This defense attorney is why people don’t like defense attorneys. It’s one thing to defend your client, but to be blatantly disrespectful and not follow rules is despicable.
This defense attorney is trying his best but failing miserably because his client is guilty af and he has nothing to work with. The guy was speeding, his attorney agreed, so he will just have to go to jail. Cant believe they thought taking this to a jury was a good idea.
That’s not how laws are applied in this country. Criminal law almost always demands the causation element be satisfied to convict. A criminal infraction by one party may be helpful in determine whether that element has been satisfied, but it’s not necessarily sufficient.
Exactly!! The defence was incredibly inappropriate. If Mr Escobar didn't get up and scratch his arse, he might not have had another accident. Driving too fastNO BRAKING!! The arse was texting, or was asleep. Criminal negligence causing a death!
@@POVwithRC No, I didn’t. Calling the defense’s argument “whataboutism” isn’t an accurate description of how criminal law is applied in the United States. And this a video depicting opening arguments in a criminal trial.
@@conscious-typeperson4583 Yes, you did. Calling the defense’s argument “whataboutism” is an accurate description of what the defense was trying to apply.
@@LancerX916doesn't take a law degree to know 90 mph is reckless driving especially when traffic is stalled just up ahead. Unless he wasnt paying attention at all, he had to see it at some point and at least start reducing his speed, flares or no flares. Its that common sense the attorney was speaking about.
It's their job to get the charges dismissed from their client. But when the defense atty's ignore the rulings from the judge. Its not going to be good for the defense.
It's hardly uncommon on Highways and Freeways despite being an offence. Cars have been safe to cruise at 90 for decades. I'm NOT suggesting they SHOULD!
@@Lensman864 every single day I see people fly past me going Way over 90mph. The speed limit is 70 mph. Cars today feel like they are going slow at 70, apparently. I'm just avoiding speeding tickets following the speed limits. The last thing I ever want is to lose my privilege to breathe, or drive, kthx.
@@Lensman864sure, but in stopped traffic? even people who drive like jerks know not to try to bypass traffic that's clearly at a standstill for a reason by speeding around it.
She was driving the wrong way and drunk, but he was the one speeding and ignoring the traffic being held up, crashing into the car that killed the victim?
They're individually at fault for their individual contributions to the incident. "Yeah, I was going waaaaay to fast, and I didn't even try to stop for the traffic at a stand-still, but none of this would have happened had the drunk lady not been driving..." isn't going to get him out of a conviction.
Yikes. Defense attorney doesn't know that you must always drive in a safe and prudent manner. If you rearend someone it's your fault...unless you're the victim of a "swoop & squat".
The Ex President can have his lawyers do it and get away with it,,,,. There's always a trickle down effect. I wonder if that Chump knows he has negatively affected almost every human being in the world. If he actually gets elected, he WILL affect every person in the world by turning the USA into an Oligarchy! (Dictatorship style of govt, not unlike North Korea). The fact so many US citizens can't see this happening is about as bling and ignorant as the driver being tried in this case.
@@annamarielewis7078All defense attorneys are NOT assigned. They are only assigned if a defendant is to poor to pay for a private attorney. All others must hire their own defense attorneys.
The definition of reckless, travelling 90 mph into standstill traffic and not taking evasive action like slowing down, getting off the highway, stopping with emergency flashers on. Defense seems more intent on blaming the world for his clients screw up, why not blame the husband for letting the drunk driver take the car, maybe he too is at fault for a speeding driver killing an innocent.
The defense attorney could have been charged with contempt for his backtalking Judge Stephanie. The fact she cleared the jury to say what she did was a bonus for that defense attorney. Hope she does put him in contempt should he continue after her proper instructions-AGAIN.
Defense atty. intentionally disrespectful - after the judge asked everyone to sit down so she could address them, he continues his housekeeping tasks, moving exhibits, standing when she had asked him to sit ... he is mistaken if he thinks that kind of behavior strengthens his hand in an American court. The judge was kind enough to address everyone and not single him out so early in the trial, but really it was he and he alone who appears not to know the basics of objection behavior he's also very, very repetitive and meandering ... State is "just the facts, ma''am"
It's heartbreaking It'll break your heart It will It will break your heart Got anything else you wanna say? That much repetition would bias me against the person saying it were I a juror; it feels disrespectful and manipulative.
@@warpedweirdo speaking of biasing the jury against him ... "this is why we picked you guys, this is why we're glad you're on the jury ... 'cause we're going to ask you to use your common sense when you look at this evidence" whenever they grovel to the jury with "you're so special" nonsense, it immediately turns me against them
No American wants to be in jury duty. The Brit is fn up by being so repetitive. Not saying he is wrong, or right. But anyone that has been on a jury can attest they hate when someone is going on and on bloviating about the same crap.
It's irritating as a Juror to deal with a lawyer who doesn't respect the judge. He did not sit down and listen. He fussed the whole time she was speaking. Either he is full of himself, he is misogynistic or perhaps racist. IDK. But it won't serve him well going forward to continue his rude behavior.
@@Mimikoo yeah may be a cultural difference in how court occurs where the man is from, but you are definitely right. The jurors want the readers digest version of who, what , when, where , why. Not some tale of old😂.
You're still responsible to drive sober and within the legal speed limit and pay attention to conditions ahead. Other drivers who did so were safely stopped. This defendant caused his accident and a woman died as a result. The wrong way driver that caused the traffic backup did not cause the defendant to crash. He did that himself.The officer's conduct and disciplinary accidents were after the fact and did not cause the defendant's accident. The defendant was drunk and reckless and responsible for the damages that resulted.
Why stop at the woman who caused the first crash? Why not blame the people who built the on ramp that the woman drove the wrong way up? If they hadn't built the on ramp, she wouldn't have been able to drive up it the wrong way, there by avoiding the whole thing!
If I was part of the jury, I would be so angry at this defense attorney for treating me like I’m a stupid idiot. Does he really think the juries are so dumb that they won’t put the responsibility where it belongs? He must live in a world of his own, where he thinks he’s the smartest man on this earth.because yours are not that stupid. Bad Drivers and most defense lawyers are stupid
his job is to argue that his client may have done something dangerous, but that it's not his doing that there was a collision that killed the victim. he's arguing his case, not treating the jury like they're stupid. he's actually treating the _judge_ like _she's_ stupid by ignoring her rulings and pretending not to hear the state object. i agree with you, though. going 90 in a 70 when everybody is going at full speed in the middle of the day is a little dangerous and you'll definitely get a ticket; but going 90 during a nighttime traffic jam is just ludicrous.
@@zubetp The defense attorney indirectly insulted the intelligence of jurors by implying they would have difficulty seeing beyond the "heart break" to the facts of the case. Call attention to the potential for feelings to interfere, okay, reasonable. Repeat? Okay, you're saying it's important. Saying it over and over and over...? Disrespectful, insulting. And manipulative.
I hear what you’re saying, but as a jury consultant and someone that researches juries…. You do need to drill into their head definitions. Especially in regards to recklessness
Every defense attorney I ever made sure I lost. At least this one worked every penny, made an a$$ out of himself. Kudos for that I guess. Defendant should be satisfied his money was worked.😢 RIP I'm sorry for the family.❤
Shana caused the backup, but driving 90 mph constitutes recklessness imo. He never even hit the brakes. Very tragic for that family. Nothing makes me more nervous on the road than being the last in a line of cars. Once on the way to Sacramento, sitting in #1 lane in a backup, I saw headlights coming at my rear fast. I was able to scoot over to the median and the truck hit the car in front of me. Horrible.
No wonder why this lawyer isn’t a cop anymore…he doesn’t know anything about policing. First thing is to secure the scene, make it safe for them and others and then render any medical assistance if any. Going 90mph is the definition of reckless especially when you see traffic and an accident up ahead. It’s 100% their fault.
This attorney is by far one of the worst I have seen. As a driver it’s your responsibility to drive for the conditions of the road. If you see there is traffic slow down. Same difference if it were to rain or snow, if we followed this attorneys logic Mother Nature should be put on trial.
The fact that reckless driving behavior might be self-destructive to the driver doesn't prove that the driver couldn't have been reckless, for Pete's sake! What a stupid argument.
I couldn’t find any dictionary that defined reckless as “disregarding” something. But I did find “lacking caution, being careless, acting rashly”. Driving reckless can and often does end in a wreck.
This defense lawyer is blaming everyone but his client. He said the traffic was so backed up people were getting off the exit before hitting the traffic jam. So he still speeds- and doesn’t brake at all! Police cannot always clear accidents in 10 minutes- That’s true in all states! He was negligent!
If you had a lawyer and they are blaming you, you’re an idiot for keeping them and they’re a terrible lawyer. Seriously what is wrong with this comments section.
@@elizabethhostetter1946 reckless speeding is defined by statute. Normally x amount over posted speed and a speed that is reckless regardless of circumstances.
OK, so there’s two people on trial here right? I kind of got confused so the third person that caused the initial accident is not in court is this correct? But the lady or Man or both who was doing 90 miles an hour we’re traffic is slowed down because of an accident ahead, putting the blame on somebody else because they drove 90 miles an hour? Am I getting this right? So the accident ahead forced that to push his gas to 90 miles an hour that’s what this lawyer saying am I missing something?
Yes 😂 Essex boy as Defence, so odd. He does go on but I am shocked, if true, that the police investigation did not investigate the woman driving while, intoxicated, up the wrong way on the highway, nor has she been prosecuted, it's a travesty of the law. Defence was funny when he shouted at the camera about her! If it isn't sorted it may well be a mistrial. 90 miles an hour is insane though but Essex boy seems to think/know it was the woman who caused the death of the young lady. Good for the Judge to call him out - a ruling is final so don't be cocky or disrespectful Defence Attorney, we Brits don't want to be embarrassed by disagreeable behaviour. Xxx
@@CourtCamTV911love a change like this for your channel. Only thing I would say across all these different channels is people love watching trials with a conclusion. Can’t wait to keep watching though just food for thought!
