7/24/23 Trial of Usman Shahid -- driver who killed two Oakton teens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IF the prosecutor has opening statements tomorrow (Tues), we are going to learn a lot about the strength of their speed/reconstruction evidence.

Strength?? It’s black and white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF the prosecutor has opening statements tomorrow (Tues), we are going to learn a lot about the strength of their speed/reconstruction evidence.

Strength?? It’s black and white.

+1. I am surprised this is going to trial at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of pleas are taken on the eve of trial or even after jury selection. There's still time for him to take a deal if the prosecutors want it that way.

I’m not an attorney.
Can you explain why this is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of pleas are taken on the eve of trial or even after jury selection. There's still time for him to take a deal if the prosecutors want it that way.

I’m not an attorney.
Can you explain why this is?

Reality sets in. People can have all kinds of confidence and machismo until it gets real. If you go through a trial and get a verdict, it might be worse than what you'd get in a plea deal. Prosecutors like certainty (plea deals). Defendants can be motivated to avoid the worst case scenario.

Of course it depends on what your lawyers are telling you and what the prosecutors are offering.

[Anonymous]

The govt rarely loses in jury trial. 90% of the time the govt gets a conviction.

Most people think the govt wouldn’t bother to bring a trial unless they were certain and had adequate proof of guilt.

But if the govt can get you to plead guilty in exchange for a guilty plea and the terms are politically acceptable then why risk that even 10% chance they might lose.

For the same reason the defendant has incentive to take a plea before the trial begins. As the govt usually wins. The defense could just be playing chicken hoping for a better deal.

Once the trial has started and if the evidence seems to overwhelmingly point to guilt and the prosecution is putting on a good case for which there is no robust defense then the govt has less incentive to negotiate and can offer less favorable terms.

[Anonymous]

Any details on today's events?

[Anonymous]

They are about to air a story on it in NBC4.

[Anonymous]

The defense attorney is saying it was the 4 Runner’s driver’s fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense attorney is saying it was the 4 Runner’s driver’s fault.

That’s probably the only argument they have but I doubt it will convince the jury. While blocking the oncoming lane to turn left technically is illegal, drivers do it all the time. Seems like a jury would be much more likely to forgive the SUV driver than Shahid.

We’ll see though. OJ’s death is a reminder that anything can happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense attorney is saying it was the 4 Runner’s driver’s fault.

Oh, they caused him to speed up to 80+mph on Blake Lane??

[Anonymous]

Remind me again. Was the 4 runner driver hurt and charged at the scene?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defense attorney is saying it was the 4 Runner’s driver’s fault.

Oh, they caused him to speed up to 80+mph on Blake Lane??

A better question might be was there any evidence he attempted to slow down or was he on his phone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The govt rarely loses in jury trial. 90% of the time the govt gets a conviction.

Most people think the govt wouldn’t bother to bring a trial unless they were certain and had adequate proof of guilt.

But if the govt can get you to plead guilty in exchange for a guilty plea and the terms are politically acceptable then why risk that even 10% chance they might lose.

For the same reason the defendant has incentive to take a plea before the trial begins. As the govt usually wins. The defense could just be playing chicken hoping for a better deal.

Once the trial has started and if the evidence seems to overwhelmingly point to guilt and the prosecution is putting on a good case for which there is no robust defense then the govt has less incentive to negotiate and can offer less favorable terms.

True, but the 10% who aren't convicted were probably represented by Greenspun.

This case must have some underlying technical argument about the 4Runner and the driver's failure to maintain control. I think the driver should absolutely go to jail, but I can see enough blame being laid at the feet of the 4Runner to prevent it.

[Anonymous]

A person turning left in a 35 mph zone cannot reasonably foresee that a rocket-like-car will be coming at him at 80+ mph. There's no way the 4 Runner driver could or should have expected someone to be coming THAT fast down the road.

The 4 Runner driver looked and saw nothing coming, or whatever was coming was far enough away not to be a problem IF THEY WERE GOING anywhere near the speed limit. If a person was driving 50 mph, you could see that. But, you cannot adapt to someone going 80+ mph coming over a hill. You just can't. And the law doesn't expect you to. The roads and allowable turn lanes do not anticipate someone going 80+ on that road.

If opposing traffic going 80+mph was foreseeable, the road would not have been designed to allow turning left without giving a "protected left turn" (i.e. oncoming traffic would have a red light when left-turning traffic had a green arrow to turn left). That was not how the street was designed. Why? Because it's reasonable to expect a left-turning driver to see oncoming traffic that is moving at some speed greater than the posted limit (designers know that people speed). But they don't design for people to be going more than TWICE the speed limit.

The 4Runner driver had no way of anticipating a rocket coming at him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A person turning left in a 35 mph zone cannot reasonably foresee that a rocket-like-car will be coming at him at 80+ mph. There's no way the 4 Runner driver could or should have expected someone to be coming THAT fast down the road.

The 4 Runner driver looked and saw nothing coming, or whatever was coming was far enough away not to be a problem IF THEY WERE GOING anywhere near the speed limit. If a person was driving 50 mph, you could see that. But, you cannot adapt to someone going 80+ mph coming over a hill. You just can't. And the law doesn't expect you to. The roads and allowable turn lanes do not anticipate someone going 80+ on that road.

If opposing traffic going 80+mph was foreseeable, the road would not have been designed to allow turning left without giving a "protected left turn" (i.e. oncoming traffic would have a red light when left-turning traffic had a green arrow to turn left). That was not how the street was designed. Why? Because it's reasonable to expect a left-turning driver to see oncoming traffic that is moving at some speed greater than the posted limit (designers know that people speed). But they don't design for people to be going more than TWICE the speed limit.

The 4Runner driver had no way of anticipating a rocket coming at him.

Yep, and investigators will be able to show that the driver of the four runner took reasonable care because at that speed there’s no way they would’ve been able to see the oncoming car.