Janklow Jury Told of Earlier Near-Accident

[Khephra]

Janklow Jury Told of Earlier Near-Accident

By T.R. Reid
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 4, 2003; Page A03


FLANDREAU, S.D., Dec. 3 -- Eight months before Rep. William J. Janklow (R-S.D.) allegedly sped through a stop sign at a rural crossing and killed a passing motorcyclist, Janklow's white Cadillac evidently ran the stop sign at the same intersection at more than 70 mph and came within "a few feet" of hitting another driver, the jury in his felony manslaughter trial was told Wednesday.

As the prosecution completed its case in a trial that could send Janklow to prison for 10 years -- and end his 30-year political career -- jurors also heard from two policemen who had caught Janklow driving well above the speed limit while he was South Dakota's governor. Both allowed the governor to drive on without issuing a ticket.

more...............

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33169-2003Dec3.html

[Cha]

1. Glad the jury is getting a sense of his

driving history, here.

[dusty64]

5. I STILL do not understand

how the "judge" ruled his prior driving record was immaterial to this case. WTF!

[0007]

9. Maybe the judge is on the payroll?

The jury will find this schmuch innocent, moeny can buy anything.

[sendero]

10. I wish a lawyer would clarify...

... this point. I know that *routinely*, past convictions of crimes are not allowed as evidence. I think the concept is something like "just because you did something wrong before is no reason to prejudice the jury".

However, I would that that a "pattern" of past behavior would be relevant and I don't see why it would not be admissible.

I'm sure tho, that the judge has precedent for this position, he can't just make stuff up as he goes.

[veganwitch]

11. maybe it was considered prejudicial

and would taint the current situation even though i think that his past behaviour goes for establishing the facts of the accident.

[happyslug]

14. The test is always one of balance.

The courts will permit in any evidence provided it is relevant to the case with the exception if the prejudicial nature of the evidence outweighs it value as evidence. For example a picture of a bloody accident scene may out weigh its usability to determine if a red light was malfunctioning or not. On the other hand a bloody crime scene picture may be needed by the Jury to decide HOW premeditated the crime was. The Blood will prejudice most people. People want to revenge such atrocities and may very well rule against someone just because they believe someone should pay NOT that the evidence say this particular defendant did the crime.

Another concern of the Courts has been prior convictions, as a rule they do NOT come in unless it shows a predisposition to do the crime someone is on trial for. I.e. prior conviction for Burglaries should NOT come in where the issue is the Murder of a person in a Bar Fight (But could come in if the murder occurred during a Burglary). Does the crime indicate a predisposition to the crime be tried? If NO it has to stay out, if Yes it can come in unless its Prejudicial value exceeds its value to the Jury in the issue in front of a Jury (a person’s Conviction for a Murder 20 years before during a Burglary may be to prejudicial in a Burglary trial today.)

In this case, the report of his SPEEDING goes to the issue of his predisposition to speed. The earlier evidence of prior convictions also would have shown a predisposition to speed but (Going by Memory) those also reflected actions done years ago and would prejudice the jury on the issue of his Speeding this time.

Also in many states, Convictions are Hearsay, and generally NOT admissible as HEARSAY in any subsequent trial. Now a confession is also hearsay (as is any guilty pleas) but being statements against interests are ADMISSIBLE hearsay in other subsequent Trials.

That Convictions are NOT admissible hearsay, while Guilty Pleas are admissible hearsay is why you will here people plea “Nolo Contendere” i.e “No Contest” instead of “Guilty”. The plead of Nolo Contendere is treated as a Guilty Plea, but unlike an admittance of Guilt (which can be used in any subsequent litigation), a plea of Nolo Contendere is NOT a statement admitting guilt (just that the defendant is NOT defending himself in the action) and NOT being a statement against interest is NOT admissible hearsay in any subsequent litigations.

For years one of the ways people used Nolo Contendere was Traffic Tickets, Drivers would plead Nolo Contendere and paid the fine. The Nolo Contendere plea was NOT an admission of guilt and Insurance Companies could NOT their rates except if the Insurance Company could show some evidence of the traffic violation INDEPENDENT of the Nolo Contendere Plea.