@@zubetp ya I understand after Courtcam said so. I was just giving an idea since they said they wanted to start posting trials. The advice was more in general then for this one specific trial 👍
The traffic was stopped in a long line because of an accident ahead. That has nothing to do with a car barrelling along and smashing into one of the cars in the line unable to move. How do you put flares at the end of traffic jam that is getting longer and longer? The lawyer is clever but wrong. It is not suicide, it is drunk driving.
I didn't know one could object during an opening statement. The state should just let the defense make there case instead of objecting to everything. Let the guy talk!
Maybe she was, probably got charged and this case is being heard first cause it’s a fatality. That fact alone doesn’t matter In this kids case, prosecutors not gonna bring up the other case
I don’t think that’s the name the defense attorney said. But I am blown away at this lawyers argument. The first accident caused her to be sitting In traffic, yeah. But how does that make any difference at all in your client driving into another set of cars at 90 mph??? That’s the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard and if I was on that jury I would have to stand up and say your an idiot I want off this jury
She didn't cause the accident that's being tried. This is totally separate. She may have caused the pile up, but it's still every drivers responsibility to make sure they are watching out for what could be on the road. It's also criminal to be driving at 90 mph and be paying so little attention that you don't even brake when you plow into a pileup that's already happened more than 20 minutes prior! This should be a simple case. The defence lawyer is preying on the ignorance (lack of knowledge) of the jurors. He is a dirty player.
Speeding has known risks that he disregarded. That's reckless. Like, even take out whether or not he was intoxicated or whether he noticed that there was traffic. He was speeding, crashed, and killed someone. That's one of the risks of speeding that he disregarded. While I get that the DA has to do what he can to defend his client, this is a really stupid argument. It's basically "Yeah, my client was speeding _but_ someone else did something more dangerous earlier, so clearly you have to let him go." Also, "I'm right that's why he's objecting" is such an incredibly dumb thing to say. It also sounds like something that would end up backfiring really badly the second you need to make an objection, because now you've established in the mind of the jury that any objection made is just an admission that the other party is correct in what they're saying.
These are cases from 2022, correct? I'm just curious if they changed the lighting or if her glasses are maybe a different material now. Either way, I'm grateful the glare isn't so severe anymore. The sound is awesome. Thank you!!
The event that was charged as a crime occurred in 2022, but this Judge Boyd's current (2024) appearance. These are recent changes to her eyeglasses, haircolor and hairstyle.
This defense attorney shoulda stuck with being a cop -- because he has no idea how to be a lawyer... His Opening Statement is really a closing statement, to be made AFTER the case is presented.
ummmmmm, the defense's argument doesn't really hold water...drivers are required to drive under the speed limit for a reason...and that is so they can stop on time, safely, BEFORE they come up on a hazard...such as an accident. Dude was speeding, didn't stop, slammed into someone and a person died. Manslaughter at a minimum.
He was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years of probation. Our system is broke. The jurors are the ones that determined the sentence not the judge. The problem is that in the Mexican culture they don't take DUIs serious and believe alcohol is an excuse for bad behavior.
I’m fairly sure the defence used ChatGPT for his opening statement. When you provide it with the facts in this case and generate a narrative for the defence, it spits out a very very very similar opening statement.
7:40 -- it looks like the defense attorney is pointing at Judge Boyd when he says, "I hope she's listening," but he's pointing at the camera -- which is apparently a live feed of the trial -- and referencing the other driver, who was not arrested and he apparently believes is really at fault.
I get the guy was reckless in speeding but why was the lady who drove drunk on the wrong side of the road escorted home? Why did the cops put that priority over setting up roadblocks to prevent further crashes? Everyone involved needs to be either charged or fired (my opinion) if anyone else were to make a mistake at work they are either terminated or written up, also when charged with dui you USUALLY do not get to go home. The police force really needs to start holding themselves accountable cause this is only gonna make things worse for them in the eyes of the public.
Just to clarify defence's calculations; 2 wrongs don't = a right. But the 1st wrong - 2nd wrong = 1 wrong? So only the first wrong is wrong and his client's speeding and lack of road awerness aren't crimes? Riiiighht...
Yall are forgetting the job of a Defense attorney…. As someone who is in the legal field, I think he’s honestly doing a good job of making a case with what he’s got. Now, do I buy what he’s selling? No. But I do think he’s doing a good job.
