Misc Lawyers, help for mock trial

[M1LD_S]

I am having a mock trial in school about the great gatsby. I was wondering if a person is suicidal and runs in front of a car and gets run over, would the driver of the car still be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, if it helps i can give more information on the plot/context of the trial, thanks for any help.

[M1LD_S]

bump for some help

[M1LD_S]

Originally Posted by CALLofDUTY

Driver faces no charges as long as he acted appropriately when running the over the loser (ie no speeding up for the lulz).

ahaha ok thanks, if you could also answer this that would be great, the reason i ask is that my team is defending daisy (the driver) saying that it wasnt her fault that she hit the girl so as long as we could prove that the girl was psycholigcally ****ed and suicidal, then it isnt the drivers fault? thanks again

[CALLofDUTY]

Originally Posted by M1LD_S

ahaha ok thanks, if you could also answer this that would be great, the reason i ask is that my team is defending daisy (the driver) saying that it wasnt her fault that she hit the girl so as long as we could prove that the girl was psycholigcally ****ed and suicidal, then it isnt the drivers fault? thanks again

As long as the driver wasn't negligent/reckless in running her over it's all good.

Edit: What happened to my other post? All i did was edit it lulz

[Alphamale0]

In the book though wasn't she trying to stop him? b/c she thought it was gatsby? He just didn't see her. It's been awhile since I read the book so I don't really remember.

[Pinn]

if Jack McCoy is prosecuting; that driver is toast!!!

[Dude.Jon]

The suicidal person is being negligent while "running into the street" already had a pre existing condition if you know she's suicidal.

Maybe her relative will pay the damage if the insurance doesn't

[M1LD_S]

Originally Posted by Alphamale0

In the book though wasn't she trying to stop him? b/c she thought it was gatsby? He just didn't see her. It's been awhile since I read the book so I don't really remember.

basically daisy was driving (gatsby in the passenger seat) and she was an emotional reck or soemthing, the bish comes running out and daisy tries to swerve but ther is a car in the other lane so she swereves back and hits the bish and kills her and drives off. The girl that got hit was going crazy after being abused by her husband so she ran out and got hit. Everyone thought it was gatsby that was driving and he said he would tell everyone it was him so daisy wouldnt get in trouble and later, mr wilson (dead girls husband) shoots him.

We have to defend daisy (either saying it wasnt her fault or saying gatsby was driving). I think we are going to say that the girl that got hit was hysterical and suicidal and threw herself out in front of the car so daisy isnt at fault

not sure if all that made sense, i can elaborate if needed

[Philip81193]

She's not suicidal, she was running out to stop Nick so they could talk/bang/whatever.
Turns out it wasn't Nick driving, who woulda thought?

[matt5x5]

If she was in an emotional state and left the scene after hitting the girl she would incur some legal responsibility. It might also be difficult to prove that the girl was suicidal.

[M1LD_S]

Originally Posted by matt5x5

If she was in an emotional state and left the scene after hitting the girl she would incur some legal responsibility. It might also be difficult to prove that the girl was suicidal.

this is true, if anyone has any other courses you think i could take in defense, its greatly appreciated.

but basically we were gonna say she was abused by her husband and say that her husband found out about the affair she was having with tom and she was so mentally ****ed that she didnt want to live, but i agree its difficult to not find dasiy guilty

[redheadlaw7]

Why on earth would the state of mind of the person getting run over be relevant? Seriously? It's the mens rea of the accused brahs.

[ineedmass]

Two things must be present to be found guilty: mens rea and actus reus (guilty mind and guilty act)

The driver did hit the woman, but he didnt intend to. If someone runs out infront of your car while you're driving and there was no chance of avoiding it, it's not your fault.

[M1LD_S]

Originally Posted by redheadlaw7

Why on earth would the state of mind of the person getting run over be relevant? Seriously? It's the mens rea of the accused brahs.

we planned on saying she was suicidal and ran in front of the car to kill herself so it wasnt daisys fault, there wasnt anything that she could do to change what happened, but like i said if you read the book and have another idea im very open haha (no school help beg)

edit: we are being charged with involuntary manslaughter, could this suicide idea get us away with justifiable mansluaghter?

[USMClawdog]

Originally Posted by redheadlaw7

Why on earth would the state of mind of the person getting run over be relevant? Seriously? It's the mens rea of the accused brahs.

state of mind of the driver is all that matters.

I also thing you have a good shot at getting a not-guilty verdict, daisy was not breaking any laws, so therefore no invol manslaughter

[Beatnik5]

brb calling wssicks for you

[redheadlaw7]

Originally Posted by M1LD_S

we planned on saying she was suicidal and ran in front of the car to kill herself so it wasnt daisys fault, there wasnt anything that she could do to change what happened, but like i said if you read the book and have another idea im very open haha (no school help beg)

edit: we are being charged with involuntary manslaughter, could this suicide idea get us away with justifiable mansluaghter?

Well it depends on the law in your state. I know that usually it will be a question of fact whether the driver had the ability to avoid hitting whatever or whoever is running out in front of them. I had a girlfriend go through a nasty trial after accidentally hitting an African American child that was chased out in front of her by some racist bullies. It was on appeal for about 2 years. It was awful. Had about a week's worth of accident reconstruction testimony.

