Last week in west Monroe Louisiana on or about the area of cypress St and Thomas road a car ran into a person on a bike. Broke his leg. The cops said it wasn't the person driving a fault. That's absolutely absurd as the law is a car is to be three foot from a pedestrian. The car had no reason to be that close. We need help bringing awareness and reform for these people. I hope you look into it.
Dear God, that's horrible. It shouldn't matter if the person had died or could have been saved. They killed someone and fled the scene. This happens a lot here. A whole lot. We need harsh punishments for hit and runs. Even if the person lives.
@@nikkijohnson4933 he was in the crash too maybe he had concussion still drunk and confused not knowing what happened maybe couldn't see her lots of reasons... they cant prove any intent on his part...
I cannot imagine the pain, fear and terror she felt. At minimum the fact he ran and didn’t try to help her or find aid, tells me a lot about him as a person. And he is non emotional. I don’t know here and I’m emotional about this. What kind of “human being” is this man?😢
Today the defense attorney, *ROB* *EGGERT* was delivering his closing argument. Does this attorney realize he is just *SHOUTING* at the jury the whole time?!? Geez......he's just yelling and yelling during the whole thing. If I were a juror it would be difficult to focus on the closing argument because he's speaking to the jury like *THEY* committed a murder.
0:14: ✅ Dr. Jeffrey Springer, a medical examiner, performed the autopsy on Shane Morman and determined that she died of traumatic asphyxia due to a motor vehicle collision. 5:29: ✅ Miss Morman's toxicology report showed the presence of ethanol in her blood and vitreous humor, with levels indicating intoxication. 10:39: ⚖ The forensic pathologist discusses traumatic asphyxia and rules out blunt force trauma as a contributing factor to the victim's death. 15:49: 🔍 The forensic expert describes the injuries and signs of traumatic asphyxia on the victim's body. 20:59: ✅ The injuries observed on the body of Miss Morman are consistent with a car being on the left side of her body and pressing down on the left side. 27:20: 🔍 The coroner discusses postmortem changes, injuries, and asphyxia in relation to the cause of death. 34:10: 🔍 The witness, a forensic pathologist, testifies about the presence of Doctor Smock during the autopsy and explains why he was not permitted to participate. 40:05: 🔎 The defense introduces exhibits A through G, discussing injuries to the forehead and a possible seat belt mark on the left side of the chest. 47:00: 🔍 The medical examiner cannot definitively determine if the marks on the victim's chest are seatbelt injuries, but they could be. 53:31: ! Miss Morman could have died within seconds, but if she was pulled out from the car within one or two minutes, she may have lived. Recap by Tammy AI
Watching today's questions, I see reasonable doubt that he was driving. I know if I were on the jury, I would have more questions in regards to his blood on passenger side airbags, and her bruises on her left side could demonstrate wearing a seat belt. How far was the seat forward /back in position to steering wheel? Did he climb out on the passenger side? How did his blood come into contact with passenger side airbags?
These defendants always try to look like a banker or accountant Glasses. This guy had multiple DUIs Why why was he driving without an interlock Or not at all!!?
Thats appalling. Why are they showing injuries which he admits on the stand did not contribute to her death? That is so undignified and it has no probative value. There is no reason to show autopsy photos in a manual asphyxia case. It's gruesome and undignified for the victim. For example, a person dies fulling off a cliff, we know this, what would be the probative value of seeing them smashed up at the bottom of the cliff? Nothing would be my answer. This kind of death is easily modelled. The only reason you would do that is to inflame the jury and cause prejudice. In my jurisdiction most of those photos would not be allowed for their lack of probative value. Indeed, I worked as PLT experience on a case of a car killing two girls in the same way manual asphyxia - double manslaughter case. One out of all the autopsy photos was allowed. He says no to so many questions did this injury etc contribute to her death......that is a shameful practice and 9 times out of ten there is no reasons to go through ALL of the autopsy photos in Court....unethical on a number of levels. I can't beleive his lawyer is not objecting. If it did not contribute to her death I would argue it is a ground for objecting. 1-2 minutes to die from manual asphyxia, they will have to prove he was driving now......
MORE HERE: www.courttv.com/tag/bradley-caraway/?
Last week in west Monroe Louisiana on or about the area of cypress St and Thomas road a car ran into a person on a bike. Broke his leg. The cops said it wasn't the person driving a fault. That's absolutely absurd as the law is a car is to be three foot from a pedestrian. The car had no reason to be that close. We need help bringing awareness and reform for these people. I hope you look into it.
Shoutout to this man, he seems to be very competent + from what i can see a very kind and nice person ❤
I love the way he enunciated certain words.
Thankful court tv is covering this case.
Dear God, that's horrible. It shouldn't matter if the person had died or could have been saved. They killed someone and fled the scene. This happens a lot here. A whole lot. We need harsh punishments for hit and runs. Even if the person lives.
Nobody knows who was driving yet.. so maybe go by the evidence...