That's where you misunderstand a defense attorney.. their job isn't to bs the facts. Have you ever heard of, if you a place only has 5 star reviews that you better question it? Anyway, what they are supposed to us assess the case and consult with their client. There is only 2 options which is either fight to prove the defendant is innocent because they are being falsely accused and did nothing wrong in whatever case is being presented. Their other option is if the defendant did do something wrong and can and will be legally charged they are supposed to fight to lessen the punishment. In this case the attorney can not expect for people to think his client did nothing wrong, so promised false hope to his client and even mislead his client about how the law works. In these types of cases the attorney should try to get hid client to take an actual sincere accountable and regret (which is hard because quite a few people lack empathy in these situations) since that is first step to forgiveness. However if everyone sees the defendant thinks they did nothing wrong in a case where it's obvious they did everything wrong... well... the defendant is screwed. All in all, you want your defense attorney to be honest with you. Not take you to make believe land where you can make up your own laws.
@@bunnyrabi I would agree with you if this was a sentencing hearing. But they are claiming that they didn’t do these actions, so why would the defense attorney try to get the defendant to show remorse?
This defense attorney is why people don’t like defense attorneys. It’s one thing to defend your client, but to be blatantly disrespectful and not follow rules is despicable.
Doing 90 mph in a construction zone after consuming alcohol is one hell of a colossal bonehead thing to do. RIP to the victim.
Drinking 4 beers 8 hours ago isn't dui for most people.
If what the defense says is true, he has a good defense.
Any updates on this?
@@stephenb5085 If "4 beers" were claimed by a driver, then multiply by 2 to arrive closer to the truth.
Wouldn't 90 mph by definition be...reckless?
@@otrrs depends on the speed limit. If it's 70 and the flow of traffic like it is where I live is 90, then no.
@@u.synlig I count my beers by actual serving size when I consume, alot of people do, this isn't 1996 anymore.
Just because the officer messed up on his investigation doesn't alter the fact that the defendant caused it.
It doesn't, but it IS extremely real that screwing up on the job can tank a case. Not following up was absolutely inexcusable.
This defense attorney is trying his best but failing miserably because his client is guilty af and he has nothing to work with. The guy was speeding, his attorney agreed, so he will just have to go to jail. Cant believe they thought taking this to a jury was a good idea.
Driving 95 mph into stationary cars , someone is not driving to road conditions
I love the judges expression when he pointed and said "I hope she's listening to this..." It's the most WTF expression I've ever seen from someone.
That was so ugly. I would have called a mistrial right then and there.
Was about to leave this comment lol he was having his dramatic movie lawyer moment. All he accomplished was looking like a fool
@@marilgoodly3125 That's not how mistrials work.
Good for you, Judge Boyd!!!
Someone else's crimes do not negate your own crimes.... whataboutism at it highest point of the pendulum.
That’s not how laws are applied in this country. Criminal law almost always demands the causation element be satisfied to convict. A criminal infraction by one party may be helpful in determine whether that element has been satisfied, but it’s not necessarily sufficient.
Exactly!! The defence was incredibly inappropriate. If Mr Escobar didn't get up and scratch his arse, he might not have had another accident.
Driving too fastNO BRAKING!! The arse was texting, or was asleep. Criminal negligence causing a death!
@@conscious-typeperson4583You misread the comment
@@POVwithRC No, I didn’t. Calling the defense’s argument “whataboutism” isn’t an accurate description of how criminal law is applied in the United States. And this a video depicting opening arguments in a criminal trial.
@@conscious-typeperson4583 Yes, you did. Calling the defense’s argument “whataboutism” is an accurate description of what the defense was trying to apply.
Judge Boyd is beautiful, smart, compassionate and just! Wtg Stephanie 👍
That was great! Also my first peek into Judge Boyde’s trials
Indeed!
Love Judge Boyd ❤
He was reckless for speeding ….period
So where did you get your law degree at?
@@LancerX916doesn't take a law degree to know 90 mph is reckless driving especially when traffic is stalled just up ahead. Unless he wasnt paying attention at all, he had to see it at some point and at least start reducing his speed, flares or no flares. Its that common sense the attorney was speaking about.
20 mph over posted limit is reckless driver. Why do people think you have to be a lawyer to be informed?
@@BobJone-ve7ig This was a construction zone with a posted speed limit of 45 mph.
@@LancerX916 - So..90 in a posted 45 ISN'T reckless? Seriously?
Ever met a lawyer that was so bad that it made you think you would've made a good one?
Love this Judge
Defense attorney blaming everyone under the sun
@@madwell1 it's their job 😆
Yeah😂 kinda in their job description 😂
It's their job to get the charges dismissed from their client. But when the defense atty's ignore the rulings from the judge. Its not going to be good for the defense.
@@andrewsalhany5665 no, their job is to ensure their client's rights are being protected
@@lordraydens not even close, that is the judges job
Judge did great job shutting down possible issues later.💪 They have been warned.👏
The same lawyer goes on vacation before the trial is over and leaves a new lawyer as first chair. You can imagine how well Judge Boyd takes that.