Is your mock trial in a "closed universe?" In other words...are you guys limited to a set of facts and a set of statutes?

[redheadlaw7]

[QUOTE=USMClawdog;400390921]state of mind of the driver is all that matters.

Yeah brah...that's what I said. lulz. My law professor hubby is standing behind me bishin' that I haven't read the book in about 10 years and I should just shut my piehole. :-D

[M1LD_S]

Originally Posted by redheadlaw7

Well it depends on the law in your state. I know that usually it will be a question of fact whether the driver had the ability to avoid hitting whatever or whoever is running out in front of them. I had a girlfriend go through a nasty trial after accidentally hitting an African American child that was chased out in front of her by some racist bullies. It was on appeal for about 2 years. It was awful. Had about a week's worth of accident reconstruction testimony.

Is your mock trial in a "closed universe?" In other words...are you guys limited to a set of facts and a set of statutes?

well we are limited to facts clearly stated in the book yet everything is open for interpretation as long as info doesnt go directly against what is stated. In regards to laws, we arent really sure, im assuming they will go by the laws of the 1920's (not really any advanced forensics or anything) so it will not be specific to a certain states laws. I think that answers your question...

edit: law prof husband?! what does he have to say? haha

[buffuntcay]

Originally Posted by redheadlaw7

Well it depends on the law in your state. I know that usually it will be a question of fact whether the driver had the ability to avoid hitting whatever or whoever is running out in front of them. I had a girlfriend go through a nasty trial after accidentally hitting an African American child that was chased out in front of her by some racist bullies. It was on appeal for about 2 years. It was awful. Had about a week's worth of accident reconstruction testimony.

Is your mock trial in a "closed universe?" In other words...are you guys limited to a set of facts and a set of statutes?

good too see a lot of miscers have read this piece of literature im guessing mostly because of school

[M1LD_S]

Originally Posted by buffuntcay

good too see a lot of miscers have read this piece of literature im guessing mostly because of school

haha yeah i figured mostly everyone would have read it at some point

[Ecnewyx]

Originally Posted by Pinn

if Jack McCoy is prosecuting; that driver is toast!!!

ROFL, McCoy is awesome in getting his man. Constitutional rights be damned!

[Masknight]

i think your defense should center around daisy's inability to avoid hitting the girl. recreate the accidents scene (as much as possible given the book): point out the other car in the next lane (which was close to daisy's car, meaning if she were to swerve to avoid the girl she might inadvertently injure the other driver in the process) and the fact the woman was crossing the road illegally. Draw a picture for your jurors and put them in the situation: you're driving, a woman dashes in front of you, so you swerve but there is another car, you naturally swerve to avoid them and in effect, end up hitting the girl.

be warned that the opposition could argue that daisy's emotional state could be cause for her to be charged because they could say she wasn't mentally fit to operate a vehicle.

[tron_85]

Look at the requirements for negligence. Relate them to the rules of driving. But im' not a lawyer

[Ecnewyx]

Originally Posted by M1LD_S

I am having a mock trial in school about the great gatsby. I was wondering if a person is suicidal and runs in front of a car and gets run over, would the driver of the car still be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, if it helps i can give more information on the plot/context of the trial, thanks for any help.

And yes, whether the person who got hit was suicidal or not is irrelevant... although this is the 1920s... redheadlaw7, contributory negligence still an absolute defense in most states back then, yes? (In civil suits at least.)

For the criminal prosecution, it's irrelevant. To keep it simple look at two factors and two factors ONLY:

(1) Did Daisy, due to being an emotional wreck, deviate from the standard of care of reasonable person in her driving? (e.g., was she speeding, swerving, was her reaction time slowed because of her emotional state, etc.) If YES, then:

(2) Was Daisy's negligence the CAUSE of her hitting the girl? So if the girl jumped in front of Daisy's car, and a reasonable person would not have been able to stop in time, then it's not relevant whether or not Daisy would've been able to.

Also this is the 1920s. Maybe women have a lower duty standard due to rampant misogyny. (I kid, I kid).

[M1LD_S]

Thanks to the few above, good ****. I think the prosecution will definitly bring up her emotional state as the main cause, yet as masknight said, it was the only viable course of action to swerve back and hit the girl. However, had she not been under the emotional stress that she was in, daisy may have been able to stop the car before hitting Mrtyle, but since she was able to swerve, that leads me to believe she would have been able to hit the breaks too. Her immediate thought to swerve out of the way makes me think that she was speeding, thus destroying the whole case basically. This is so hard lol thanks for the help though

[TheOrigKidSwole]

No. You could sue the person for damaging your car

[redheadlaw7]

Originally Posted by Ecnewyx

And yes, whether the person who got hit was suicidal or not is irrelevant... although this is the 1920s... redheadlaw7, contributory negligence still an absolute defense in most states back then, yes? (In civil suits at least.)

