The saga that is the Amy Senser vehicular homicide case seems as though it may have no end. Last week, in an unsurprising move, Senser's defense attorney, Eric Nelson, filed a motion to have the jury verdict in Senser's case either overturn the verdict entirely or to issue a new trial.
The issue at the crux of this motion was a not found written by the jury that they wished to have read out loud before their final verdict was read in court. The judge decided not to read the note, instead passing it off to the prosecutors and giving it no weight. So, just what did this magic note say that's got everybody so riled up?
"We believe that Mrs. Senser thought she hit a vehicle, not a person."
Oh, boy.
This note brings up a number of different questions, most of which can be answered by examining the jury instructions given to the 12 members before being sequestered. The instructions gave the jurors the duty to convict Mrs. Senser if knew she caused injury, death, or damage to another vehicle. Inexplicably, Nelson did not object to the inclusion of the "damage to another vehicle" section of the instructions. What this means, ultimately, is that the jurors' note doesn't change what their verdict would have been had they believed Senser hit a person.
Nelson really has no one here to blame but himself for this problem. His whole defense strategy revolved around creating the idea that Mrs. Senser thought she hit something other than a person. Ultimately, it worked, but the jury instructions allowed them to convict Senser, anyway.
I think the lack of an on-record objection from Nelson will likely be the downfall of this appeal, but what is clear is that there was confusion among the jurors. If this appeal continues down the line to higher courts, I could see a scenario where it is remanded for a retrial due to this apparent confusion. It's important for jurors to know exactly what they're convicting someone of as opposed to guessing at a moving target.
I doubt this appeals process will end anytime soon. In the meantime, sentencing of Senser can proceed as scheduled. If, by chance, the verdict is overturned, Senser would be released from jail and the prosecution would have to set up an entirely new trial. That would be a HUGE victory for the defense, but such an outcome is still a long ways off (and unlikely to occur).
This case is a great example of why it's important to have a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney that you can trust. If you have been recently charged with a crime, or if you are the subject of a criminal investigation, call or email a Minnesota criminal defense attorney as soon as possible in order to get someone working hard to protect your rights.
As always, no information on the Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is intended to be construed as legal advice or legal advertising, nor does viewing this website create an attorney/client relationship between the content's 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 as soon as possible.
Showing posts with label Amy Senser. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amy Senser. Show all posts
Friday, May 25, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Amy Senser Trial: Jury Deliberations
We're winding down the trial of the year here in Minnesota as the Amy Senser case went was handed off to the jury Tuesday afternoon. One of the things folks seem most confused about is what, exactly, is the jury deciding? I'll go through the things the jury must determine real quickly this morning. If we get a verdict today, I'll post a response to that, as well.
I think one of the most frustrating thing for a lot of people regarding this case is the fact that Senser has stipulated to the fact that she was driving the vehicle that killed Mr. Phanthavong. I have gotten some emails from people asking me how this admission doesn't end this case and constitute a guilty plea. The easy answer is that whether or not she killed the victim isn't at trial. Hitting someone with your car and killing them isn't necessarily a crime. Crime requires an element of intent or negligence, which isn't necessarily satisfied by the act of killing someone. Accidents do happen, and getting into an accident isn't a crime. The alleged crime in Amy Senser's case would be if she knew she hit Mr. Phanthavong, knew that she likely had caused him severe bodily harm (or worse), and made a decision to drive away without telling anyone. The jury's job is to decide whether she knew she hit a person. They're not deciding whether or not they think she should have known, or whether she may have known. This knowledge has to be certain in the eyes of the jurors in order to convict Senser of the first two felony charges (leaving the scene and failing to report). If they determine that there is a reasonable doubt regarding whether she knew she hit a person, she must be found not guilty of both of these charges.