Why in gods name would the defendant need to go 90 miles an hour
It's hardly uncommon on Highways and Freeways despite being an offence. Cars have been safe to cruise at 90 for decades. I'm NOT suggesting they SHOULD!
Selfish negligence
@@sargassum6190 to me it’s stupid
@@Lensman864 every single day I see people fly past me going Way over 90mph. The speed limit is 70 mph. Cars today feel like they are going slow at 70, apparently. I'm just avoiding speeding tickets following the speed limits. The last thing I ever want is to lose my privilege to breathe, or drive, kthx.
@@Lensman864sure, but in stopped traffic? even people who drive like jerks know not to try to bypass traffic that's clearly at a standstill for a reason by speeding around it.
I wonder if the lawyer thought "this is pretty hopeless, so I may as well throw everything at the wall and hope for the best"
Straight to point nobullshit judge😂❤
I guess the defense attorney never heard the expression 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
But 3 lefts do.
@@davidprince1138 lol
Do you mean two wrongs don’t make a right?
@@slc1161 That is what I was assuming.
She was driving the wrong way and drunk, but he was the one speeding and ignoring the traffic being held up, crashing into the car that killed the victim?
They're individually at fault for their individual contributions to the incident.
"Yeah, I was going waaaaay to fast, and I didn't even try to stop for the traffic at a stand-still, but none of this would have happened had the drunk lady not been driving..." isn't going to get him out of a conviction.
@@warpedweirdonor should it😮👍
Yikes. Defense attorney doesn't know that you must always drive in a safe and prudent manner. If you rearend someone it's your fault...unless you're the victim of a "swoop & squat".
This defense attorney is WAY out of line. Despicable is right!!
Does this guy think he's on a tv show? Like, Boom! You been Matloked! 🤣Bozo
I'd be having second thoughts about whether I'd chosen the right defense attorney. He wants to bully his way to the
outcome.
@@damianbarnett7038 yeah already upsetting the judge in opening statements is a massive red flag.
The Ex President can have his lawyers do it and get away with it,,,,. There's always a trickle down effect. I wonder if that Chump knows he has negatively affected almost every human being in the world. If he actually gets elected, he WILL affect every person in the world by turning the USA into an Oligarchy! (Dictatorship style of govt, not unlike North Korea).
The fact so many US citizens can't see this happening is about as bling and ignorant as the driver being tried in this case.
These defense attorneys are assigned, not chosen.😊
@@annamarielewis7078All defense attorneys are NOT assigned. They are only assigned if a defendant is to poor to pay for a private attorney. All others must hire their own defense attorneys.
@@annamarielewis7078not if they hired their own, definitely not. If you're not indigent, you have to pay for your own defense.
The definition of reckless, travelling 90 mph into standstill traffic and not taking evasive action like slowing down, getting off the highway, stopping with emergency flashers on. Defense seems more intent on blaming the world for his clients screw up, why not blame the husband for letting the drunk driver take the car, maybe he too is at fault for a speeding driver killing an innocent.
Weird seeing an Essex boy defending in a USA court!
He’s from the home counties.
As an Essex Girl, I was thinking the same!
I thought he was from Essex but the lack of spray tan and extreme grooming, I wasn't sure.
Can you transfer a law license from England?
@@mikeadams8027 The majority of USA law is based on UK law with a few exceptions. A UK lawyer would still need to sit the USA bar exam to practise.
Defence attorney- arrogance at its finest
The defense attorney could have been charged with contempt for his backtalking Judge Stephanie. The fact she cleared the jury to say what she did was a bonus for that defense attorney. Hope she does put him in contempt should he continue after her proper instructions-AGAIN.
Defense atty. intentionally disrespectful - after the judge asked everyone to sit down so she could address them, he continues his housekeeping tasks, moving exhibits, standing when she had asked him to sit ... he is mistaken if he thinks that kind of behavior strengthens his hand in an American court. The judge was kind enough to address everyone and not single him out so early in the trial, but really it was he and he alone who appears not to know the basics of objection behavior
he's also very, very repetitive and meandering ... State is "just the facts, ma''am"
It's heartbreaking
It'll break your heart
It will
It will break your heart
Got anything else you wanna say? That much repetition would bias me against the person saying it were I a juror; it feels disrespectful and manipulative.
@@warpedweirdo speaking of biasing the jury against him ... "this is why we picked you guys, this is why we're glad you're on the jury ... 'cause we're going to ask you to use your common sense when you look at this evidence" whenever they grovel to the jury with "you're so special" nonsense, it immediately turns me against them
@@Marcel_Audubon Yep, same here; Suckup and flattery only makes me suspicious.
And looking down while the judge talks. A-hole.
No American wants to be in jury duty. The Brit is fn up by being so repetitive. Not saying he is wrong, or right. But anyone that has been on a jury can attest they hate when someone is going on and on bloviating about the same crap.
