Amy Senser Trial: Senser Found GUILTY on 2 of 3 Felony Charges

The Amy Senser hit-and-run saga has come to an end today with the jury on the case coming back with guilty verdicts on the charges of leaving the scene of the accident and failing to immediately report the accident.  Senser was found not guilty on the third felony charge, which was driving in a grossly negligent manner.  State guidelines for the charges Senser was found guilty of recommend a four year prison sentence.  Senser was released on her original bail until her scheduled sentencing on July 9th.

I predicted in this space a little less than a week ago that it would be difficult for the prosecution to get a conviction in this case, and it was nothing but that.  However, the prosecution's theory of the case clearly won over the jury to the point that they decided it simply wasn't reasonable for Senser to be unaware that the object she hit was a person.

For those of you still trying to get caught up on this thing, for Senser to be guilty of the two charges she was convicted on, she had to knowingly leave the scene of an accident that she knew was likely to have caused significant bodily harm or death to a person and fail to report said accident to the police.  The defense theory throughout the case was not that Senser didn't strike the victim with her SUV, but that she had no reason to believe that what she'd hit was a person.

I was obviously not in the jury room during deliberation, but if I had to guess, I would assume that the bottom line for the jury was that the collision was severe enough that it warranted more than a shrug of the shoulders and a "whoopsy daisy" to Senser's husband the next morning.  Photos showed the extent of the damage to the front of the Senser's SUV to be significant.  Senser herself said that the crash was somewhat jarring.  Experts testifying on behalf of the prosecution opined that given the specifics of the crash, Mr. Phanthavong's body would have appeared above the hood of the SUV after contact for at least a moment or two.  Senser testified that her speed at the time of the accident was roughly 50 mph.  When you combine all of these elements, it would be easy to see how the jury could conclude that Senser either had to have known that she hit something significant, or that such an accident at least required her to stop and investigate.

I based my prediction last week on the theory that it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove that Senser knew she'd hit a person without a reasonable doubt due to the lack of physical evidence, witnesses, or testimony stating as much.  In the end, it turns out that they didn't have to.  The prosecution did a great job of painting a picture for the jury that allowed them to put themselves in Senser's shoes and determine what would be a reasonable reaction to a collision of this magnitude.  Clearly, the decided that driving away without giving the incident a second thought did not qualify as "reasonable" in their minds.

The length of jury deliberation was not surprising, given the high profile nature of the case.  You'll often hear the adage that a long deliberation is good for the defense (at least that's what prosecutors say).  Defense attorneys will tell you that the opposite is true; that a long deliberation is indicative of a jury trying to hammer out a conviction.  I'm not sure there's a right or wrong way to look at this, but in this case, my hunch is that most of the deliberation was spent going over the prosecution's expert testimony and deciding whether or not it added up to knowledge.  In the end, it did, and they convicted.

This is a huge win for the prosecution, as they were ridiculed by some (including me to some extent) for their decision to charge so aggressively in this instance.  Criminal vehicular homicide has long been a difficult conviction to get based on the foggy nature of what someone knows and what they don't know.  If any good is going to come out of this, it's that a precedent has not been set that fleeing from an accident isn't going to get you out of trouble.  You can still be convicted of a crime.

The general consensus was that Senser was hiding something by fleeing; either her being intoxicated or her being under the influence of some sort of narcotic due to a headache of which she'd been complaining.  Ultimately, the reasons for her decision won't matter.  It's a good day for Hennepin County prosecutors, and a bad day for the Senser family.

If you or a loved one find yourself charged with a crime or are the subject of a criminal investigation, it is imperative that you speak withe a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.  Don't wait around for police to convince you to say something you shouldn't.  Get the help you need to be successful in your case.

As always, the contents of Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog are intended for entertainment purposes only and are not designed to be legal advice or legal advertising.  The viewing of this website does not create an attorney/client relationship between the author and the reader.  If you are in need of legal advice, stop surfing the internet for answers and speak with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

Amy Senser Trial Update: Amy to Take the Stand

After a weekend of recess from court for Amy Senser, the defendant in Minnesota's most high-profile criminal trial, Senser herself will take the stand today in her own defense.  This move, while not necessarily surprising, will probably be the "make or break" moment in this trial.