@@Gabriel-hf1yydoesn’t matter. He fled the scene while she laid there dying. There needs to be some sort of consequence
Exactly! Fleeing the scene is a pretty big deal even if nobody is hurt
@@nikkijohnson4933 he was in the crash too maybe he had concussion still drunk and confused not knowing what happened maybe couldn't see her lots of reasons... they cant prove any intent on his part...
@@Gabriel-hf1yywell if he was drunk, concussed, and confused, then we can't rely on his account of what happened.
13 years of education to become a pathologist. He should be qualified.
They need to work on the camera angles in court. You can see photos from the autopsy at the start of the clip.
I cannot imagine the pain, fear and terror she felt. At minimum the fact he ran and didn’t try to help her or find aid, tells me a lot about him as a person. And he is non emotional. I don’t know here and I’m emotional about this. What kind of “human being” is this man?😢
Cold hearted who only cares about saving his @$&
The audio was pretty terrible
Today the defense attorney, *ROB* *EGGERT* was delivering his closing argument. Does this attorney realize he is just *SHOUTING* at the jury the whole time?!?
Geez......he's just yelling and yelling during the whole thing. If I were a juror it would be difficult to focus on the closing argument because he's speaking to the jury like *THEY* committed a murder.
Yeah there's a difference between shouting and being passionate. He was shouting
Brad Caraway was 100% driving HIS vehicle..
How have u come to that conclusion...
Exactly. They think we were born yesterday
defense attorneys always ask the dumbest stuff then strut around like they ate
Can you turn the sound up please it's to low😅😮😊
0:14: ✅ Dr. Jeffrey Springer, a medical examiner, performed the autopsy on Shane Morman and determined that she died of traumatic asphyxia due to a motor vehicle collision.
5:29: ✅ Miss Morman's toxicology report showed the presence of ethanol in her blood and vitreous humor, with levels indicating intoxication.
10:39: ⚖ The forensic pathologist discusses traumatic asphyxia and rules out blunt force trauma as a contributing factor to the victim's death.
15:49: 🔍 The forensic expert describes the injuries and signs of traumatic asphyxia on the victim's body.
20:59: ✅ The injuries observed on the body of Miss Morman are consistent with a car being on the left side of her body and pressing down on the left side.
27:20: 🔍 The coroner discusses postmortem changes, injuries, and asphyxia in relation to the cause of death.
34:10: 🔍 The witness, a forensic pathologist, testifies about the presence of Doctor Smock during the autopsy and explains why he was not permitted to participate.
40:05: 🔎 The defense introduces exhibits A through G, discussing injuries to the forehead and a possible seat belt mark on the left side of the chest.
47:00: 🔍 The medical examiner cannot definitively determine if the marks on the victim's chest are seatbelt injuries, but they could be.
53:31: ! Miss Morman could have died within seconds, but if she was pulled out from the car within one or two minutes, she may have lived.
Recap by Tammy AI
You're awesome! Thank you! 😊❤
I’m new hearing this case. I can’t imagine this hasn’t been mentioned before but the accused last name?? Wow
I missed the Medical Examiner's report. Did the victim has drugs or alcohol in her system.
Yes, alcohol
Thanks@@NikkiTinAZ
I'm curious why this case has taken so long to go to trial if it happened in 2016?
His first lawyer became seriously ill and had to quit, Covid, then new lawyer to catch up on his case
Watching today's questions, I see reasonable doubt that he was driving. I know if I were on the jury, I would have more questions in regards to his blood on passenger side airbags, and her bruises on her left side could demonstrate wearing a seat belt.
How far was the seat forward /back in position to steering wheel?
Did he climb out on the passenger side? How did his blood come into contact with passenger side airbags?
Unreasonable or reasonable doubt?
@@melistasy oops. Typo. Reasonable
@@melistasy I corrected it. Thank you.
3 DUI's. He fled because he didnt want another one.
So sad 😭
Guilty af
These defendants always try to look like a banker or accountant
Glasses.
This guy had multiple DUIs
Why why was he driving without an interlock
Or not at all!!?
Thats appalling. Why are they showing injuries which he admits on the stand did not contribute to her death? That is so undignified and it has no probative value. There is no reason to show autopsy photos in a manual asphyxia case. It's gruesome and undignified for the victim. For example, a person dies fulling off a cliff, we know this, what would be the probative value of seeing them smashed up at the bottom of the cliff? Nothing would be my answer. This kind of death is easily modelled. The only reason you would do that is to inflame the jury and cause prejudice. In my jurisdiction most of those photos would not be allowed for their lack of probative value. Indeed, I worked as PLT experience on a case of a car killing two girls in the same way manual asphyxia - double manslaughter case. One out of all the autopsy photos was allowed. He says no to so many questions did this injury etc contribute to her death......that is a shameful practice and 9 times out of ten there is no reasons to go through ALL of the autopsy photos in Court....unethical on a number of levels. I can't beleive his lawyer is not objecting. If it did not contribute to her death I would argue it is a ground for objecting.
1-2 minutes to die from manual asphyxia, they will have to prove he was driving now......
Witness keeps voicing causes/possibilities unrelated to her injuries. Muddies the water. 🙄
0:31 camera guy saw a green light to zoom in