For the criminal prosecution, it's irrelevant. To keep it simple look at two factors and two factors ONLY:

(1) Did Daisy, due to being an emotional wreck, deviate from the standard of care of reasonable person in her driving? (e.g., was she speeding, swerving, was her reaction time slowed because of her emotional state, etc.) If YES, then:

(2) Was Daisy's negligence the CAUSE of her hitting the girl? So if the girl jumped in front of Daisy's car, and a reasonable person would not have been able to stop in time, then it's not relevant whether or not Daisy would've been able to.



Also this is the 1920s. Maybe women have a lower duty standard due to rampant misogyny. (I kid, I kid).

Here is a synopsis of the law....

When a Driver's Actions Amount to Manslaughter

"Manslaughter" is the unintentional and unlawful killing of another person. Most convictions for vehicular homicide, or killing a person by means of a vehicle, are for manslaughter, or some similar offense, such as negligent homicide, and are not for murder, which requires a showing of "malice" or intent. There can be variations in the names of crimes that fall into the larger category of "vehicular homicide," some based on what a particular state calls the crime, or the difference in the name of the crime might indicate the degree or severity of the crime under a particular state's laws.

Manslaughter is usually divided into "voluntary manslaughter" and "involuntary manslaughter." The two crimes are different with respect to the defendant's actions or conduct at the time of the killing.

In addition, some states have special "vehicular manslaughter" laws that are applied in either all unintentional vehicular homicides, or in special circumstances, such as when the defendant was driving while intoxicated or under the influence ("DWI" or "DUI").

The names used for "manslaughter" and its various types or degrees vary from state to state, so it's important that you understand the laws of your state if you are faced with a charge of vehicular homicide. Also, the facts and circumstances of your case might make it necessary to consult an experienced criminal law or defense attorney.
Voluntary Manslaughter

A driver who operates a motor vehicle in a manner that he or she knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to injure and cause the death of another person can be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. This crime is also known in some states as "manslaughter in the first degree."

The reasoning behind this type of charge is that a person is presumed to intend the natural and likely effects of his or her own actions and conduct: every driver is or should be aware of the results of operating a car in a reckless or grossly negligent manner.

For example, a driver can be convicted for voluntary manslaughter when he or she drives a car at a high rate of speed and collides with a truck, killing the truck's passenger, even where the collision is caused by a defective steering wheel in the driver's car, if the driver was aware of the defect. The driver either knew, or should have known, that driving with the defect could cause another person's death.

However, if there was a sudden emergency, that fact might break the link between the defendant's actions and the victim's death, and could provide a defense to a manslaughter charge. Also sometimes called the "necessity defense," the defendant must show that:

* The harmful or unlawful driving took place because the driver reasonably believed that an emergency existed
* He or she did not create the emergency, and
* The emergency presented a threat to the driver or some third party

In addition, if there is evidence to support this defense, the court has to give the jury instructions on this defense so it can be considered as an option by the jury in reaching a verdict.

For example, a driver's manslaughter conviction was overturned on the ground that the trial court improperly refused to give a jury instruction on sudden emergency after the driver testified that a parked car suddenly pulled into the street immediately in front of his car, that he swerved to the left to avoid a collision and ran into a puddle of water, and that he lost control of his car, applied the brakes, and veered back sharply to the right, running over the curb and striking three pedestrians, killing one of them.
Involuntary Manslaughter

In many states, a motorist who drives an automobile recklessly or in a grossly negligent manner and unintentionally kills another is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, known in some states as "manslaughter in the second degree."

Likewise, a driver who commits a non-felony crime (typically a minor crime, which does not include a prison sentence as a possible punishment) that results in the unintentional death of another person can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter. An example might be a driver running a red light (a non-felony offense) and then crashing into another car, which kills the other driver.

Exactly what do "caused by reckless" or "grossly negligent" or "culpably negligent" driving mean? The term "grossly negligent" has been used interchangeably with "culpably negligent," or showing a "wanton" or "reckless" disregard for human life. Essentially, "gross negligence" means the conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause serious injury or death. In other words, the law assigns criminal blame and consequences to some negligent and reckless actions.

The "gross negligence" standard involves proof of more than the ordinary negligence that is needed for liability under tort law in civil cases?like slip-and-fall cases?and more than a mere error in judgment, inadvertence, or lack of ordinary care.

Examples of situations where involuntary manslaughter could occur:

* Just driving above the speed limit does not amount to such grossly negligent or reckless conduct as to amount to involuntary manslaughter. However, an involuntary manslaughter conviction can be based on excessive speed in combination with other factors, such as running through an intersection without paying attention to traffic signals or stop signs.
* A driver can be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter even though he or she is driving within the speed limit, such as where a motorist approaches an intersection and is not looking forward, which causes the vehicle to veer and strike and kill a pedestrian.
* If a fatal accident is caused by the driver's unconsciousness as a result of a medical condition, such as an epileptic seizure, or by falling asleep at the wheel, criminal liability for involuntary manslaughter can be imposed. That is so because of the recklessness or culpable negligence of operating an automobile while in such a condition.

[M1LD_S]

^^^ wow that helped a lot, thanks everyone for serious responses

[Masknight]

^ words. there are too many. XD