Again, Senser is faced with three felony charges stemming from an incident on the Riverside ramp off of I-94.  One is for leaving the scene, one is for failure to call for help immediately, and one is for gross negligent operation of a vehicle.  The first two crimes require the suspect to know that their accident could have reasonably resulted in severe bodily harm or death or another person, whereas the negligence charge does not.  However, for Senser to be found guilty of grossly negligent driving, the prosecution will have to show that her driving would "shock the conscience."  This will be a difficult standard to meet, seeing as there were no witnesses of the accident.  The prosecution did introduce testimony from someone who was trailing Senser on I-94 a few miles before the accident, but ultimately, Senser's testimony will have more to do with this charge than any other evidence.

Senser's testimony will be important because this entire case is based on what she did or didn't know.  If the prosecution can get her to slip up during cross-examination, it could mean a victory for Hennepin County.  Senser essentially has to take the stand in order for her defense (didn't know she hit someone) to even be entered into evidence.  There will be some interesting things to keep an eye on today:

1.  Will the prosecution grill her about her drinking the evening of the accident?
One of the big question marks in this case is whether alcohol was a factor in this deadly accident.  If the prosecution can get Senser to admit to having a few drinks on the night in question, it will turn this into a nearly impossible conviction into essentially a slam dunk.  Don't expect this to be the case, however.  Defense attorney Eric Nelson wouldn't be putting Senser on the stand if she was going to admit to consuming alcohol that night.  She will deny drinking, but how convincing will she be?

2.  How will Amy Senser do when questioned about "getting lost?"
For a person living in Edina who is supposed to be on their way to downtown St. Paul, going west on I-94 in downtown Minneapolis wouldn't be the most efficient path.  Senser explains her unusual route by claiming that she was lost on her way to the Xcel Center and was trying to find her way back onto eastbound I-94.  Senser has lived in the metro for years, so getting lost on the Twin Cities' main drag is a bit surprising.  Her husband, former Viking tight end Joe Senser, already testified that such an event was not out of character for her, but it was hard to tell if he was referring to her actually getting lost or her claiming that she'd gotten lost.  How Senser holds up when pressured on the timeline of that evening will go a long ways towards determining the outcome of this case.

3.  Will Senser be "believable" with her testimony?
So much attention gets put on what people say as opposed to how they say it.  The true test of any witness is whether they can get the jury to buy into their story.  Senser's biggest challenge will be to keep her story consistent, stay even-keeled, and to avoid embellishing on the questions asked of her.  The worst thing a defendant on the stand can do is answer more than the questions asked.  This is probably the biggest benefit to hiring a Minnesota criminal defense attorney when facing criminal charges of this nature.  A good lawyer will prepare you for what you can expect while you're on the stand and can get you ready to be successful when the questions get intense.

Monday is sure to be an exciting day in the Amy Senser criminal vehicular homicide trial.  We should know a lot more about her chances of earning an acquittal after she steps down either today or tomorrow.  If you've got any questions regarding the case, you can leave them in the comments section or you can shoot me a line via email.  I can't promise I'll be able to respond to every email or comment, but I'll surely do my best.

If you or a love one are dealing with criminal charges or are the subject of a criminal investigation, don't wait too long to speak with a Minnesota criminal defense attorney.  Minnesota criminal defense attorneys can help you get your defense on the right track from the start so you have the best chance to be successful.

As always, all material on Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is intended to be for entertainment purposes, only.  It is not intended to be construed as legal advice or legal advertising, nor does viewing this website create an attorney/client relationship between the author and the reader.  If you are seeking legal advice, contact a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction to get the specialized legal service you require.

Details on the Amy Senser Criminal Case

If you're a Minnesotan who occasionally watches the news or reads a newspaper, you've probably seen at least a little something about the hit-and-run allegations against Amy Senser, wife of former Minnesota Vikings tight end and restaurateur Joe Senser.  Amy Senser is alleged to have struck a man near the Riverside exit ramp off westbound I-94 while the man was pouring fuel into his vehicle.  There has been a lot of conjecture and curiosity surrounding this case, as is common with situations like this in the homey state of Minnesota.  I've had a number of people asking me for my opinion on the proceedings recently, so I figured I would touch on a few things in this space regarding the impending criminal case against Mrs. Senser (I'll leave the juicy civil proceedings to someone  more versed in that area of law).  Now, keep in mind, I am not in any way involved in this case, so the facts that I will be using will be what has been reported to the media.  There are usually facts withheld from the media until the time the case goes to trial, so it is likely that we are not aware of every little detail regarding the case.

