Modern Vespa

Thank you, Lisa. I appreciate the sacrifice you are making to keep us informed.

p.s. I'd be surprised if they continued much past when you left, especially on a Friday.

So who determines if the case goes to court? Is it the judge or a jury? I have heard of a grand jury before that decides if there is enough evidence to make a case, so I was just wondering in this situation what would happen.

I recently got called up to be on a jury for a DUI case. I could not honestly tell the defendant's lawyer that I could be impartial, so they didn't pick me. I have had too many family members and friends affected, killed in a few instances, in drunk driving relating incidents. My uncle was driving drunk and had an accident, before I was born. He died. My father was in the car, broke his neck, and was in traction for 3 months. So I can see both sides, but I believe it's not the right thing to do.

I hope everything is resolved to Astrid's satisfaction. It's the least that can happen considering the circumstances. My positive thoughts are being sent her way.

We're going to trial!! The next court date of September 16th will be to determine a trial date!! And the case drags on...

Yea! Yea! Yea!

I assume going to trial is the best possible outcome at this point? Well, I guess we can be thankful for that. Still, I find myself deeply discouraged by how slowly these things proceed.

It reminds me of something Frank Zappa supposedly once said:
"The United States is a nation of laws badly written and randomly enforced."

Hang in there Astrid!

I would think at this point the defendant will be in more of a mood to work out a plea.

For Astrid's sake, I really hope that's what happens...as long as the defendant gets some jail time. Trials are no picnic.

In the light of what's been said about keeping this thread 'formal' and not jeopodising legal proceedings, is it not sufficient to say that any post in this thread reflects the feelings of the majority so that no emotional remarks need be made?

It's a bit like people honking their car horns to show support when passing an 'action' group at the roadside.

I hereby 'honk my horn'.

Tht's fntstc nws n strd's cs gng t trl.

f th trl s hld t tm tht cn gt dwn thr frm Sttl fr fw dys thn wll pln t cvr t. wll rprt vry rlvnt fct f th cs nd vn shr n pnn r tw f wht s hppnng n th crtrm nd th hllwys. Snc th mdrtrs hv md t clr tht thr s n fr spch llwd n th MV frms wll ply by ths rls nd nstd 'll s nthr rprtng ptn tht s vlbl t s...'ll sk tht y PM m bfr th trl bgns t rqst t b ddd t my PM rprtng lst. wll rprt trl fcts nd pnns v PMs nd nt v frm psts. ('ll rmnd y bt ths gn ftr cnfrm th trl dt nd f 'm gng t SF.) my ls st p twttr ccnt s tht y cn fllw nstntly.

Bst f lck t strd, wht n mzng wmn!

Jim thanks for bringing this back to the forefront...Lisa thanks for the updates...thanks for your continued support and thoughts are with Astrid...keep the faith!

Thanks for this - it's a really helpful comment, as was your earlier one about 'Goderators'.

Two things should be blindingly obvious at this point:

1. our reasons for discouraging speculation, pitchfork waving, or any kind of potential pot-stirring on this board. it stands absolutely no chance of helping Astrid's case and may even harm it.

2. this is a private forum. 'free speech' doesn't apply here - admin's rules apply here.

clear enough i hope?

Hi everyone!

I understand the frustration of not getting details. If I were on the other end of this, I would be frustrated too.

I am not being vague because of the moderators or anything that has been said on the forum. I am being vague because I don't want to do anything to hurt Astrid's case. You might note that there were 11 other people (besides me) in the courtroom, most of them are on one forum or the other (BARF), and none of them have posted details on either forum.

Astrid, the muni driver, and the officer who took Ms. Stenson's statement & administered the DUI tests were not allowed in the courtroom during the preliminary hearing. Astrid sat in the hallway for the 3 days that this went on! Hearing what went on while they were not in the courtroom could impact the trial.

The defense is reading these forums and we don't want to help them. If you saw the defense attorney in action, you would understand. He was hard on all of the witnesses (including Astrid). When I say hard, I am being kind. Yes, I know that's their job but I don't want to help them with it.

Having said that, I'm trying to figure out what should be posted and will act accordingly. Please be patient. Our goal is Justice for Astrid!!

Thanks again to everyone for their support. It is very much appreciated!!!

thnk y ll r msndrstndng wht ws tryng t d. My pnt ws tht by PMng nfrmtn nc th trl strtd t wld b kpt t smll grp tht cld gt th fcts nd gn sm nsght bt wht ws gng n n th crtrm wtht hvng thrs s t. t ws nt t crt scnr whr strd's cs cld b hrt. Myb ddn't mk tht clr ngh n my pst.

Gn - 'm nt dng NY spcltng, ptchfrk wvng r pt strrng. jst wnt t gt th fcts f th cs t thr bcs 1) thy r pblc knwldg nd 2) wnt t knw wht's gng n nd s d thrs. f tht's dsgrbl t nyn thn m trly srry, bt dn't cs m f dng smthng tht wsn't ntndng t d.

d thnk t's shm tht wll nw nt llwd t PM bcs ws wllng t cvr fcts jst lk nws src wld. Tht's pprntly th MV wy nd s hs bn ntd by jst bt vryn &qt;fr spch&qt; s nt llwd hr. Ttlly gt tht, thnks.

You just go on throwing rocks. See how far it gets you.

JimC has said there is no free speech on MV.
Genie has said there is no free speech on MV.
Your forum discussion post says nobody has unconditional freedom of speech in this forum. (= no free speech on MV).

And I'm the one throwing stones? Seriously...What am I missing here?

I'd PM you about this, but...

;)

It's called a moderated forum. Look it up. Your frequent jabs at the moderation here ("Goderators" and waving the free speech flag, having obviously skipped middle-school civics class) is very much evident and marks you as a rock thrower. Knock it off or I will remove you from the forum permanently.

Jess, Yes, please delete my profile. We're obviously not seeing eye-to-eye on this and it's really not worth the frustration. Good Luck.

Bye bye!

Some people cannot seem to play nice and enjoy a happy place in their life. I just don't understand.

I am always astounded too. Not trying to pile on mind you just stating an agreeing thought. Hope you reconsider Sea when you have had time to think about it.

I've had the weekend to think this through. I understand people want to know the BAC and this should satisfy.

The information I'm about to post is taken from Ms. Stenson's statement that was taken at the scene, from the police report, and from hospital records. They are facts, not taken from the Preliminary Hearing testimony but from official documents.

To me, this was very powerful and pretty much self-explanatory. You can draw your own conclusions. I don't think it's necessary to post opinions on this one. You'll understand why...

Okay, the facts:

Per Ms. Stenson's statement: she had 1-2 glasses of wine between approximately 4 pm and 6 pm (in Danville, CA)

The accident occurred at approximately 11 pm (in SF, CA)

1st breathalyzer at 11:36 pm was 0.151 (approximately 5 1/2 hours after she stopped drinking)

2nd breathalyzer at 11:38 pm was 0.143 (approximately 5 1/2 hours after she stopped drinking)

Her BAC at 12:52 am was 0.13 (approximately 6 hours and 52 minutes after she stopped drinking and almost 2 hours after the accident)

0.08 is legally impaired

I'm sure it's going to be very difficult not to comment... but please try.

Wow. No comment needed. Those numbers speak for themselves.

Did anybody see in the O.J. case the the bloody glove didn't fit???

Her BAC at 12:52 am was 0.13 (approximately 6 hours and 52 minutes after she stopped drinking and almost 2 hours after the accident)

0.08 is legally impaired

Occam's Razor applies here.

Its been a forever since I studied criminal procedure in law school. From what I recall, in California the preliminary hearing is a procedural requirement where the Court tests whether there is sufficient evidence to bind the defendant over for trial.

For the defense it is an opportunity to hear the base prosecution case and determine if there are holes in particular witnesses testimony or missing pieces in the prosecutions case that can be exploited at trial.

In some instances I suppose it may make a criminal defendant really consider whether a particular plea offer is a better deal than testing a jury.

The reason those reporting the events during the hearing should remain vigilant in their reporting is that by reporting the goings on those locals whom read about the case may get excluded from the jury pool if they are called to serve. They would be asked if they knew about the case and how they learned it. Once they disclosed that they had been following the case on a scooter forum they would not likely be selected. And if they had already formed an opinion about the case based on what they read here, they would be appropriately challenged for "cause".

Frankly, once a potential juror said that he or she was a scooter rider, the defense would use a pre-emptory challenge and get rid of that person anyway.

Other than perhaps preconditioning potential jurors relative to the case, I cannot think of a legal reason why a factual account of what occurs in open court cannot be memorialized here. Its no different that a newspaper account of a preliminary hearing or trial.

That being said to the extent that the reported accounts could potentially taint witnesses testimony (ie witnesses go read the accounts on the website and have to admit that they have) it is probably best that those who are attending are being as circumspect as they are.

Thanks for the update on the BAC! I now understand what can't be...

Thanks also for the explanation on the legal system and the problems that might arise with prior knowledge of the case and what influence that might have on proceedings! I Just don't know enough about the whole shebang!

Thanks for posting (both BA and legal "why/why not" stuff)!

why do people do this crap of removing the vowels.

Disemvowelling. It's what happens automatically when a post gets a very negative rating. Once you've quoted it, you can then magically see what was originally written.

Damn you beat me too it...and I wanted to sound sooo smart.

Thanks for your continued updates. 8) Everyone please be careful about using other social networking places as well:facebook,twitter etc because you can bet money on the fact that the defense people are watching them like a hawk. Social networking is the demise of many people these days. I'd hate for the defense to gain any ground because of us saying the wrong things ( people aren't intentionally doing it but it still can be misconstrued) Just my thoughts.

NO WONDER! I wondered what was up with that. I assumed the post was written by someone older than 16, (...or maybe not...) so it really confused me.....thanks for clearing THAT up!!

Just wanted to reference a post from Astrid on another thread so that those who are following this thread can see it.

Anyone have an update on Astrid Gunter?

That's all for now. Have a great weekend everyone and ride safe!

Hi everyone!

The trial date was not set on 9/16. The new date scheduled to come up with a trial date is on Tuesday, 9/28. There may be an attorney change in Ms. Stenson's future. Delay, delay, delay!

Thanks for the updates Lisa - I want to know more but hopefully by being patient we can get a more detailed blow-by-blow once the verdict is in.

Unbeliveable!!

Thanks for the update

Thanks for the update, Lisa.

Boy, I sure do feel like cussing. Is that allowed here?

I am pretty sure it is as long as it is in context...and this would be in context I think.

I've never seen any problem here with cussing as long as it's directed at a situation and not an individual. It's only seems to be a problem if it's personal.

Well, it definitely would be directed to someone, (who we can be pretty assured is not a member of these boards). I'll hold my tongue and just continue to pray for Arstid and that ultimately, that justice prevail.

I'm picturing Butters from South Park saying this... "Okay, well here goes... Heck! Doody!"

Sooooooooo... we finally have a trial date set for November 19, 2010!

I wouldn't say it's carved in stone as I don't think her attorney situation is resoved yet. I'm pretty sure based on past experience that there will be more delays.

But for now, that's the date. Mark your calendars and if anything changes I'll let you know as soon as I know.

Small reminder to keep it professional... you don't have to be a member to lurk on this forum. The goal is justice for Astrid and to ensure the safety of our roads for PTW and those of us who think (not drink) before we drive/ride.