Jury receives Case in N.J. State Trooper Vehicular Homicide Trial

Following closing arguments today by both the Prosecution and Defense, and the 90 minute recitation of the charges to the Jury by the Judge, the decision is in the hands of the jurors now.

They began deliberations at 4:15 PM or so (EST) and called it a day around 4:38 PM. But it was a really long day, so I don't blame them for wanting to go home.

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/04/breaking-deliberations-begin-in-trooper-trial/

They reconvene tomorrow morning at 8:45. Last week there had been some concern that they might not be able to begin deliberations until Monday, but whatever potential obstacles were involved were apparently resolved.

30 MPH over the speed limit to catch up to a speeder is inexcusable

instructions and especially have trouble with the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any possible doubt." Having sat on juries, I don't have as much faith in the intelligence of jurors as I wish I could.

ON EDIT:

By the way, and I forgot to mention this in prior posts, his speed actually approached 80 MPH at one point prior to the intersection. It was technically 79-point-something (6, I think).

and that only makes things worse

They have to rule on "recklessness" with no secondary options such as "negligence" or "carelessness."

The three points the State has to prove are:

1. Defendant drove the vehicle
2. But for the collision the decedents would still be alive
3. The Defendant drove recklessly (criminally culplable, with conscious disregard for a known, unjustifiable risk).

No lesser included options.

by the other side and just throw in the towel.

Is he being charged with the same thing the speeder would have been charged with had the speeder crashed into the two women?

Using data taken from the powertrain control module in Higbee’s Ford Crown Victoria, Meyer said Higbee, traveling as fast as 79 mph at one point, was 600 feet from the point of impact when his foot moved from the accelerator to the brake.
Then, 300 feet from impact, he moved from the brake to the accelerator, and finally, at a distance of 150 feet before impact, he moved his foot back to the brake.

If I were completely unaware of any other input on this case, including the outcome, and if I were asked what this EDR data means, I would say that it means that the officer approached the intersection and saw no reason not to run through it. IN analysis, I can say that he should have shown greater care, that he should have been more certain that his action would not cause harm, but strictly on the basis of the EDR, I'd have reasonable doubt. I could understand why someone else would be more certain that this was gross negligence, but I would not change my mind to go along with the group.

And no, I am not a cop groupie. I am easily and quickly critical of what I consider bad cops. But my definition of a bad cop is one who has a bad philosophy and who commits bad acts, not one who makes a bad decision.