policing The World We Wont Have Strong Allies To Help In The Trouble Spots Of The World Or God Forbid Somtging Breaks Out With Russia Or China. I Mean South Korea One Of The Top Economic Countries. Yet We Provide Their Security & Like Most Countries Pay To Have A Base On Their Land Should Be Free If Not Paying Is Since They Get All The Benefits Security & Economic. I Would Add Germany & Japan.
I Know I Went Off On A Political Rant So Ill End By Adding Its Hard To Judge Obama Because What He Was Handed & Has Been Blocked From 2010 On From Passing Job Polices Infrastructure Investment Ect. & The GOP Has Blocked All Public Job Polices Even Cutting (FireFighters, Teachers, Police, Ect) At The State Level Where Their In Control. & As I Was Raised A Republican Returned Independent Most Of Out Poorest States Are RED States & They Have Aome Of The Largest Percentage Of PPL On Som Gov Program That Republicans Are "Against" Well They Deserve The Benefits Just Not "Others" So Instead Of Invsting In Infrastructure Or NASA We Cut Taxes On The RICH & Now We Pay Russia $100Mill Per Seat After We Already Invested $100Billion To Build The ISS. Long Story Short Without The Public Jobs Bush Would Ja e Negative Jobs Created Because The Private Sector Did So Bad & Obama Has Only Been Able To Help The Private Sector But With The Added Public Sector Gives Jobs To Others Money To Spend & Invest In Private Sector Increasing Private Jobs Ect Economy 101. We Just Need To Return To The GoodOlDays Like Between WWll & 1980s When We Used The Best Parts Of Socialism & Capitalism

But As A Result Of Reagan Cutting Taxes On The RICH From 70% To A Mear 28% & Kept All Thei Loopholes Has Cause Out Debt Which Was Always Under 1Trillion Untill Reagan Increased In By 4-5Trill & Has Continued To Grow Since Except Under Clinton Where Tax Increases On The RICH & Great Economics Created A Deficit Surplus. Destroyed By President Bushes Wastful & Unnecessary War Spending In Iraq. Which While Never As Hot Cost MORE Than The Vietnam War In Tidays Money. Was Also The First Time In US History NO Taxes Were Raised To Help Pay For The War & Even Worse Past Two Massive Tax Cuta Mostly On The RICH. All Creating The Worse IncomeInequality Not Seen Since Tge Great Depression & Lead To The Worse Recession Since The Great Depression. IncomeInequality Is Worse Than Most PPL Know Or Even Think...

[Cirque du So-What]

11. Did the piece (from 2004) go into any detail

about the THC concentration in the blood - typically expressed in ng/mL? This was 2004, after all, when the corporate media were still in OMG mode about cannabis use. Furthermore, THC can remain in the bloodstream up to weeks after ingesting cannabis - when the user is in no way high. What's the deal about the son anyway? Why did the intrepid 20/20 'reporters' consider that in any way remotely germane to the case? If you want to get into the relative impairment of cannabis use vs. drunk driving, consider that:

The most meaningful recent study measuring driver "culpability" (i.e., who is at fault) in 3,400
crashes over a 10–year period indicated that drivers with THC concentrations of less than five
ng/mL in their blood have a crash risk no higher than that of drivers without any THC in their
bodies.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpp.org%2Fassets%2Fpdfs%2Flibrary%2FDUID-and-MMJ.pdf&ei=SI4xU6HcHonO2wWMqIHYBQ&usg=AFQjCNE9mXeTeUPjUeXPy92NRw3ePmgd8Q&sig2=4N40hQR964AzQdqiwd-qEw&bvm=bv.63587204,d.b2I&cad=rja

Specific to this case, the woman was undoubtedly impaired; the piece you cite doesn't even make mention of THC concentration of the motorcycle driver - nevermind the red herring of his son. In general, I believe it should not be admissible in court, mainly due to the widely varying standards imposed throughout the states and the persistence of THC in the system long after the buzz has vanished. Keep looking, and you may uncover some 'victims in the states that have now legalized marijuana.'