As for the third charge, gross negligent operation of a vehicle holds a different standard. The jury would have to decide that, based on the evidence of the case, Mrs. Senser was driving in a manner that would "shock the conscience." This typically involves driving at an excessive speed, not being in control of your vehicle, weaving in and out of traffic, squealing your tires when you turn, and other things of that nature. Without any witnesses that saw the accident, it's probably going to be difficult to have enough evidence to get a conviction on this charge. Amy Senser did testify that she was looking over at a bridge when she was turning onto the Riverside ramp, which would indicate that her eyes were not on the road at the time. This momentary glance away from the road is at the crux of her explanation of how she failed to see Mr. Phanthavong. It's possible that the jury could come back and say that this action constitutes negligent driving, but I'm not sure such a decision could withstand a motion for directed verdict by the defense. Gross negligence is a hard standard to meet, and without further evidence (which we're not getting at this point), it's going to be tough to expect the jury to come back with anything other than a "not guilty" on this charge.
So, in summation, the jury will really be deciding two things. The first is whether or not Amy Senser knew she hit a person that night. If they determine that she did, then they must find her guilty of leaving the scene and failing to report. If they determine that she did not know she had hit a person, then they must find her not guilty of both charges. Second, they must decide if her driving was so erratic that it would constitute gross negligence. If they determine that it was, then they must find her guilty of gross negligent operation of a vehicle. If they determine that it was not or that they do not have enough information to make a clear determination, then they must find her not guilty.
This should be an exciting day at the Hennepin County Courthouse. If there is a verdict today, stop back here afterwards to read my response and reaction to the case.
If you or a love one have been charged with a crime or are the subject of a criminal investigation, don't hesitate to call a Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney to help you through your difficult situation. Hiring a lawyer before charges come, as Mrs. Senser did, can often keep you from saying or doing things that you shouldn't. Don't try to take on criminal charges on your own. Call or email a Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney today.
As always, all content on the Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is for entertainment purposes, only, and is not intended to be legal advice or legal advertising. Reading Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog does not create an attorney/client relationship between the author and the reader. If you are in need of legal advice or legal representation, stop surfing the internet for answers and contact a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for personalized service.
I think one of the most frustrating thing for a lot of people regarding this case is the fact that Senser has stipulated to the fact that she was driving the vehicle that killed Mr. Phanthavong. I have gotten some emails from people asking me how this admission doesn't end this case and constitute a guilty plea. The easy answer is that whether or not she killed the victim isn't at trial. Hitting someone with your car and killing them isn't necessarily a crime. Crime requires an element of intent or negligence, which isn't necessarily satisfied by the act of killing someone. Accidents do happen, and getting into an accident isn't a crime. The alleged crime in Amy Senser's case would be if she knew she hit Mr. Phanthavong, knew that she likely had caused him severe bodily harm (or worse), and made a decision to drive away without telling anyone. The jury's job is to decide whether she knew she hit a person. They're not deciding whether or not they think she should have known, or whether she may have known. This knowledge has to be certain in the eyes of the jurors in order to convict Senser of the first two felony charges (leaving the scene and failing to report). If they determine that there is a reasonable doubt regarding whether she knew she hit a person, she must be found not guilty of both of these charges.
As for the third charge, gross negligent operation of a vehicle holds a different standard. The jury would have to decide that, based on the evidence of the case, Mrs. Senser was driving in a manner that would "shock the conscience." This typically involves driving at an excessive speed, not being in control of your vehicle, weaving in and out of traffic, squealing your tires when you turn, and other things of that nature. Without any witnesses that saw the accident, it's probably going to be difficult to have enough evidence to get a conviction on this charge. Amy Senser did testify that she was looking over at a bridge when she was turning onto the Riverside ramp, which would indicate that her eyes were not on the road at the time. This momentary glance away from the road is at the crux of her explanation of how she failed to see Mr. Phanthavong. It's possible that the jury could come back and say that this action constitutes negligent driving, but I'm not sure such a decision could withstand a motion for directed verdict by the defense. Gross negligence is a hard standard to meet, and without further evidence (which we're not getting at this point), it's going to be tough to expect the jury to come back with anything other than a "not guilty" on this charge.
