Jim in Anchorage Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) For those of you not following this case, a doctor was drunk driving,hit a 18 year old girl so hard he almost took her head off, left the scene and went home to wipe the guts off. But he was acquitted because the BMW is a "sound proof" car and he had no idea he hit something. I feel very bad for the family, knowing the killer of their daughter will walk because of his cash. Edited June 1, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 a more specific link I don't know where most of the blame lies because I wasn't in the courtroom, but my sense is it has to lie with the jury. They got caught up in the minutia and allowed them selves to believe the unbelievable. How there wasn't one holdout is beyond my level of comprehension. Did the killer get off because his defense team was sharper than the prosecution? Yes. Is that because of the money he has? Yes. But, to me these fall somewhere down the list. Tragic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Tragic is definitely a word to use. Just an absolute mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I don't mean to blame the jury outright, but the problem in cases like these rests on the idea of "reasonable doubt." Key word: reasonable. To me, "reasonable" doesn't include everything within the realm of possibility. You look for the most likely explanation, then work from there to determine what other explanations are plausible - not possible, plausible. I don't think you have to be 100% sure of what happened to deliver a guilty verdict, despite what defense attorneys claim in their opening/closing arguments. How many things in life are you truly 100% sure about? Not many if you really think about it. I don't mean to invite ridicule here about things you are actually 100% certain about, but the point is we all operate on assumptions backed up by the evidence we have at hand. I'm not advocating railroading defendants; everyone deserves due process. I also think the burden of proof should remain high to reduce wrongful convictions. I'm just sick of repeatedly seeing people walk when seemingly unreasonable doubt is morphed into some tangible excuse/explanation. In a case like this, I just can't understand an acquittal. Maybe I'd feel differently if I was in the jury box, but the bottom line seems that regardless of whether or not the victim was skateboarding in a dangerous/reckless matter, the fact remains Corasanti was drunk. If he wasn't, perhaps the accident could have been avoided. Since he was drunk, the point there is moot. Furthermore, the "I didn't realize I hit her" defense doesn't hold up, again because he was drunk. Does this mean drunk drivers have a built-in defense - "I'm not responsible because I was drunk??!?!" Of course not, but it sure seems like this played a role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Exactly flap. How do you find him guilty of a DWI, but not responsible for anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooderson Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I just don't understand how you could give him a DWI but NOTHING else. No tampering with evidence after he deleted all his texts and was wiping down the front of his car? I don't pretend to know that much about the court system but how can you find him guilty of DWI but no other charges??? It's just baffling to me. Exactly flap. How do you find him guilty of a DWI, but not responsible for anything else? I guess it just took me a minute longer to write my response, Dr. haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Ha, Woody. It's truly a mystery. I'd think that if he is guilty of that, then he must be guilty of at least ONE of the other charges. Just a complete screw-job by the legal system. Those poor parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 agreed with everything everybody has posted. On the ride home from work last night that (*^*&%^$^#Schope was blasting callers that were calling in outraged by the verdict. His claim was you guys were not in the courtroom, you don't know the case. Like one caller said the 2 facts were he was drunk & he hit the girl which ended up killing her. What other stuff do you need? How can he not even be convicted of a felony in this & only be charged with a misdeameanor. Those jurors/the defense team & the doctor all should be ashamed of themselves. There is a special place in hell for Corasanti & his attorneys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Furthermore, the "I didn't realize I hit her" defense doesn't hold up, again because he was drunk. Does this mean drunk drivers have a built-in defense - "I'm not responsible because I was drunk??!?!" Of course not, but it sure seems like this played a role. My immediate thought is if this automatically excuses anyone who commits any type of crime while drunk or under the influence of something else, rape, robbery, murder, whatever else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 1, 2012 Author Share Posted June 1, 2012 My immediate thought is if this automatically excuses anyone who commits any type of crime while drunk or under the influence of something else, rape, robbery, murder, whatever else... Only if you drive a "sound proof" BMW. I am s*** out'a luck in my noisy Ford pickup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 agreed with everything everybody has posted. On the ride home from work last night that (*^*&%^$^#Schope was blasting callers that were calling in outraged by the verdict. His claim was you guys were not in the courtroom, you don't know the case. Like one caller said the 2 facts were he was drunk & he hit the girl which ended up killing her. What other stuff do you need? How can he not even be convicted of a felony in this & only be charged with a misdeameanor. Those jurors/the defense team & the doctor all should be ashamed of themselves. There is a special place in hell for Corasanti & his attorneys. The attorneys were doing their job. That's the legal system, everybody has the right to defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 There is a special place in hell for Corasanti & his attorneys. Glad you think that way. If you're ever accused of a gruesome crime, please advise your attorney(s) to not defend you to the best of their ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 My immediate thought is if this automatically excuses anyone who commits any type of crime while drunk or under the influence of something else, rape, robbery, murder, whatever else... Defense attorneys have tried to use that as a defense. And more than once. To my knowledge it's never been allowed. It's somewhat similar to the insanity plea, which now really needs tangible evidence of insanity. It's beyond me how this guy wasn't at least convicted on involuntary manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 My immediate thought is if this automatically excuses anyone who commits any type of crime while drunk or under the influence of