CallMeMaybe wrote:
You’re right. I’m thinking about it in terms of a civil case. But the defendant here has pretty much admitted being the cause-in-fact of the victim’s death. I don’t think there is any claim that the victim was killed by anyone else’s car or any other cause.
So the defendant in this case is trying to find an excuse for it. His version of events seem less believable with every far-fetched scenario he proposes, right? He says that he wasn’t distracted, although cell phone data shows otherwise. He says the “suicidal” victim jumped in front of his car, although the investigation apparently showed the driver was outside of his lane. The skid marks on Highway 14 were visible. He claims he thought the victim was a deer, but the victim’s glasses were found in his car.
Do these things create reasonable doubt? I think they do the reverse of it. I think they highlight facts to show the AG was driving dangerously and knew or should have known the victim was a person.
I don’t practice criminal law, so maybe I’m wrong about this.
Given that everything you mentioned seems to be ready to come in as facts that are hard to dispute, if the defense then tries to blame the victim ("he was clearly suicidal, as you heard his cousin testify, and may have jumped in front of the car"), and I were a juror, I would be beyond offended and would want to hang his ass for it.