So, in summation, the jury will really be deciding two things. The first is whether or not Amy Senser knew she hit a person that night. If they determine that she did, then they must find her guilty of leaving the scene and failing to report. If they determine that she did not know she had hit a person, then they must find her not guilty of both charges. Second, they must decide if her driving was so erratic that it would constitute gross negligence. If they determine that it was, then they must find her guilty of gross negligent operation of a vehicle. If they determine that it was not or that they do not have enough information to make a clear determination, then they must find her not guilty.
This should be an exciting day at the Hennepin County Courthouse. If there is a verdict today, stop back here afterwards to read my response and reaction to the case.
If you or a love one have been charged with a crime or are the subject of a criminal investigation, don't hesitate to call a Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney to help you through your difficult situation. Hiring a lawyer before charges come, as Mrs. Senser did, can often keep you from saying or doing things that you shouldn't. Don't try to take on criminal charges on your own. Call or email a Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney today.
As always, all content on the Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is for entertainment purposes, only, and is not intended to be legal advice or legal advertising. Reading Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog does not create an attorney/client relationship between the author and the reader. If you are in need of legal advice or legal representation, stop surfing the internet for answers and contact a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for personalized service.
Monday, April 30, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Amy Senser Trial Continues...
Since writing about Amy Senser's trial before it began last week, I've been getting a few emails from people with questions regarding the actual trial itself. I thought I would touch on a few of these quickly today before sending out the final installment of the "Know Your Rights" series tomorrow.
Again, my opinion on this trial is just that; opinion. I have no inside information about the case. I do not know Eric Nelson (Senser's defense attorney), nor do I know the prosecutors on the case. I'm simply looking at this from the point of view of a Minnesota criminal defense attorney and opining on it as I see fit.
I've been getting emails for the past 2 days regarding the strategy behind Joe Senser's testimony. A few people have noted to me that his testimony seems to be against his wife as opposed to in favor of her. I'm not so sure this is the truth. Some of his testimony this morning (4/26) may seem a bit peculiar, but it appears to be very carefully crafted, to me. He testified that his wife is "fiercely independent" and that it was not uncommon for her to get lost/flake out/do her own thing. This sounds like he's ripping on his wife, but what he's really doing is helping her to make the case that she just didn't know what had happened. If she's a cold, calculating, reliable person, it makes it harder for the defense to suggest that she simply didn't know that she hit a person with her vehicle that night. By painting her as an aloof, self-serving, flaky person, the defense can more easily make the claim that she didn't have actual knowledge that what she hit was a person, nor would she have considered stopping to investigate. Remember, the issue at trial isn't whether she hit the victim. The issue is whether she knew she hit the victim. Joe Senser's testimony isn't going to do his wife any favors in regard to the negligence charge against her (inattentiveness is not a defense to negligence), but it will help her in the charges against her regarding leaving the scene of an accident which she knowingly may have resulted in significant bodily harm or death to another person.
Joe Senser's Wednesday testimony did even more to help her wife, despite his claim that he "knew" that she had hit more than a traffic barrel. Joe Senser's understanding of the situation is, again, not what is at issue. His testimony furthered the theory that Amy Senser was adamant that she couldn't have struck a person. She was steadfast in her claims to her husband that she hit construction equipment, even after seeing a report on television of the deadly accident. His skepticism aside, his recounting of her reaction to the incident lends to the defense's case. So, while Joe Senser's testimony may not shine the most flattering light on his wife's personality, it has gone a long way towards helping Amy Senser and her attorney poke holes in the prosecution's case.