[blueamy66]

12. The piece showed the THC levels of both victims on the report....

but I didn't write it down.

I'm still trying to find more information.

It was the defense attorney that considered the fact that the father had smoked marijuana germane to the case.

There was a lot of disagreement about "who hit who" and how fast each was going. I believe that the defense attorney wanted to get the jury to put some of the blame on the victim(s) and maybe reduce her client's sentence.

And I agree about the varying standards and persistence of THC in the system. It's going to be a huge mess for the courts and those charged with marijuana based DUIs.

Further, for argument's sake, let us say that the father was high as a kite. Should he have been charged as well? With DUI? Manslaughter?

[blueamy66]

13. Just found the appeals' decision. It explains the judge's ruling about the THC.

www.appeals2.az.gov/Decisions/cr20060426memo.pdf

[Cynkril]

14. Death by driving

The judge absolutely should have allowed the marijuana info at trial. What it means for victims in states where medical marijuana is legal would be the same as for any driver who is on any other medication: you are not to drive under the influence; the law does not differentiate between legal or illegal substances or medication.

[magcom2]

15. Death By Driving

I just watched that show too, and was appalled that the judge ruled against the marijuana info coming in. His ruling amounted to, "because law enforcement basically screwed up and didn't immediately test BOTH people involved, then it couldn't be proved that at the time of the accident, the man was impaired." It also means they couldn't prove he wasn't. Why couldn't the jury hear that? And why was it never mentioned that neither were wearing helmets? Maybe if they were, the man would not have headaches and memory loss. I can't help but wonder how important that marijuana would have been if it had been Ms. Anderson who was killed.

[smitswhips]

16. your answer

It's because the police and medics on scene did not test them then. The tests were done months later. Now it's not fair that the police didn't test them because what if they were stoned and fucked up.

[NutmegYankee]

17. You shouldn't be tested without probable cause.

The father probably gave no evidence of drug impairment. The woman with a BAC over .2 must have been drunk as all hell on the other hand.

Rather than debate the unknowable (under the influence) with THC, the evidence point quite clearly that the woman was very drunk and that her operation of a motor vehicle had resulted in a death and serious injury. She got the correct sentence.

[chateu21]

24. THC Test

NO They Were Later Had Their Blood Drawn At The Hospital NOT Months Later. It Was A Sad Situation All Around But Was Wrong To Not Allow The Defense To Bring Up The THC Or They Weren't Wearing Helmets Unless The Prosecution Brought It Up First. I Understand Much Of The Information Withheld From Juries But More & More It Seems Relevant Evidence & Many Shows Have Interviewed Some Of The Jury Afterwards. That's Something I Wish We Would Have Seen Specially After Listening To The Juries Deliberations Blaming Her For Deciding To Drive After Drinking. What About Them Riding After Smoking But More Importantly Deciding NOT To Wear Helmets Is Just As Bad As Someone NOT Putting On A Seatbelt...

[chateu21]

20. "Death By Driving" (Helmets & THC) vs (DUI)

I Agree After Watching The Re-Run & Specially The Jury Deliberations I Was Hoping They Would Interview Some Afterwards & Ask "IF" The Defense Was Able To Introduce That The Dad & Son Weren't Wearing Helmets Making Them Jusr As Culpable As Someone Drinking & Driving Or Not Wearing A Seatbelt Ect. Also Tell Them They Had Marijuana In Their Blood That Was Later Took At The Hospital Because He Was Checked For Sobriety At The Sean...
Iv Just Seen On Many Shows When They Talk To The Juries Afterwards & Give Them "More Information Or All The Evidence" They May Have A Different Opinion & Would Probably Made A Differnt Decision...

FYI Our US Justice System Is Just Like Orr Democracy (NOT FAIR) & Specially Involving Money...