A lot of people are confused by the defense's theory of the case.  Mrs. Senser's attorney has stated that the defense is not disputing the fact that Mrs. Senser's car was the vehicle that struck the victim, nor are they disputing that she was driving the car at the time.  Most people hear this and say, "Why are we having a trial here?  If she's the one who hit and killed the man, then she's guilty, right?"  Wrong.  The actual causing of death is not the crime here.  There are qualifiers that must be met in order for a person to be criminally liable for injuring or causing the death or another by hitting them with a vehicle.  Those qualifiers include things like operating the vehicle in a grossly negligent matter, in a negligent manner while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, being above the legal limit of .08 BAC, or when the driver in question leaves the scene of the accident.  Simply getting in an accident and causing someone's death is not enough to be guilty of criminal vehicular homicide in Minnesota.  The bare minimum mens rea (lawyer-talk and Latin for "guilty mind") is that of gross negligence.

In the Senser case, the State won't be forced to prove that she was driving the car that killed the victim (that is being stipulated to by the defense), but they will have to prove that she had acted in a manner that was grossly negligent.  The position of the defense is that Mrs. Senser did not have actual knowledge that she hit anyone with her vehicle.  If this assertion is true, the element of gross negligence would be out the window, as would be the fleeing from the scene of a felony element of the crime.  Basically, the point of all this is that in order for Mrs. Senser to be guilty of a crime, she has to have known that she committed the crime, or have acted in such a grossly negligent matter that it was foreseeable that her actions could cause harm to or the death of a person.  This can be an extraordinarily difficult thing to prove, as there were few, if any, eye witnesses at the scene of the crime.  Without knowing the level of care being taken by Mrs. Senser in the moments leading up to and following the accident, the prosecution will have a hard time proving gross negligence.

The preceding statement assumes, however, that the defense can show that it's reasonable that Mrs. Senser didn't know she hit anything.  Mrs. Senser, through her attorney, claims to have thought she hit a piece of construction equipment and didn't think anything else of it.  Because of this claim, the actions of Mrs. Senser immediately following the accident will be closely scrutinized at trial.  The prosecution claims that after the accident, Senser "sped off" and drove around for about half an hour, all the while talking on the phone with her husband, her daughter, and her daughter's friend (with whom she was suppose to be attending a Katy Perry concert).  There were over a dozen calls to her cell phone from these three people during that half hour period.  The defense claims that these calls were made because Mrs. Senser had gotten lost due to not being able to take her normal route east because of road construction.  Her family was simply assisting her in finding her way.

I find this to be a very interesting explanation for the phone calls, as Mrs. Senser has, presumably, lived in the Twin Cities metro area for a very long time, making it somewhat curious (to me, at least) that she would have trouble finding her way around when she was driving in I-94.

There are a number of other pieces of circumstantial evidence indicating that Mrs. Senser may have been under the influence at the time of the accident.  There are eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a vehicle meeting the description being driven erratically on I 94 around the time in question.  Her daughter's friend texted her mother about Mrs. Senser being unable to pick them up from the concert and indicated that she thought Mrs. Senser may have been drinking.  There was a phone call placed from Joe Senser's cellphone to a Twin Cities drug and alcohol abuse center the next morning.  None of these things prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Senser was intoxicated at the time, but it would not be surprising if a jury finds sufficient evidence to convict based on that inference by the prosecution.

In my opinion, Mrs. Senser's defense attorney has done a good job of listening to his client and laying out a relatively feasible set of events that will challenge the prosecutions ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Senser acted in a grossly negligent manner or that she was under the influence of intoxicates at the time of the accident.  This case will boil down to the amount and credibility of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, as well as the witness testimony.  To me, there seems to be a lack of cold, hard evidence proving that Mrs. Senser knew (or reasonably should have known) that she struck a person on the night in question.  It will be up to the prosecution to prove that she did.

Is it reasonable for Mrs. Senser to have failed to notice the blood on the front of her car?  Is it reasonable that she believe the object she struck was not a vehicle or a person, but a piece of equipment?  Eyewitnesses say that the victim's car had it's flashers on that night, so it's reasonable to assume that Mrs. Senser at least saw the car sitting near the off-ramp.  There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding what Amy Senser did and didn't know that night, and the resolutions to those questions will decide her fate.

One thing I can say with certainty is that Mrs. Senser did the right thing by contacting a criminal defense attorney the first moment she felt like she could potentially be in some trouble.  If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, it is imperative that you get in contact with a qualified, talented, and dedicated criminal defense attorney immediately.  Don't wait until you've been charged with an actual crime and have come to the realization that you may have already said too much.  Protect your rights by getting a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer in your corner.