Over the last 20 years, the Traffic Tickets have changed. Use to be you could plea Guilty, Not Guilty or Nolo Contendere(at least in my home state of Pennsylvania). If you plead guilty or nolo contendere you paid the fine and went on with your life. If you plead Not Guilty a hearing would be set (where the driver is almost always convicted). Insurance Companies wanted people to plead Guilty not Nolo Contendere so they had the option of pleading Nolo Contendere taken off the tickets.

Most people than opt to plead guilty and paid the fine (where the better option would be to plead Not Guilty, pay the fine and get on with your life). The guilty plea being an admittance of guilt and can be used in any subsequent litigation (including litigation involving raising your insurance rates), while the Not Guilty plea (even if the fine is paid and judgment entered against you) is INADMISSABLE hearsay in any subsequent litigation.

[maxanne]

2. I hope Randy Scott's family

brings a civil suit against everyone of the bastards who enabled Janklow all these years. If someone had done their goddam job, he might still be alive.

[Cocoa]

3. there should be a federal investigation

sounds like rampant corruption in SD, that led to at least one death.

[hlthe2b]

4. Yeah, right... There has been corruption there for decades..

And had there been a successful Federal investigation earlier, Janklow would have been in jail these past 20 years for rape and quite possibly her later murder. But it was a Native American woman and his political cronies were fully capable of using the racist attitudes of many in SD to quash it all... Perfect fit for the BFEE.

All of this is readily available on GOOGLE for any who want to know details.

[maxanne]

6. I don't think he can blame

the rape on an insulin reaction.

Jancita Eagle Deer was actually his second rape. The first charge was when he was 17 - and the records were sealed. Odd how Jancita Eagle Deer and her mother (who swore revenge) both wound up dead.

I despise this man. That he's a Bush crony speaks volumes about right wing morality. :puke:

[omshanti]

12. That's scary... (that his accusers wound up dead)

how and when did they die? I don't know anything about it.

[maxanne]

18. some links omshanti

http://www.dlncoalition.org/dln_issues/jancitaeagledeer.htm
there is a lot of good info on this site.

and

http://www.populist.com/00.11.letters.html
scroll down to the heading, "Familiar Name."

Janklow is evil. Truly evil.

They both died in 1974, btw. Delphine died a few months later. She was Jancita's step-mother - sorry to get the details wrong.

[kutastha]

17. But...

he could claim diabetic discrimination.

/sarcasm

[veganwitch]

7. i can find solace in that fact that karma is a bitch

eventually, this man will get his.

[veganwitch]

8. also,

if the testimony of the two state troopers is admissible, it is very damning.

if anything it will show that his obvious disregard for the speed limit, compounded with the diabetic reaction (assuming that it happened) makes him a very very dangerous driver who should not be behind the wheel of a car.

The defense that is supposed to get him off the hook may end up getting his liscence revoked.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. I wish I could believe this,

but I don't. If you believe that Karma, or God, or Satan, will settle accounts in the next life, then it creates a situation where injustice is tolerated since it will be "straightened out later".

Please understand, I am not flaming you, just expressing an opinion. In a different context, this is how religous fascists justify murdering civilians to get at the "bad guys". It's regretable that innocent people were killed, but God will reward them for their lost life, so its okay.

Bullsh*t!

Until someone comes back from the dead and proves it to me, punishment for injustice must occur in this life, since there are no guarantees of a next one.

This arrogant ass should be put under the jail for at least ten years. Anything less and he's geting a free ride.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org
Distrusting the Government Since 1984

[hippiechick]

15. Why was Daschle testifying ?

Was he THERE during the accident?
Is he a character witness ? :eyes:


WTF ??

:hippie:

[hatrack]

16. Daschle's a material witness as to place and time

He was at a veterans' event earlier that same day with Janklow.

He's supposed to be testifying on seeing Janklow at the event and (this is the big one) whether he saw Janklow eat lunch - key to the diabetic "episode" defense.