Nestande Sentencing (Austin, Orange: how much, felony, live)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by mickey65

Gabrielle Nestande is probably the most hated woman in Austin.

News reports say she intends to stay and has a job lined up.

For her and Marchbanks to stay in Austin have what she did and what he lied about takes a lot of gaul. Of course, so does getting up on the stand and telling obvious lie after lie.

I expect that from out-of-town rich entitled kids. What I didn't expect was a jury of 12 to buy what she was selling. It's pretty outrageous and I think reflects a tremendous misunderstanding of the law and their duty.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Komeht

I think it's very important to let the jury know our disgust with their decision in this instance.

I feel quite strongly they have acted shamefully and did not take their civic duty seriously. If someone starts a community wide petition to inform the jury of our displeasure I will be the first to sign it.

That is not only a stupid thing to do, its illegal.

jury tampering legal definition of jury tampering. jury tampering synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

jury tampering n. the crime of attempting to influence a jury through any means other than presenting evidence and argument in court, including conversations about the case outside the court, offering bribes, making threats, or asking acquaintances to intercede with a juror.

[Don in Austin]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

That is not only a stupid thing to do, its illegal.

jury tampering legal definition of jury tampering. jury tampering synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

jury tampering n. the crime of attempting to influence a jury through any means other than presenting evidence and argument in court, including conversations about the case outside the court, offering bribes, making threats, or asking acquaintances to intercede with a juror.

I wonder if that applies given that the jury has finished.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Having served on many juries over the years, you have to understand that they are often limited by very specific instructions and also potentially only have limited information - what you read in the paper may not be available to them, as well as what you read in the paper is often incorrect.

So while the whole situation seems wrong, do not blame the jury unless you know exactly what they were told and what instructions they were limited by.

Originally Posted by austin-steve

That's what I was thinking. Even almost all of the OJ jurors admitted that they though he did it, but that the evidence, as presented, along with the specific instructions and rules of evidence, meant that the case wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, legally.

I know it's nuanced wishy wash, but I really think that's what happened here. The evidence required to prove she was drunk, and to prove that she knew she hit a person, was actually not there, from a strickly legal standpoint. The circumstantial evidence is quite powerful and undeniable, so I think we as well as she all *know* what happened, but was it proven in court?

I do think this sends a wrong message. If you're driving drunk and hear a thump, just tell yourself it must have been an inanimate object, keep going, and deal with it when you're sober. Then if you did actually kill someone, it will be hard to prove in a court of law.

To the poster who says it would have been different in WilCo, I'm sure it would have. Just ask Michael Morton.

Steve

I agree, the jury did the best they could with the situation. They deliberated long and hard so its not like they didn't work at it and consider all the options available to them. I also don't see any benefit to the tax payers by putting this young women in prison for the next ten years when she could be out working as a productive member of society.

[Don in Austin]

Originally Posted by Komeht

News reports say she intends to stay and has a job lined up.

For her and Marchbanks to stay in Austin have what she did and what he lied about takes a lot of gaul. Of course, so does getting up on the stand and telling obvious lie after lie.

I expect that from out-of-town rich entitled kids. What I didn't expect was a jury of 12 to buy what she was selling. It's pretty outrageous and I think reflects a tremendous misunderstanding of the law and their duty.

Well, we don't know that everyone on the jury bought it. And there could have been somebody on the jury who didn't buy it but sympathized because they have themself driven drunk.

Nobody wants a hung jury, but I suspect if I had been a juror that would have been the result.

We don't know the details of what was probably a compromise.

Don

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Don in Austin

I wonder if that applies given that the jury has finished.

They had not completed the punishment phase of their deliberations when that was proposed.

[Don in Austin]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I agree, the jury did the best they could with the situation. They deliberated long and hard so its not like they didn't work at it and consider all the options available to them. I also don't see any benefit to the tax payers by putting this young women in prison for the next ten years when she could be out working as a productive member of society.

The benefit is to STOP sending the motoring public the following message:

If you are driving drunk and hit somebody, don't stop, go home, sleep it off, say you think you hit a deer and you now have a free pass. This has been pretty much standard practice and the effectiveness of the strategy has been confirmed yet again.

This needs to change. And putting a cowardly murderer behind bars would have been a good start.

Yes she is a murderer. A convicted murderer.

Don in Austin

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Don in Austin

Well, we don't know that everyone on the jury bought it. And there could have been somebody on the jury who didn't buy it but sympathized because they have themself driven drunk.

Nobody wants a hung jury, but I suspect if I had been a juror that would have been the result.

We don't know the details of what was probably a compromise.

Don

we absolutely know 12 jurors agreed on the conviction on the criminally negligent homicide, the acquittal on the FSRA and the sentencing (such at it was). Unanimity was required in each case.

[Don in Austin]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I agree, the jury did the best they could with the situation. They deliberated long and hard so its not like they didn't work at it and consider all the options available to them. I also don't see any benefit to the tax payers by putting this young women in prison for the next ten years when she could be out working as a productive member of society.

The benefit is to STOP sending the motoring public the following message:

If you are driving drunk and hit somebody, don't stop, go home, sleep it off, say you think you hit a deer and you now have a free pass. This has been pretty much standard practice and the effectiveness of the strategy has been confirmed yet again.

This needs to change. And putting a cowardly murderer behind bars would have been a good start.

Yes she is a murderer. A convicted murderer.

Don in Austin

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I agree, the jury did the best they could with the situation. They deliberated long and hard so its not like they didn't work at it and consider all the options available to them. I also don't see any benefit to the tax payers by putting this young women in prison for the next ten years when she could be out working as a productive member of society.

"A productive member of society" who by her own bad decisions killed another "productive member of society."

So I guess manslaughter should not be an offense punishable by prison time if the offender has a good job?

And by not punishing her are you not saying this is not a serious offense so if anyone else finds themselves in a similar situation don't worry about the consequences? Are you not then condoning bad behavior?

This sentence handed out in this case is due to two factors. One was the good defense and the poor prosecution. The other is mostly likely a contingent of the jury that felt sorry for the defendant, not because she was innocent, but rather for the fact that many of them have driven drunk and luckily had gotten away with it; that they could see themselves in her shoes and that somehow the victim had been asking for it or is was just "her time;" that a society that loves alcohol and is dependent on the automobile will have these unfortunate "accidents" from time to time. Its a miserable, unfair rationalization but I believe it to be true based on how misplaced peoples' sympathies can be, and how they don't want to have to explain their own bad behavior in relation to Nestande's.