The most difficult thing for any prosecutor to prove is the intent/knowledge of a defendant. It's not always that difficult to prove that a certain event occurred, but a major element of nearly every criminal charge is mens rea, which is Latin for "guilty mind." In the Amy Senser trial, the mens rea necessary to prove is that Mrs. Senser knew she hit a person and made a conscious decision to leave the scene and continue driving. The strategy of the prosecution has been to use circumstantial evidence to piece together the events of the evening and make an appeal to the jury to put themselves in Amy Senser's shoes. Basically, they want the jury to ask themselves "If I was driving 50 mph and struck a person, wouldn't I know that I did it?" The psychology behind this is that people (in general) like to rate themselves against others. If you can get them to put themselves in the shoes of Amy Senser, they're going to want to believe they would have acted properly in this situation. You want them to think "I would have stopped," or "I wouldn't have hit the person in the first place." If the prosecution can accomplish this goal, they greatly increase their chances of getting a guilty verdict.
With the trial winding down, I suppose it's time to offer up my opinion on how things will end. I believe that it's going to be difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amy Senser left the scene of an accident that she knew resulted in the severe bodily harm or death to another person. I think the circumstantial evidence is impressive, but ultimately, circumstantial evidence doesn't usually win trials. Without a witness who can testify to her knowledge, all the prosecution has is circumstantial evidence. The appearance of the vehicle, the missing text messages, the failure to pick up her daughter, and her erratic behavior following the incident likely won't be enough to slam the door on this case. I think Mrs. Senser is acquitted of all three felony charges against her. If she is convicted of anything, it will be the gross negligence charge. Negligence is always an easier charge to get to stick because it is so all-encompassing. I think the task in front of the prosecutors is just a little too daunting. I believe their strategy has been sound throughout, but I feel like this specific charge is extremely difficult to prove.
Amy Senser isn't the only person in this state facing criminal charges. If you or a loved one have been charged or may soon be charged with a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony charge, do what Amy Senser did and call or email a Minnesota criminal defense attorney to get someone on your side.
As always, content on the Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is not intended to be viewed as legal advice or legal advertising. Use of this website does not create an attorney/client privilege between the author and the reader. If you are in need of legal advice, call or email a Minnesota criminal law attorney to get personalized advice tailored to your exact situation.
Again, my opinion on this trial is just that; opinion. I have no inside information about the case. I do not know Eric Nelson (Senser's defense attorney), nor do I know the prosecutors on the case. I'm simply looking at this from the point of view of a Minnesota criminal defense attorney and opining on it as I see fit.
I've been getting emails for the past 2 days regarding the strategy behind Joe Senser's testimony. A few people have noted to me that his testimony seems to be against his wife as opposed to in favor of her. I'm not so sure this is the truth. Some of his testimony this morning (4/26) may seem a bit peculiar, but it appears to be very carefully crafted, to me. He testified that his wife is "fiercely independent" and that it was not uncommon for her to get lost/flake out/do her own thing. This sounds like he's ripping on his wife, but what he's really doing is helping her to make the case that she just didn't know what had happened. If she's a cold, calculating, reliable person, it makes it harder for the defense to suggest that she simply didn't know that she hit a person with her vehicle that night. By painting her as an aloof, self-serving, flaky person, the defense can more easily make the claim that she didn't have actual knowledge that what she hit was a person, nor would she have considered stopping to investigate. Remember, the issue at trial isn't whether she hit the victim. The issue is whether she knew she hit the victim. Joe Senser's testimony isn't going to do his wife any favors in regard to the negligence charge against her (inattentiveness is not a defense to negligence), but it will help her in the charges against her regarding leaving the scene of an accident which she knowingly may have resulted in significant bodily harm or death to another person.
Joe Senser's Wednesday testimony did even more to help her wife, despite his claim that he "knew" that she had hit more than a traffic barrel. Joe Senser's understanding of the situation is, again, not what is at issue. His testimony furthered the theory that Amy Senser was adamant that she couldn't have struck a person. She was steadfast in her claims to her husband that she hit construction equipment, even after seeing a report on television of the deadly accident. His skepticism aside, his recounting of her reaction to the incident lends to the defense's case. So, while Joe Senser's testimony may not shine the most flattering light on his wife's personality, it has gone a long way towards helping Amy Senser and her attorney poke holes in the prosecution's case.