It's irritating as a Juror to deal with a lawyer who doesn't respect the judge. He did not sit down and listen. He fussed the whole time she was speaking. Either he is full of himself, he is misogynistic or perhaps racist. IDK. But it won't serve him well going forward to continue his rude behavior.
@@Mimikoo yeah may be a cultural difference in how court occurs where the man is from, but you are definitely right. The jurors want the readers digest version of who, what , when, where , why. Not some tale of old😂.
I'm happy to be on a jury.
Some people care.
Love the judge’s new hair style.
Just because someone else was driving recklessly (in the wrong direction) doesn't give you permission to drive recklessly (the right way or not) also.
You're still responsible to drive sober and within the legal speed limit and pay attention to conditions ahead. Other drivers who did so were safely stopped. This defendant caused his accident and a woman died as a result. The wrong way driver that caused the traffic backup did not cause the defendant to crash. He did that himself.The officer's conduct and disciplinary accidents were after the fact and did not cause the defendant's accident. The defendant was drunk and reckless and responsible for the damages that resulted.
I need to see the rest of this trial!! I got all into it and now I’m disappointed 😂
The nerve of this defense attorney! Just so awful, it seems he thinks because he has an accent he is therefore smarter then everyone else in the room.
The defence attorney sounds like a fool.
Why stop at the woman who caused the first crash? Why not blame the people who built the on ramp that the woman drove the wrong way up? If they hadn't built the on ramp, she wouldn't have been able to drive up it the wrong way, there by avoiding the whole thing!
Love judge Boyd, she's the real deal.
If I was part of the jury, I would be so angry at this defense attorney for treating me like I’m a stupid idiot.
Does he really think the juries are so dumb that they won’t put the responsibility where it belongs?
He must live in a world of his own, where he thinks he’s the smartest man on this earth.because yours are not that stupid.
Bad Drivers and most defense lawyers are stupid
his job is to argue that his client may have done something dangerous, but that it's not his doing that there was a collision that killed the victim. he's arguing his case, not treating the jury like they're stupid.
he's actually treating the _judge_ like _she's_ stupid by ignoring her rulings and pretending not to hear the state object.
i agree with you, though. going 90 in a 70 when everybody is going at full speed in the middle of the day is a little dangerous and you'll definitely get a ticket; but going 90 during a nighttime traffic jam is just ludicrous.
@@zubetp The defense attorney indirectly insulted the intelligence of jurors by implying they would have difficulty seeing beyond the "heart break" to the facts of the case.
Call attention to the potential for feelings to interfere, okay, reasonable.
Repeat? Okay, you're saying it's important.
Saying it over and over and over...? Disrespectful, insulting. And manipulative.
I hear what you’re saying, but as a jury consultant and someone that researches juries…. You do need to drill into their head definitions. Especially in regards to recklessness
Every defense attorney I ever made sure I lost. At least this one worked every penny, made an a$$ out of himself. Kudos for that I guess. Defendant should be satisfied his money was worked.😢 RIP I'm sorry for the family.❤
Does the defense know what sustained means?
He didn’t use common sense when he decided to drive 90mph.
The defence attourney sounds like Vinnie Jones and its hard to concentrate without 'lock stock' appearing in my head.
Lmfao I can’t unhear it now
I want to see the rest of
It's going on now on Judge Boyds RUclips channel
Stop telling me what's going to shock me, or hurt my heart. I might be tougher than you are.
Shana caused the backup, but driving 90 mph constitutes recklessness imo. He never even hit the brakes. Very tragic for that family. Nothing makes me more nervous on the road than being the last in a line of cars. Once on the way to Sacramento, sitting in #1 lane in a backup, I saw headlights coming at my rear fast. I was able to scoot over to the median and the truck hit the car in front of me. Horrible.
Proximate cause
No wonder why this lawyer isn’t a cop anymore…he doesn’t know anything about policing. First thing is to secure the scene, make it safe for them and others and then render any medical assistance if any. Going 90mph is the definition of reckless especially when you see traffic and an accident up ahead. It’s 100% their fault.
Surprised he didn't try the Darrel Brooks defence. But your honor I honked my horn.
This attorney is by far one of the worst I have seen. As a driver it’s your responsibility to drive for the conditions of the road. If you see there is traffic slow down. Same difference if it were to rain or snow, if we followed this attorneys logic Mother Nature should be put on trial.
Love me some Judge Boyd!! She's very fair. Jurors don't need to hear that stuff or hear everything repeated. I believe it hurts their case.
The fact that reckless driving behavior might be self-destructive to the driver doesn't prove that the driver couldn't have been reckless, for Pete's sake! What a stupid argument.
The defense attorney needs to stay in his lane!
What a terrible, terrible attorney.
I couldn’t find any dictionary that defined reckless as “disregarding” something. But I did find “lacking caution, being careless, acting rashly”. Driving reckless can and often does end in a wreck.
Update please Judge Boyd ❤
This defense lawyer is blaming everyone but his client.
