'Whodunit?' and where is the &%$ gun!!

[gfrlaser]

Lawyer: No evidence tied to drunken driver's death

 

[Peggy Reist]

Update: He was acquitted.

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

I would've done the same. But here's a question- he goes 100 yds to his home "minutes" after Jose runs into his sons. How did he know at that moment that it was vehicular manslaughter and not an accident?

So 1) that Jose was drunk (I guess that's easy to find out. Just do a whiff test) but 2) that his sons were DOA?

Or was the accident that horrendous that their deaths were very obvious. (Very sad! I have two boys.)

Edit: obviously I'm speaking under the scenario that he did do it.

 

[BluesStringer]

There was zero evidence that Barajas killed Banda. Zero witnesses, zero guns recovered, and experts on the stand who said they could not say who killed Banda. This was a clear case of reasonable doubt that led to an appropriate not-guilty verdict.

Even if the verdict was based at all in "feeling his pain," that would amount to a jury nullification verdict, and that kind of verdict is just as valid and legal as any other verdict. Jurors have all the power when it gets right down to it. It's sad that more people aren't aware of the power they have as jurors, and that so many don't know that they can disregard the judge's instructions and vote their conscience beyond just deciding how the facts add up juxtaposed against the black letter law.

With zero evidence in this case though, none of them will ever have to answer the question of whether or not it was a nullification verdict. How can anyone in America be "legally" convicted with zero evidence against them? While I'm not naive enough to think it never happens, I am deeply-convicted enough in the Constitution to believe that reasonable doubt should always enure to the benefit of the defendant, and it appears to have done just that this time.

Blues