The most difficult thing for any prosecutor to prove is the intent/knowledge of a defendant. It's not always that difficult to prove that a certain event occurred, but a major element of nearly every criminal charge is mens rea, which is Latin for "guilty mind." In the Amy Senser trial, the mens rea necessary to prove is that Mrs. Senser knew she hit a person and made a conscious decision to leave the scene and continue driving. The strategy of the prosecution has been to use circumstantial evidence to piece together the events of the evening and make an appeal to the jury to put themselves in Amy Senser's shoes. Basically, they want the jury to ask themselves "If I was driving 50 mph and struck a person, wouldn't I know that I did it?" The psychology behind this is that people (in general) like to rate themselves against others. If you can get them to put themselves in the shoes of Amy Senser, they're going to want to believe they would have acted properly in this situation. You want them to think "I would have stopped," or "I wouldn't have hit the person in the first place." If the prosecution can accomplish this goal, they greatly increase their chances of getting a guilty verdict.
With the trial winding down, I suppose it's time to offer up my opinion on how things will end. I believe that it's going to be difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amy Senser left the scene of an accident that she knew resulted in the severe bodily harm or death to another person. I think the circumstantial evidence is impressive, but ultimately, circumstantial evidence doesn't usually win trials. Without a witness who can testify to her knowledge, all the prosecution has is circumstantial evidence. The appearance of the vehicle, the missing text messages, the failure to pick up her daughter, and her erratic behavior following the incident likely won't be enough to slam the door on this case. I think Mrs. Senser is acquitted of all three felony charges against her. If she is convicted of anything, it will be the gross negligence charge. Negligence is always an easier charge to get to stick because it is so all-encompassing. I think the task in front of the prosecutors is just a little too daunting. I believe their strategy has been sound throughout, but I feel like this specific charge is extremely difficult to prove.
Amy Senser isn't the only person in this state facing criminal charges. If you or a loved one have been charged or may soon be charged with a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony charge, do what Amy Senser did and call or email a Minnesota criminal defense attorney to get someone on your side.
As always, content on the Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is not intended to be viewed as legal advice or legal advertising. Use of this website does not create an attorney/client privilege between the author and the reader. If you are in need of legal advice, call or email a Minnesota criminal law attorney to get personalized advice tailored to your exact situation.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Amy Senser Trial Update
We'll take a break this week from the series on your rights, finishing that up next week with your rights when police stop you while on foot in public. In the mean time, I want to take a quick peak at the Amy Senser trial in Hennepin County in light of the flurry of activity with that case in the past couple days.
I had an article almost completed yesterday on the surprising ruling by the judge in the case that would have allowed the prosecution to use Senser's unwillingness to speak with investigators against her in trial. It was a very odd ruling and was against most precedent on the subject. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution protects us from self-incrimination. It gives us the right to decline to speak with law enforcement officials in order to protect our interests. However, as I was about to start writing my final paragraph, I took a quick constitutional over to the Star Tribune's website, only to see that the judge had reversed his ruling and had allowed the motion by the defense to preclude the prosecution from using Senser's silence against her. As an advocate of justice, I was pleased. As a writer who had spent the better portion of my morning researching the precedent behind the ruling and the consequences of such a decision, I was a little bitter that my hard work was for naught. Either way, Thursday was an important day in the Amy Senser trial. Here are a few of the big decisions made by the judge regarding motions made by both the defense and the prosecution. I won't go through all 16 of them, just three that I found particularly important.