He said the traffic was so backed up people were getting off the exit before hitting the traffic jam.
So he still speeds- and doesn’t brake at all!
Police cannot always clear accidents in 10 minutes-
That’s true in all states!
He was negligent!
If you had a lawyer and they are blaming you, you’re an idiot for keeping them and they’re a terrible lawyer.
Seriously what is wrong with this comments section.
90mph isn't reckless??
@@elizabethhostetter1946 depends on the speed limit
@@andrewsalhany5665 Where (in the US) is the speed limit at 90mph? i'll endeavour to avoid it.
@@elizabethhostetter1946 reckless speeding is defined by statute. Normally x amount over posted speed and a speed that is reckless regardless of circumstances.
20 mph over posted limit is reckless driving. Not sure the speed limits in Texas.
Believe 25 over is considered reckless driving, at least in PA
Where is the rest of the case
OK, so there’s two people on trial here right?
I kind of got confused so the third person that caused the initial accident is not in court is this correct?
But the lady or Man or both who was doing 90 miles an hour we’re traffic is slowed down because of an accident ahead, putting the blame on somebody else because they drove 90 miles an hour? Am I getting this right?
So the accident ahead forced that to push his gas to 90 miles an hour that’s what this lawyer saying am I missing something?
Yes 😂 Essex boy as Defence, so odd. He does go on but I am shocked, if true, that the police investigation did not investigate the woman driving while, intoxicated, up the wrong way on the highway, nor has she been prosecuted, it's a travesty of the law. Defence was funny when he shouted at the camera about her! If it isn't sorted it may well be a mistrial. 90 miles an hour is insane though but Essex boy seems to think/know it was the woman who caused the death of the young lady. Good for the Judge to call him out - a ruling is final so don't be cocky or disrespectful Defence Attorney, we Brits don't want to be embarrassed by disagreeable behaviour. Xxx
I m sorry, but driving at 90 mph, no matter the situation, is just plain reckless. Even more so with alcohol.
Defense standing there in defiance while judge is admonishing is astonishing to me...he should be disbarred!
Dont tease us.Where is the rest of this trial?
It's still going on. I'll try to post the best bits later. I like watching trials and thought people will find this interesting.
@@CourtCamTV911love a change like this for your channel. Only thing I would say across all these different channels is people love watching trials with a conclusion. Can’t wait to keep watching though just food for thought!
@@jeffreyhunkle1351 I'll try to post the verdict. The trial should be done inside a couple of days or so.
@@jeffreyhunkle1351there isn't one yet, though. they're putting up the most interesting bits as they happen.
@@zubetp ya I understand after Courtcam said so. I was just giving an idea since they said they wanted to start posting trials. The advice was more in general then for this one specific trial 👍
Intoxicated or not..he was going 90 mph into a traffic jam!!
So the guy that drove 90 mph drunk isn't responsible for anything 🙄
Somebody tell me when the continuation of this is posted, I'm working hard, thaaaaannkss!! ❤
In other words “there might be sanctions.
The traffic was stopped in a long line because of an accident ahead. That has nothing to do with a car barrelling along and smashing into one of the cars in the line unable to move. How do you put flares at the end of traffic jam that is getting longer and longer? The lawyer is clever but wrong. It is not suicide, it is drunk driving.
A word… tiresome.
Sit down! Who does he think he is?
At the end of the day if he wasnt speeding he might of stopped in time how many times is this eejit gonna repeat himself 16:03
IT WAS SHAYNA ELASSELL JUDGE
"Its gonna 'urt your 'eart"
Silly little Essex boi.
The only way is Essex attorney trying hard but how can you justify this?
I didn't know one could object during an opening statement. The state should just let the defense make there case instead of objecting to everything. Let the guy talk!
Effective use of divertive repetition.
I hope you get the verdict 👀
How did prosecutors leave that out? A wrong way driver? Why isn’t she on trial if that’s the case?
She is serving 7 yrs in prison and has 10 yrs probation after release. Her name is Shana Elliott
That is 100% false. And that’s not her name. The cops gave her in a ride in their car away from the scene and she was never charged with anything.
Maybe she was, probably got charged and this case is being heard first cause it’s a fatality. That fact alone doesn’t matter In this kids case, prosecutors not gonna bring up the other case
I don’t think that’s the name the defense attorney said. But I am blown away at this lawyers argument. The first accident caused her to be sitting In traffic, yeah. But how does that make any difference at all in your client driving into another set of cars at 90 mph??? That’s the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard and if I was on that jury I would have to stand up and say your an idiot I want off this jury
She didn't cause the accident that's being tried. This is totally separate. She may have caused the pile up, but it's still every drivers responsibility to make sure they are watching out for what could be on the road. It's also criminal to be driving at 90 mph and be paying so little attention that you don't even brake when you plow into a pileup that's already happened more than 20 minutes prior! This should be a simple case. The defence lawyer is preying on the ignorance (lack of knowledge) of the jurors. He is a dirty player.
