I read newspapers and watched tv news like everyone else. That’s all we had 60 years ago. Hollywood studio Fixers used to be common. Google It. There are many search results.
I doubt any amount of privilege could save Grossman. Running down 2 kids under the circumstances reported demands a trial and sentencing.
It is concerning that she apparently still had a license after several prior driving citations.
If you read about them in newspapers or saw them on TV news, then these fixers were not very effective, were they? Their whole reason for being was to keep their own existence a secret and to keep all the other stuff out of the media (much more so than to cut legal deals and avoid legal penalties, at least according to the relatively few stories I could turn up).
I know the kind of newspapers that talk a lot about celebrity scandals and efforts to cover them up, mostly stuff that is made up. I pass by them in the supermarket.
I’m no biologist, but when I learned about “the five [sic] senses” in kindergarten, vision was one of them. YMMV.
I don’t know all 50 states laws or even what state you are in (OH?) but in many states the fieldside sobriety tests are optional, meaning you can refuse them & they are not an automatic license suspension like refusal to take a blood/urine test yet the cop can still arrest you if he decides
What happens for someone who can’t take them due to some other reason (on crutches, icy night on a hill, making standing difficult, someone with crossed or a lazy eye, etc.) Are you saying I should keep crutches in my car in case I want to go drinking & driving so that I can’t take the field sobriety tests & not get arrested if I get pulled over while driving home sloshed?
That was the second thing I noticed-- the first was the seriously crumpled hood. How hard do you have to hit a child to crack your radiator?
FWIW, I’m driving a brand new car with incredible pick-up, especially compared to my slightly under-powered previous car, and there was a learning curve in regard to knowing how fast I was going, but the most I ever caught myself doing was about 8 miles over the limit in the city, and 12 on the highway, except for one time when I was doing almost 20, but that was because it was a short stretch of 55mph in the middle of longer stretches of 65mph, and I was briefly gauging my speed by the cars around me. As soon as I noticed what the speed was and what I was doing, I slowed down.
I know that luxury cars are designed so that you don’t feel the road, but I still don’t believe that you can be doing twice the speed limit and not realize it. Especially since the car certainly had a gauge, and she probably had a GPS system that displayed the speed limit.
Looking through some earlier LA Times reporting, the intersection where this incident occurred appears to be Saddle Mountain Dr & Triunfo Canyon Rd, Westlake Village, CA 91361.
Looking at it on street view, I cannot see how anyone with the least bit of concern for the lives of others (or really even their own life) could possibly go 85 mph down that road, accidentally or otherwise. You really would have to care not fuck all about anyone to do it.
I mean, it’s a reasonably well put together looking road, but it has numerous curves with elevated terrain to at least one side, plus trees, that would both provide ample visual cues of dangerous speed to some and obstruct vision around the various curves in the road.
I have a car like you describe and given that it’s likely a drive-by-wire computer there’s no reason for it to be so aggressive. Just touching the gas pedal is like pushing it better than half way down in any other car I’ve driven. It was a real learning curve. I like driving my older car better around town.
In her case it sounds like she was following her boyfriend who is setting the tone for speed. She’s keeping up with him. He then swerves to avoid hitting the kids and she’s caught unaware of them. It’s totally her fault for what she did but I think her boyfriend should have been charged as a significant contributing factor independent of her conviction. He should be serving time.
I don’t understand why you’re focused on the “sensation” (perception?) of speed. It’s the driver’s responsibility to the public to understand how fast she is actually going. And to not speed through intersections. And to stop for pedestrians at crossings.
If the defendant had some sort of trouble using her gas pedal properly or understanding how fast she was going, that does not in any way take away from the fact that she was actually going X mph over the speed limit when she actually collided with the victims, under circumstances she deliberately created. You originally said you were offering a better defense, not an excuse. The argument you’re making isn’t a defense because it’s not an excuse. This was not a negligence case, she was convicted of murder which means the jury found that she went far beyond mere negligence.
~Max
Unfortunately 3 years doesn’t seem outrageously long to me. It’s on the outside of normal but not quite abnormal. If you are in an area with a busy court (and usually not enough judges) each new motion can add months to a case. I’ve never dealt with a socialite but I have gone to trial years after an incident many times.
I’ll take your word for it. Plus the early years were covid times.
Ugh yes don’t remind me. Court was a cluster fuck.
Hard, though it probably doesn’t prove anything about exactly how fast she was going (other than ‘too fast’). It’s not unusual and I’m not at all surprised. People who hit deer pretty commonly crack their radiator and it has even happened to people who have hit small dogs. Smaller than a ten-year-old. Plowing into any solidish object bigger than bread basket at speed is potentially going to damage your front end pretty badly and what you plow into as bad or worse.
But that’s the thing - cars are dangerous as hell. Gigantic, scary projectiles that kill tens of thousands every year. It behooves people to take at least modicum of caution with them. Which this fucking idiot clearly did not.
Grossman will probably appeal. Hopefully the judge will keep her incarcerated during that process.
Reports say sentencing is April 10.
The link in the OP specifically says there will be an appeal
Saying there will be an appeal is meaningless. On what grounds? Did the judge rule something inadmissible or admissible that could be seen as a mistake of law? I don’t know the minutea of the case to tell if they have a basis for an appeal. Not liking the verdict isn’t grounds for an appeal.
It’s pretty standard to file an appeal after a guilty verdict like this; has to be done within X days of the verdict, doesn’t require a statement of the grounds. The defense will get the trial transcript once it’s been prepared (that can take weeks if not months unless they pay for expedited production) (unless the defense paid for daily copy during the trial). Then the appellate attorney(s) (may well not be the trial attorneys; appellate practice is its own specialty) will study the transcript for any what they perceive as errors of law in the conduct of the trial, write and file a brief with the appellate court arguing the case, also filing all relevant documents – transcripts and exhibits. The prosecutor’s office then files a reply brief. Then oral argument will be scheduled and held. Then the appellate court will mull it over and issue its opinion.
Needless to say, this doesn’t happen fast.
With of course the hope that the sentence will be held in abeyance while the appeal is in progress. Which abeyance is often granted for rich white people. Less often for poor non-white people.
Notice is filed early but they still have to find the grounds. Were there are major points of law ruled on by the judge? Is there a standard charge to the jury the judge had to read or was it up to him to make it up? Was there a hint of prosecutorial misconduct? If you have enough money you can always throw a Hail Mary and hope for the best but often the groundwork for an appeal is seen during trial. Otherwise it’s unlikely to succeed. I don’t know if there was anything like that during the proceedings or pretrial hearings.
Much more likely in non-violent crime regardless of what they look like. Both the nature of the crime and the publicity makes it unlikely.
My gut sense is that this is the basis for the appeal, but of course I wasn’t present at the trial, am not a lawyer, and as I said, am listening to my gut rumble on this one.
ETA: I’d be way more surprised if the defendant said, “Okay, it’s a fair cop,” and didn’t appeal.
I was commenting more about those that have a cursory knowledge of the law and think people can just appeal guilty verdicts because they were found guilty. There has to be specifics in the proceedings that are appealed not just saying it shouldn’t be guilty. Its possible there was some point of law that could have gone either way. Or the defense can look through the case a nitpick a minor detail that will have no chance to reverse any decision.