1. The defense's motion to disallow the prosecution from using Amy Senser's silence as incriminating evidence was ultimately upheld. What this means is that the old adage of "what you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" doesn't hold up to what you don't say. This isn't anything new. Any attorney worth his or her salt would have instructed Mrs. Senser to refrain from contact with investigators. This was a case in which there is a dearth of concrete evidence. There is a lot of circumstantial stuff that points to Mrs. Senser's guilt, but without her statements to bind everything together, I think it's going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove that she knew she hit Mr. Phanthavong. Her knowledge of having hit a person is necessary to create the duty for her to stop and attend to the victim. By not allowing into evidence the fact that Mrs. Senser didn't speak with investigators, it takes away the theory that her silence has been intended to hide something. This is important for the defense in a case that will be built so much around what the prosecution can prove, not what the defense can disprove. I think the judge's reconsideration of this motion was clearly the correct ruling. It's good that he was able to realize his mistake before this went to trial. Such an error would have given the defense a clear issue to appeal upon a guilty plea. Kudos to the judge for doing the right thing and reversing his initial decision.
2. A motion to prevent the defense from introducing evidence that Mr. Phanthavong had a large amount of cocaine in his system at the time of his death was upheld. This isn't a surprising ruling. Such evidence would be more useful to the defense in a civil trial, where they could argue that the victim was guilty of contributory negligence, which would lessen the culpability of Mrs. Senser. In a criminal case, however, such evidence would clearly be prejudice against the prosecution. Whether Mr. Phanthavong had cocaine in his system does not change the alleged actions of Mrs. Senser. If she indeed knew that she hit a person on that night, the condition of the person has nothing to do with her decision to flee the scene. The only purpose for such evidence would be to prove that the accident itself was not the fault of Mrs. Senser, but since that fact isn't at issue in this trial, the prejudicial effect of such evidence outweighs its exculpatory elements.
3. Judge Mabley has agreed to allow the prosecution to show video clips of vehicle-pedestrian accident recreations. Not having seen the actual video, I can't comment on its content. I can say, however, that recreation videos like this are typically the bane of defense attorneys' existence. They tend to be incredibly prejudicial towards the defense and paint the picture the prosecution wants painted. Senser's attorney, Eric Nelson, has said that he feels the clips do not accurately depict the crash scene. The prosecution, on the other hand, says that the videos are intended only to bolster the credibility of a specific expert witness they plan to call and that it should be viewed by the jury in that limited scope. I understand the point made here by the prosecution, but I can assure you that it is nearly impossible to tell something to the jury but inform them only to consider it through a limited lens. Once the jury learns something, it colors the way they think about the case in its entirety. However, I assume that Judge Mabley took into consideration any prejudicial affect these videos could have and weighed that against their necessity. I will say that this is something to keep an eye on during the trial.
There were numerous other motions ruled on by Judge Mabley, but most of them were either pretty straight-forward or inconsequential. This thing is close to getting very interesting, however, as the trial won't be too much farther down the road. I'll keep adding commentary to the proceedings as it moves along, as this case interests me greatly. As a defense attorney, it's always useful to get a high-profile case to follow in order to get some insight into how other lawyers handle certain situations. In our profession, you either continue to learn new techniques or you become obsolete. I'm excited to see how everything plays out in this trial.
If you or a loved one find yourself in the middle of a criminal investigation, you should follow Amy Senser's lead and contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney before you offer any information to law enforcement. Doing so could be the difference between innocence and guilt.
As always, the contents of this blog are not intended to be legal advertising, legal advice, nor does the reading of this information create an attorney/client relationship between yourself and the author. If you are in need of legal advice, stop browsing the internet for information and get on the phone with a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney. Your situation is unique and you should treat it as the serious threat to your liberty that it is.
I had an article almost completed yesterday on the surprising ruling by the judge in the case that would have allowed the prosecution to use Senser's unwillingness to speak with investigators against her in trial. It was a very odd ruling and was against most precedent on the subject. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution protects us from self-incrimination. It gives us the right to decline to speak with law enforcement officials in order to protect our interests. However, as I was about to start writing my final paragraph, I took a quick constitutional over to the Star Tribune's website, only to see that the judge had reversed his ruling and had allowed the motion by the defense to preclude the prosecution from using Senser's silence against her. As an advocate of justice, I was pleased. As a writer who had spent the better portion of my morning researching the precedent behind the ruling and the consequences of such a decision, I was a little bitter that my hard work was for naught. Either way, Thursday was an important day in the Amy Senser trial. Here are a few of the big decisions made by the judge regarding motions made by both the defense and the prosecution. I won't go through all 16 of them, just three that I found particularly important.