I’m pretty sure that driving 90 mph is reckless on its own.
Does anyone know the outcome of this case?
Speeding has known risks that he disregarded. That's reckless. Like, even take out whether or not he was intoxicated or whether he noticed that there was traffic. He was speeding, crashed, and killed someone. That's one of the risks of speeding that he disregarded. While I get that the DA has to do what he can to defend his client, this is a really stupid argument. It's basically "Yeah, my client was speeding _but_ someone else did something more dangerous earlier, so clearly you have to let him go."
Also, "I'm right that's why he's objecting" is such an incredibly dumb thing to say. It also sounds like something that would end up backfiring really badly the second you need to make an objection, because now you've established in the mind of the jury that any objection made is just an admission that the other party is correct in what they're saying.
These are cases from 2022, correct? I'm just curious if they changed the lighting or if her glasses are maybe a different material now. Either way, I'm grateful the glare isn't so severe anymore. The sound is awesome. Thank you!!
The event that was charged as a crime occurred in 2022, but this Judge Boyd's current (2024) appearance. These are recent changes to her eyeglasses, haircolor and hairstyle.
This defense attorney shoulda stuck with being a cop -- because he has no idea how to be a lawyer... His Opening Statement is really a closing statement, to be made AFTER the case is presented.
ummmmmm, the defense's argument doesn't really hold water...drivers are required to drive under the speed limit for a reason...and that is so they can stop on time, safely, BEFORE they come up on a hazard...such as an accident. Dude was speeding, didn't stop, slammed into someone and a person died. Manslaughter at a minimum.
He's trying the Chewbacca Defense.
😂😂
He was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years of probation. Our system is broke. The jurors are the ones that determined the sentence not the judge. The problem is that in the Mexican culture they don't take DUIs serious and believe alcohol is an excuse for bad behavior.
That's a terrible opening statement for the defense
They cut it off just as it was getting interesting.
I’m fairly sure the defence used ChatGPT for his opening statement. When you provide it with the facts in this case and generate a narrative for the defence, it spits out a very very very similar opening statement.
7:40 -- it looks like the defense attorney is pointing at Judge Boyd when he says, "I hope she's listening," but he's pointing at the camera -- which is apparently a live feed of the trial -- and referencing the other driver, who was not arrested and he apparently believes is really at fault.
I kinda like seeing an actual trial not just sentencing like normal
A lot of these defendants have pled guilty, so they don't go to trial.
I get the guy was reckless in speeding but why was the lady who drove drunk on the wrong side of the road escorted home? Why did the cops put that priority over setting up roadblocks to prevent further crashes? Everyone involved needs to be either charged or fired (my opinion) if anyone else were to make a mistake at work they are either terminated or written up, also when charged with dui you USUALLY do not get to go home. The police force really needs to start holding themselves accountable cause this is only gonna make things worse for them in the eyes of the public.
The defendents Lawyer is full of Bull5hit.
Does anyone know what Judge Boyd’s ruling was? Video ended before we could hear.
Trial is ongoing.
No sentence mentioned in this video. I’m really tired of this. Think I will just move on.
Defense's opening is a disaster. The "but if," game is a terrible idea.
I've never felt more embarrassed to be British after listening to the English defense attorney talking such shite.
British accent jumpscare
😂😂
Just to clarify defence's calculations;
2 wrongs don't = a right.
But the 1st wrong - 2nd wrong = 1 wrong?
So only the first wrong is wrong and his client's speeding and lack of road awerness aren't crimes?
Riiiighht...
But 3 lefts do.
Yall are forgetting the job of a Defense attorney…. As someone who is in the legal field, I think he’s honestly doing a good job of making a case with what he’s got. Now, do I buy what he’s selling? No. But I do think he’s doing a good job.
That's where you misunderstand a defense attorney.. their job isn't to bs the facts. Have you ever heard of, if you a place only has 5 star reviews that you better question it?
Anyway, what they are supposed to us assess the case and consult with their client. There is only 2 options which is either fight to prove the defendant is innocent because they are being falsely accused and did nothing wrong in whatever case is being presented. Their other option is if the defendant did do something wrong and can and will be legally charged they are supposed to fight to lessen the punishment. In this case the attorney can not expect for people to think his client did nothing wrong, so promised false hope to his client and even mislead his client about how the law works. In these types of cases the attorney should try to get hid client to take an actual sincere accountable and regret (which is hard because quite a few people lack empathy in these situations) since that is first step to forgiveness. However if everyone sees the defendant thinks they did nothing wrong in a case where it's obvious they did everything wrong... well... the defendant is screwed.
All in all, you want your defense attorney to be honest with you. Not take you to make believe land where you can make up your own laws.
@@bunnyrabi I would agree with you if this was a sentencing hearing. But they are claiming that they didn’t do these actions, so why would the defense attorney try to get the defendant to show remorse?