Judge Rejects Chris Soules' Argument in Fatal Crash Case ...

... is the title of a recent article on Chris Soules' case.

"Most states consider it a felony to leave the scene of an accident in which someone is injured or dies, but Iowa’s law differs in that it has been interpreted to require the surviving driver to be present when law officers arrive."


" 'The state submits the legislature foresaw that drunk drivers could flee the scene of a fatal crash precisely because they wanted to escape and sober up before confronting law enforcement officers who may detect telltale signs of intoxication,' prosecutors said in court documents."


https://pagesix.com/2018/01/05/judge-rejects-chris-soules-argument-in-fatal-crash-case/ 



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5240097/Judge-rejects-Bachelor-stars-fatal-accident-law-challenge.html 







The trial originally set for January 18 has been postponed.  No new trial date has been set yet but the judge said it should start by May 7.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-bachelor-chris-soules-trial-postponed-20180109-story.html 

Ah, you would think that his lawyer would know that.

I think his lawyer knew that and so wants to focus on other arguments like diminished capacity.  I just don't know if a jury would buy it, but maybe they would have sympathy for him if his lawyer plays it right.

From the first article towards the bottom:
"One of Soules’ attorneys, Brandon Brown, said in court documents that he may claim as a possible defense diminished capacity 'based upon his then-existing medical condition due to injuries sustained.' "

He needs to pay for his crime like everyone else does.

therealdfshary wrote:He needs to pay for his crime like everyone else does.

Yes he does.

Thanks for the info.  I have wondered how things were going.

As far as diminished capacity,  I guess he could claim he was in shock, but since he didn't seek medical help for any injuries, I don't think that defense would work.  It seems that Chris reacted just as he had done other times and left the scene.

If the law said the driver of a fatal accident must remain until law enforcement arrives, then I could see a loop hole because, according to that article, Mr. Mosher died after he got to the hospital.  So when Chris left the scene it could be argued that at that time there was no fatality.  It's a stretch, but I could consider that argument.

I personally think it would be difficult to find much of a loophole with that. I also think that they truly believe like many of the rest of us that he left to avoid being tested for sobriety. He just looks guilty.

Yes I thought some people here would be interested in the status of this case. 

As Iowa law is apparently being applied to this case, I don't think there is that loophole.  According to the article, Iowa law requires the surviving driver Chris Soules to be at the scene when law enforcement arrives.  He reportedly left before law enforcement arrived.  His lawyers argued that Iowa's law is unconstitutional, but they have just lost that battle when the trial court judge disagreed.  His lawyers could still appeal and take that constitutionality issue up to the Iowa appeals court and Iowa Supreme Court, but I don't think they would do that until after the trial.


From the article:
"Most states consider it a felony to leave the scene of an accident in which someone is injured or dies, but Iowa’s law differs in that it has been interpreted to require the surviving driver to be present when law officers arrive."


I agree he looks guilty and left to avoid being tested for sobriety.  And a diminished capacity defense probably requires medical experts to testify as to his then-existing medical condition.  It seems it would be hard to get credible expert witnesses to testify to his then-existing medical condition, when they didn't examine him shortly after the accident.

Don't know Iowa law, but it seems the lawyers are twisting the meaning of diminished capacity.  Time for Chris to face the music.

I live in Iowa and don't know those laws but yeah, he needs to take the consequences of his careless stupidity.

Just shaking my head at how far Prince Farming has fallen.

Interesting that his attorney is petitioning to strike the word “victim” when that is exactly what the guy was....a VICTIM.

I had heard about the claim that Chris had alcohol in his car. I don’t know who saw it. I would assume someone had to. I did here that a witness says that shortly before the incident he had went into a liquor store and bought alcohol.

Feces.Hurling.Monkey wrote:

peebeeb wrote:I live in Iowa and don't know those laws but yeah, he needs to take the consequences of his careless stupidity.

PeePee - you live in Iowa ?@#@? Holy crap, you're the second Bach poster I've ever met from IA.  I'm from Iowa City and graduated from Iowa State.  I was back in Ames & IC around Christmas visiting the fam.
 I really miss the Tomatoes and Sweet Corn around late Aug - here in Houston, the Tomatoes suck; they're from Mexico and it's like biting into a tennis ball. 

Yep, been here a long time now. Born and raised in Michigan, the one thing that surprises me about living here is the scarcity of fruit/veggie stands in the summer. The tomatoes and corn are wonderful here. PB

Small update in Chris Soules' case:

Iowa's highest court has DENIED Chris a hearing on his appeal of a lower court decision regarding dismissal of the case.  (Chris's attorneys tried to get the case dismissed; a judge denied it, and his attorneys appealed.  Now the Iowa Supreme Court will not hold a hearing on his attorneys' arguments on appeal.)

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/02/23/us/ap-us-bachelor-fatal-crash.html



I don't know how his attorneys can believe in their argument that the charges should be dismissed because Chris is a public figure -- specifically, their argument is that an "unnecessary trial" would be too damaging and that they cannot undo the publicity that would result from an "unnecessary trial."  So they want him to have special treatment because he's a public figure?


From an article:
"As 'a public figure,' Soules lawyers wrote in his appeal, 'an unnecessary trial' could be 'even more damaging.' "
“If Mr. Soules is forced to proceed to trial and then appeal, there would be no way to undo the publicity and restore Mr. Soules to his original position … "

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/02/23/chris-soules-appeal-request-denied-jury-trial-move-forward/369158002/


"A date for Chris's jury trial will be scheduled Monday."  -- well, we'll see.  Who knows, they may have another postponement of the scheduling.

Thanks for the update.  I wonder if his lawyers mean that there will be publicity about Chris and will make it impossible to get a jury who isn't prejudiced.  I don't know.  This will never go away for him.

I didn't think of that.  There was nothing about that in at least the articles that I pulled.  I feel that the news coverage on this case is rather minimal despite his celebrity status (maybe his attorneys are doing a good job of keeping information under wraps).  Possibly the news reporters missed some information.  But typically if it's a high profile case and/or the attorneys are concerned they can't get an unbiased jury in the area, they will request to have the case moved to a different courthouse or a different county (like the Rodney King case and other less famous cases).  I haven't heard that Soules' attorneys ever requested the case be moved to another courthouse/county.  If they ever did, that wouldn't get him out of a trial and the case wouldn't be dismissed.

I don’t even know why his attorney is using the term “unnecessary trial”, WTH! They are making it sound like it was no big deal that a man died.

yeah, anytime someone dies as a result of an incident that becomes the center of a criminal case, the trial is never "unnecessary."  probably the only time a trial in a criminal case would be "unnecessary" is if the case is resolved out of court like with a plea bargain (or the defendant dies before trial).  I think there was no way any court was going to dismiss this case no matter how high in the court system they appeal.

I kind of hope the news reporters were incorrect in reporting that his attorneys used the words "unnecessary trial" in that context, but I don't think they were.