1. The defense's motion to disallow the prosecution from using Amy Senser's silence as incriminating evidence was ultimately upheld. What this means is that the old adage of "what you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" doesn't hold up to what you don't say. This isn't anything new. Any attorney worth his or her salt would have instructed Mrs. Senser to refrain from contact with investigators. This was a case in which there is a dearth of concrete evidence. There is a lot of circumstantial stuff that points to Mrs. Senser's guilt, but without her statements to bind everything together, I think it's going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove that she knew she hit Mr. Phanthavong. Her knowledge of having hit a person is necessary to create the duty for her to stop and attend to the victim. By not allowing into evidence the fact that Mrs. Senser didn't speak with investigators, it takes away the theory that her silence has been intended to hide something. This is important for the defense in a case that will be built so much around what the prosecution can prove, not what the defense can disprove. I think the judge's reconsideration of this motion was clearly the correct ruling. It's good that he was able to realize his mistake before this went to trial. Such an error would have given the defense a clear issue to appeal upon a guilty plea. Kudos to the judge for doing the right thing and reversing his initial decision.
2. A motion to prevent the defense from introducing evidence that Mr. Phanthavong had a large amount of cocaine in his system at the time of his death was upheld. This isn't a surprising ruling. Such evidence would be more useful to the defense in a civil trial, where they could argue that the victim was guilty of contributory negligence, which would lessen the culpability of Mrs. Senser. In a criminal case, however, such evidence would clearly be prejudice against the prosecution. Whether Mr. Phanthavong had cocaine in his system does not change the alleged actions of Mrs. Senser. If she indeed knew that she hit a person on that night, the condition of the person has nothing to do with her decision to flee the scene. The only purpose for such evidence would be to prove that the accident itself was not the fault of Mrs. Senser, but since that fact isn't at issue in this trial, the prejudicial effect of such evidence outweighs its exculpatory elements.
3. Judge Mabley has agreed to allow the prosecution to show video clips of vehicle-pedestrian accident recreations. Not having seen the actual video, I can't comment on its content. I can say, however, that recreation videos like this are typically the bane of defense attorneys' existence. They tend to be incredibly prejudicial towards the defense and paint the picture the prosecution wants painted. Senser's attorney, Eric Nelson, has said that he feels the clips do not accurately depict the crash scene. The prosecution, on the other hand, says that the videos are intended only to bolster the credibility of a specific expert witness they plan to call and that it should be viewed by the jury in that limited scope. I understand the point made here by the prosecution, but I can assure you that it is nearly impossible to tell something to the jury but inform them only to consider it through a limited lens. Once the jury learns something, it colors the way they think about the case in its entirety. However, I assume that Judge Mabley took into consideration any prejudicial affect these videos could have and weighed that against their necessity. I will say that this is something to keep an eye on during the trial.
There were numerous other motions ruled on by Judge Mabley, but most of them were either pretty straight-forward or inconsequential. This thing is close to getting very interesting, however, as the trial won't be too much farther down the road. I'll keep adding commentary to the proceedings as it moves along, as this case interests me greatly. As a defense attorney, it's always useful to get a high-profile case to follow in order to get some insight into how other lawyers handle certain situations. In our profession, you either continue to learn new techniques or you become obsolete. I'm excited to see how everything plays out in this trial.
If you or a loved one find yourself in the middle of a criminal investigation, you should follow Amy Senser's lead and contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney before you offer any information to law enforcement. Doing so could be the difference between innocence and guilt.
As always, the contents of this blog are not intended to be legal advertising, legal advice, nor does the reading of this information create an attorney/client relationship between yourself and the author. If you are in need of legal advice, stop browsing the internet for information and get on the phone with a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney. Your situation is unique and you should treat it as the serious threat to your liberty that it is.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)