'Toyota defense' might rescue jailed Minnesota man

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
126,859
Likes
147,503
Points
115
LINO LAKES, Minn. (AP) - Ever since his 1996 Toyota Camry shot up an interstate ramp, plowing into the back of an Oldsmobile in a horrific crash that killed three people, Koua Fong Lee insisted he had done everything he could to stop the car.

A jury didn't believe him, and a judge sentenced him to eight years in prison. But now, new revelations of safety problems with Toyotas have Lee pressing to get his case reopened and his freedom restored. Relatives of the victims - who condemned Lee at his sentencing three years ago - now believe he is innocent and are planning to sue Toyota. The prosecutor who sent Lee to prison said he thinks the case merits another look.

"I know 100 percent in my heart that I took my foot off the gas and that I was stepping on the brakes as hard as possible," Lee said in an interview Wednesday at the state prison in Lino Lakes. "When the brakes were looked at and we were told that nothing was wrong with the brakes, I was shocked."

...

Lee, a recent Hmong immigrant with only about a year of driving experience, was driving his pregnant wife, 4-year-old daughter, father and brother home from church the afternoon of June 10, 2006, when their Camry zoomed up an Interstate 94 exit ramp in St. Paul. Police said it was traveling between 70 and 90 mph when it rear-ended an Oldsmobile stopped at a red light.

Javis Trice Adams, 33, and his 10-year-old son, Javis Adams Jr., died at the scene. Adams' 6-year-old niece, Devyn Bolton, was paralyzed from the neck down, and died shortly after Lee was convicted.

At his 2007 trial, Lee testified he was certain he tried to brake. But a city mechanic testified the brakes worked fine, and Carruthers, the prosecutor, argued Lee must have hit the gas by mistake. Lee's attorney at trial, Tracy Eichorn-Hicks, seemed to concede as much, arguing Lee's actions fell short of gross negligence.

In the end, a jury convicted Lee on two counts of criminal vehicular homicide. At sentencing, Ramsey County District Judge Joanne Smith gave Lee the maximum after emotional testimony that included Devyn Bolton's mother, Bridget Trice, saying to Lee: "I hope you understand what you've done to my family, Mr. Lee. You have ruined it."

Lee's Camry wasn't among those subject to Toyota's recent safety recalls, but Toyota did recall some 1996 Camrys for defective cruise controls that could cause sudden acceleration.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100225/D9E364PG0.html

The new defense for the decade? "My Toyota made me do it!"

And maybe it did, I'm still kind of shocked the guy got 8 years for a traffic accident. There are drunks who have gotten less time for killing someone in a traffic accident.
 
The new defense for the decade? "My Toyota made me do it!"

And maybe it did, I'm still kind of shocked the guy got 8 years for a traffic accident. There are drunks who have gotten less time for killing someone in a traffic accident.

Yeah, that seems really really stupid. I guess we showed him. He'll think twice before he hits the wrong pedal again.

barfo
 
The new defense for the decade? "My Toyota made me do it!"

And maybe it did, I'm still kind of shocked the guy got 8 years for a traffic accident. There are drunks who have gotten less time for killing someone in a traffic accident.

I think the family of the deceased is only willing to accept his new argument because they want to sue Toyota for millions.
 
Lee's attorney at trial, Tracy Eichorn-Hicks, seemed to concede as much, arguing Lee's actions fell short of gross negligence. In the end, a jury convicted Lee on two counts of criminal vehicular homicide.

At sentencing, Ramsey County District Judge Joanne Smith gave Lee the maximum after emotional testimony that included Devyn Bolton's mother, Bridget Trice, saying to Lee: "I hope you understand what you've done to my family, Mr. Lee. You have ruined it."

Why is it routine for a judge to hear victims crying moments before he decides the sentence, or anytime? Shouldn't the decision be cool and rational, based upon standardized written law, not anecdote? This became routine in the last 20 years or so. Who introduced this custom? The haters?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top