Charges rec'd in death of 2 NorCal cyclists

Jay Beattie

On Jun 22, 10:12*pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <34d3a2ce-9616-4730-a3f4-2f3290a47...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> *Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 11:30*am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > > In article <RcGdnT85krGDYMHVnZ2dnUVZ_uLin...@earthlink.com>,
> > > *"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:timmcn-4AF1CF.23504520062008@news.iphouse.com...
>
> > > > > He got behind the wheel without adequate sleep. *Not any different
> > > > > than getting behind the wheel without adequate time since your last
> > > > > drink.
>
> > > > Tell me Tim. How do you know that?
>
> > > He fell asleep in the middle of the day while driving. *Duh. *
>
> > > The other option is that he has narcolepsy, which means he should notbe
> > > driving at all unless the problem has been successfully treated. *Equal
> > > culpability. *
>
> > > In either case he is responsible for the consequences of his actions.
>
> > Yes, but bearing responsibility for one's actions and being criminally
> > prosecuted are two different things. * I personally believe that the
> > right to be free from negligent injury should be vindicated by the
> > civil law and not the criminal law. The exception being where the
> > conduct amounts to recklessness -- which has always been a surrogate
> > for intent. The new species of vehicular manslaughter laws turn
> > practically every fatal motor vehicle accident into a potential
> > criminal prosecution -- with the decision to prosecute left to the
> > DA. *So, if you are high profile defendant, you get prosecuted. *If
> > you are a socccer mom yaking on her cell phone who runs a stop, then
> > you probably don't. The only upside to these laws is that they are
> > usually classified as misdemeanors and carry short sentences. I still
> > don't think an isolated screw up should not subject a person to a year
> > in county jail.
>
> Thanks. Is it so that conviction of a crime
> makes winning a civil case almost sure?
>

Yes, unless the criminal statute says otherwise and assuming that
California follows ordinary "issue preclusion" doctrine. Under that
doctrine, an issue proved against a defendant in a criminal action is
conclusive in a second civil action arising out of the same operative
facts. The exception is where the statute says that conviction is
inadmissible in a subsequent civil action -- which is often the case
with infractions (traffic violations, etc.) where giving preclusive
effect to a conviction would choke the system with challenges by
individuals who are trying to avoid liability in anticipated civil
actions.-- Jay Beattie.