something else, rape, robbery, murder, whatever else... It's an odd set of occurrences. The DUI was easy. How'd they acquit him of the death, even if he didnt realize he did it. At that point perhaps let him off hit and run but unless your arguing he didn't even hit her, there's still a crime, no? I didn't see they argued the drunk angle as much as he just didn't know. I only saw tiny bits of this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills44 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 the jury seemed to be blinded by the bull **** spewed by Corasanti and the defense experts .... are we really to believe that Corasanti didn't know that he hit something? I mean, the poor girl was thrown 50 yards by the impact. Also, the whole "soundproof BMW" bull ****...really? How, exactly, was Corasanti acquitted of the "leaving the scene" charge? I understand that everyone is entitled to due process, but I have to wonder whether scumbags like Daniels and Burton can sleep with a clear conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Exactly flap. How do you find him guilty of a DWI, but not responsible for anything else? I wondered that, too. But, I've heard it explained like this. They are saying that he was drunk, but that is not what caused the accident. An example I heard was that if you are drunk and behind the wheel while waiting at a red light, and a car just T bones you, you being drunk did not cause that accident. Dr. Corisanti was my GI, and a really great doctor. Made you feel real comfortable when you aren't usually going to. I have never heard anybody who knows him say anything bad about him. That doesn't mean that I don't think he did something wrong here. Just that all these the "good doctor" cracks and he'll burn in hell, etc. that I've been seeing since the accident happpened (on the News website) always come from people that don't know him. My theory on what happened is this - Alix Rice was an accident waiting to happen. She's wearing dark clothing late at night. The first defense witness said if he didn't swerve he would have hit her 5 minutes before Coriasanti did. And, the star witness for the prosecution - the one who she crossed the road in front of, then he saw the BMW and then heard the crash.......Why has nobody questioned the fact that she crossed the road 20 feet in front of his car. 20 feet?!? That's less than the 7 yard line. That is near miss I would think. She said on her facebook page that she was a cutter and wanted to die in spectacular fashion. I know this type of girl, and probably others here do. Esmonde's article says she just recently got into her father's life. Where's he been for 18 years? My guess is tha she had borderline personality disorder, which most girls have who have an issue with their father. So, she was reckless and cutting back and forth in dark clothes, etc..........And, Corisanti is stupid enough to be drinking, and stupider to be texting. She's an accident waiting to happen and he comes along and provides that opportunity. I believe that he is telling the truth that he never saw her, and I also think as I said above, that she was probably a big cause of that - although the texting may have been the biggest cause........I do not believe him that he had zero suspicion he could have hit a person. I think he thought he might have or even knew, and knew that he had been drinking and he'd be screwed to stop. The jury believed him - I'm sure he came across as believable. And, I've heard Adam Carolla talk about these luxury vehicles before - about how you don't feel your speed and all that, so it is possible that he didn't feel all that damage.......That is the key to the whole thing - whether they believed that. I have to admit I find it hard to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Sorry, you can't blame the girl. Irrespective of her being a cutter, what her Facebook page said, etc. The guy was driving drunk, hit her and killed her. Case closed. If you look at the pic of the damaged car, he hit her with his right headlight. The only way you don't see her is if you're not looking. For crissake, the impact took off the passenger side mirror. The problem was that the jury did get hung up on the minutia that the defense presented. That's what high paid lawyers do: they confuse and obfuscate. In listening to the jury member's justifications for their "head up their collective a$$" verdict, they seemed to be unclear as to their responsibility. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond ALL doubt. I'm a recreational jogger, and I run on some major and secondary roads in Hamburg. On occasion, I cross the white line into the road to avoid crap on the side of the road (potholes, junk, vegetation, etc.). That does not mean that a driver that comes along and plows into me, causing my body to fly over 50 yards away, is not criminally negligent (especially if he/she is drunk) because I was " in the road.". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Sorry, you can't blame the girl. Irrespective of her being a cutter, what her Facebook page said, etc. The guy was driving drunk, hit her and killed her. Case closed. If you look at the pic of the damaged car, he hit her with his right headlight. The only way you don't see her is if you're not looking. For crissake, the impact took off the passenger side mirror. The problem was that the jury did get hung up on the minutia that the defense presented. That's what high paid lawyers do: they confuse and obfuscate. In listening to the jury member's justifications for their "head up their collective a$$" verdict, they seemed to be unclear as to their responsibility. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond ALL doubt. I'm a recreational jogger, and I run on some major and secondary roads in Hamburg. On occasion, I cross the white line into the road to avoid crap on the side of the road (potholes, junk, vegetation, etc.). That does not mean that a driver that comes along and plows into me, causing my body to fly over 50 yards away, is not criminally negligent (especially if he/she is drunk) because I was " in the road.". I'm not saying this is the case here but i think you are missing the fact that being drunk doesn't equate to causing the drunk driving accident always. in many cases its not cause and effect as much as pure coincidence. Again - not saying it here but reiterating the concept for its own sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 The comments I heard from the jury had them not trusting the blood draw. If that's the case, how did they even get him for the DWI? They don't sound like the brightest bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Was the girl in the road when she was hit? A friend's sister is an attorney who has handled DUI cases before and said if someone is in the road when they get hit, it makes it so much more difficult on the prosecution. This one sounds like stupidity from both parties led to her death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts