Most excellent.

This story has been pissing me off from the get-go. First Janklow claims that he had to fly through the intersection at 70+ miles per hour because of a car in the oncoming lane. Excusemewhat? He maintained this story, despite his passenger never seeing this "phantom car." Then it turns out that he has quite a history of reckless driving, including almost hitting someone else running the same stop sign. Oh, did I mention this is not the first time he has blamed a phantom car? Then the judge decides that his driving history will not be admissible (with the exception of the incident at the same intersection). Why? How is it not relevant?

His story changes as the trial nears, and he claims that his running the stop sign was the result of low blood sugar. He claimed to have not eaten for 18 hours (he forgot to eat). At the time of the crash he was returning from a barbecue. Several witnesses testified that they had not seen him eat. Although at the time of the crash he told EMTs that he had eaten. OK, lets assume that he hadn't eaten, and his blood sugar was low. This still does not make him any less guilty. It is his responsibility to be sure he fit to drive. A tired driver is not absolved because of lack of sleep. A drunk driver is not absolved because of the alcohol.

Janklow will be sentenced in January.

No comments: