Advocacy & Safety - Cyclist Hit by SMU Law Professor

An SMU law professor was indicted with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for striking one of two cyclists after "following closely, honking, yelling, and gesturing in an unfriendly manner."

Fortunately, the struck cyclist has only minor injuries.

I guess she'll have a hard time using the "I didn't see them" defense again. Still, I expect she'll get the charges reduced to 'failure to yield the right of way', take defensive driving to have it dismissed, and get a discount on her liability insurance as well.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/072904dnmetdolkart.58710.html

You'll need to register (free) to access the article. Unfortunately, google news has no other source for the story.

Just paste the article, we dont' like signing up to read one article.

definately....having to register to read this stuff is all bad...I have enough spammers knowing my email addys :p

that would probably be a copyright infringement

folks, use http://www.bugmenot.com/

username: hatred@abc.com
password: hatred

folks, use http://www.bugmenot.com/

username: hatred@abc.com
password: hatred
I've tried about 30 different logins off that site and not a blasted one worked. Just post the blasted article and simply give the credit to the paper.

In order to avoid the wrath Dallas Morning News lawyers, I won't post the whole story, but here's a link to a paper that does not require registration: http://www.dallasvoice.com/articles/dispArticle.cfm?Article_ID=4596

I wouldn't count on an easy plea. According to the Dallas News stories, the professor previously hit pedestrians. She claimed she couldn't see them because of the sun.

Also, the article lists two conflicting stories about what happened. If she told the cops something that isn't true, she could lose whatever law license she has (law professors aren't always licensed lawyers, so this may not apply).

EDIT: A blogger posted an earlier DallasNews article at: http://www.sportsgal.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_sportsgal_archive.html

EDIT: Another older article: http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/050404dnmetwhiterock.259d4.html

EDIT: Another newer article: http://www.wfaa.com/s/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/072904dnmetdolkart.58710.html

Just Google the driver's name with the word "bicycle" to get more.

Edit, 6/10/05: Go to the last page for information on the felony trial, which began 6/8/05.

In order to avoid the wrath Dallas Morning News lawyers, I won't post the whole story, but here's a link to a paper that does not require registration: http://www.dallasvoice.com/articles/dispArticle.cfm?Article_ID=4596

I wouldn't count on an easy plea. According to the Dallas News stories, the professor previously hit pedestrians. She claimed she couldn't see them because of the sun, but the cops said the sun couldn't have blocked the sun.

Also, the article lists two conflicting stories about what happened. If she told the cops something that isn't true, she could lose whatever law license she has (law professors aren't always licensed lawyers, so this may not apply).

EDIT: A blogger posted an earlier DallasNews article at: http://www.sportsgal.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_sportsgal_archive.html

EDIT: Another older article: http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/050404dnmetwhiterock.259d4.html

EDIT: Another newer article: http://www.wfaa.com/s/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/072904dnmetdolkart.58710.html

Just Google the driver's name with the word "bicycle" to get more.

Unfortunately, prosecutors like to go for the easy win. In this case, given that the cyclists inuries are (fortunately) minor, and the woman did not flee the scene, there will be a lot of incentive to reduce the charges in favor of a quick guilty plea on a misdemeanor offence. After all, despite the motorists honking and gesturing, she may be able to convince a motorist or two on the jury that she simply misjudged the distance to the cyclist.

In the end, I expect the woman to pay a fine, do a little community service, take an anger management class, and keep her freedom, job, and license.

Sad, perhaps, but it's the likely outcome.

Unfortunately, prosecutors like to go for the easy win. In this case, given that the cyclists inuries are (fortunately) minor, and the woman did not flee the scene, there will be a lot of incentive to reduce the charges in favor of a quick guilty plea on a misdemeanor offence. After all, despite the motorists honking and gesturing, she may be able to convince a motorist or two on the jury that she simply misjudged the distance to the cyclist.

In the end, I expect the woman to pay a fine, do a little community service, take an anger management class, and keep her freedom, job, and license.

Sad, perhaps, but it's the likely outcome.

You might be right, but let's give the system a chance. If the prosecutors wanted the easy way out, they would not have let the grand jury indict for a felony that carries a potential 20 year prison term. It's highly unlikely that she'll get 20 years, but I woudn't be shocked if she spent at least a little time behind bars.

definately....having to register to read this stuff is all bad...I have enough spammers knowing my email addys :p

try www.mailinator.com. an interesting free service.

that would probably be a copyright infringement

As long as you do not print the article in its entirety (so delete the head line) and provide a link to the source it is not a copyright infringement.

man.. i hope she goes to prison and meets betsy and her shower lovin gang... chepa peice of trash.. i mean.. how much of a record does she need? why is she always hitting peds. and cyclist? stupid ***** needs some tar a feathers on her ass!

As long as you do not print the article in its entirety (so delete the head line) and provide a link to the source it is not a copyright infringement.

This is not quite true. The Fair Use doctrine allows only small excerpts from a copyrighted work to be reproduced without the copyright owners permission. This permits things like small passages to be referenced in research articles and critical reviews. You cannot get around copyright laws simply be deleting an inconsequential part of the work. You also cannot simply give credit to the copyright owner and use the work.

To be fair, the Dallas Morning News paid someone to go interview people and write the article. They graciously provide free access to the article in exchange for you signing up to their site and providing a little information about yourself. It's up to you whether you want to accept those terms and if so, how truthful you are with the information you provide (there's a clue here, folks!). Otherwise, you can skip this article, go buy the newspaper, or wait and hope another news source picks up on the story.

I hesitated before posting this article because I expected some not to want to register to see the article. However, I decided that since the incident involved someone other than a drunk redneck teenager who was indicted in a very short timeframe (did anyone notice the incident occurred less than a week ago?), and was clearly NOT a case of failure to see the cyclists, I thought it was a better than yet another 'car hits cyclist' story. The fact that this was reported in the Dallas Morning News, which appears to be doing research on this forum in preparation of a two part article on cycling safety made it even more interesting to me.

I have to admit it. I peeked at the comment from the "gentleman" I put on my ignore list. We can call for time behind bars without hoping it turns into a prison **** scene. If the articles are correct, what she did was criminal. But wishing sexual violence upon her is perverted. In many ways, it's a lot sicker than what she did.

Personally I think it is irresponsible to post someones email address on a foirum like this with out their permission. Let the law take it course.

You'd be a better person if you removed it.

Personally I think it is irresponsible to post someones email address on a foirum like this with out their permission. Let the law take it course.

You'd be a better person if you removed it.

You're probably right, message deleted.

Personally I think it is irresponsible to post someones email address on a foirum like this with out their permission. Let the law take it course.

I agree. There is no doubt that what this woman has done both this time and in the past was completely wrong, and she deserves some serious time in prison. However, two wrongs don't make a right, and vigilante acts directed at her personally are only going to win her sympathy, which would not serve the interests of obtaining the appropriate punishment for the crime.

Is SMU a state institution? If so, the perp's Email address (if it's her SMU address we're talking about) is a matter of public record. But it may have been a private addy that was posted, and SMU might be a private institution; if either is the case, never mind.

Is SMU a state institution? If so, the perp's Email address (if it's her SMU address we're talking about) is a matter of public record. But it may have been a private addy that was posted, and SMU might be a private institution; if either is the case, never mind.

For what it's worth - and I think the OP probably did the right thing by removing it from this board - her email address - and office phone - are freely available on the University's web site.

-chris

Is SMU a state institution? If so, the perp's Email address (if it's her SMU address we're talking about) is a matter of public record. But it may have been a private addy that was posted, and SMU might be a private institution; if either is the case, never mind.

SMU, Southern Methodist University, is a private institution.

For what it's worth - and I think the OP probably did the right thing by removing it from this board - her email address - and office phone - are freely available on the University's web site.

-chris

I agree with Chris L., let the system work its course. You can't accomplish anything with a phone call or e-mail to the driver that the DA can't accomplish with the indictment. Except, perhaps, that if you cross the line, you could end up being charged with some sort of harassment offense. Be content to know that a tenured professor is going to bed each night thinking about spending years in prison.

I have to admit it. I peeked at the comment from the "gentleman" I put on my ignore list. We can call for time behind bars without hoping it turns into a prison **** scene. If the articles are correct, what she did was criminal. But wishing sexual violence upon her is perverted. In many ways, it's a lot sicker than what she did.

I'm surprised he didn't think of a whole elaborate porno scene along with director's cues. I knew there was a reason why people put him on their ignore lists.

i don't see what's wrong with wnateing her to suffer. she's run over several people apparently. if she hadn't hit so many others i wouldn't view her in such a way. and the part where she used the excuse of the sun being in her eyes... she just seems like the type to exploit the system she knows so well. that's the most sickening thing. not only does she choose to harm people, but she exploits the system that is supposed to protect these people with full will... or so my perception of her currently says. so yes. i want to see harm come to her. :mad:

i don't see what's wrong with wnateing her to suffer.

If she goes to prison for any length of time I imagine she'll suffer regardless, when one considers two years of their life lost, and a criminal record that will count against them wherever they go pretty much for the rest of their lives. I don't think we need to worry about what happens beyond that.

If she goes to prison for any length of time I imagine she'll suffer regardless, when one considers two years of their life lost, and a criminal record that will count against them wherever they go pretty much for the rest of their lives. I don't think we need to worry about what happens beyond that.

A conviction for a felony, even with probation and no jail time would be devestating to a law professor's career. Loss of job, loss of law license, probably the loss of a lot of friends as well.

I don't expect this case to go that far. I really expect that she will strike a deal to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and get a hefty fine, community service, etc. The reason I expect this is because the injury to the cyclist appears to have been minor, the motorist did not flee the scene, and the possibility that she could generate enough doubt that the contact was intentional. My gut feel is that a jury would have to be really, really sure before they destroy her career over a minor injury case.

I don't know for a fact, but I suspect the earlier striking of the pedestrians would not be permitted as evidence in the trial since it was not part of the charge. It might be considered in sentancing if there is a guilty verdict.

However, since we don't know all the details - only what the newspaper printed - it's all speculation. We don't know what, if anything, the cyclists may have said or did. We don't know what transpired after the accident other than the motorist waited nearby for police to arrive. we don't know if there was a lot of traffic that prevented the motorist from moving further left, or if she swerved right to hit the cyclist. These are all details that could swing a jury in determining the motorist's intent at the time.

As I said earlier, fortunately the injuries appeared to be minor so there is no grieving family. That is probably the only good thing about this.

BTW, the incident occured near White Rock Lake in Dallas, TX. For those who are not familiar with Dallas, White Rock Lake is a VERY popular place for runners and cyclist on weekends. I would hate to be trying to drive along the road surrounding White Rock Lake on a Saturday or Sunday morning. It would certainly be a frustrating experience. It also makes me wonder if there were other witnesses to the incident, as many people as I've seen around that lake.

A conviction for a felony, even with probation and no jail time would be devestating to a law professor's career. Loss of job, loss of law license, probably the loss of a lot of friends as well.

I don't expect this case to go that far. I really expect that she will strike a deal to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and get a hefty fine, community service, etc. The reason I expect this is because the injury to the cyclist appears to have been minor, the motorist did not flee the scene, and the possibility that she could generate enough doubt that the contact was intentional. My gut feel is that a jury would have to be really, really sure before they destroy her career over a minor injury case.

Good point. We should be happy the minor injuries make this offense less serious. But for the moment, we should also be happy that the professor is going through each day with the possibility of prison time hanging over her head.

Any updates from Dallas on this criminal attempt to avoid justice by Jane Dolkart?

These apparently uncontrollable bursts of violent road rage must be very embarrassing for a law professor that advocates harsher punishment for and education to prevent violence against another marginalized minority.

Jane Dolkart works for an end to sodomy laws and equal rights under the law for the gay and lesbian community, of which she is a member. Admirable indeed but her own lawyer James Vasilas made the dubious claim that his client was in fact on her way to go for a bike ride at that very same location. (She had no bicycle but perhaps she intended to borrow her victims?) In my opinion the gay and lesbian community would be better off without these two embarrassments representing their collective interests when Dolkart possesses not the strength and courage to take responsibility for her own actions and instead requests her counsel lie on her behalf.

Jane Dolkart is an embarrassment to gays and lesbians everywhere. If she fails to make amends AND take appropriate action to prevent causing injury or death again she should be seen and called upon as what she is, a disgrace.

Are there any forum members from Dallas who could try to find the file in the courthouse? It should be public record, and it tell us some of what is going on.

So is "the sun was in my eyes" going to be the new "Twinkie defense?"

The sun gets in everyone's eyes at times, yet I fail to see a history of others repeatedly plowing down peds and cyclists... there is more to her story. Perhaps her history of eye problems could lead to her license being taken away at a minimum.

Too bad though that cyclists are so poorly viewed upon by society. Forester outlines the very lack of reasonable convictions in his book citing several cases and the "relative worth" of cyclists verses other members of society.

i don't see what's wrong with wnateing her to suffer. she's run over several people apparently. if she hadn't hit so many others i wouldn't view her in such a way. and the part where she used the excuse of the sun being in her eyes... she just seems like the type to exploit the system she knows so well. that's the most sickening thing. not only does she choose to harm people, but she exploits the system that is supposed to protect these people with full will... or so my perception of her currently says. so yes. i want to see harm come to her. :mad:

Whatever you may think about the case--and as has been noted, we don't know all the facts and your explanation, Merton, is filled with assumptions--the problem with wishing another harm is its lack of compassion, of basic humanity. Why sink to that? There's a difference, in my view, between punishment and revenge.

[QUOTE=glowingrod]Any updates from Dallas on this criminal attempt to avoid justice by Jane Dolkart?

[/qoute]


Anyone? I know some people in Dallas but not how to reach them easily.

It is interesting that several people are CONVINCED this lady is a monster, simply based on a glance at one newspaper article.

And, maybe she IS a monster. Who knows? But, I hope none of YOU are the victim of a false accusation or a false newspaper story. Because the false newspaper stories tend to be on page one. And, the corrections tend to be on page D14.

Today I read about a lady who got her family special permission to enter the USA by claiming that she had been tortured in Iraq, and her husband murdered. Her story got publicity in numerous papers. Turned out, it was all fiction. Her story about "torture" was no more a fiction than the hundreds of stories about imaginary "weapons of mass destruction". A thousand dead American boys later, no American paper has apologized for that bit of "mass lying".

Newspapers are the number one source of fiction writing in America. Don't go "convicting" anyone based upon what you read in the newspaper.

I based my opinion on a 7 articles. One "The Dallas Voice" even within her own community (Dallas & the local Gay & Lesbian community) which I think would be well served by taking away her license. I did what I figure glow there did and googled "Jane Dolkart"

Personally I think Google is why glow wrote it the way he did, since I bet now a direct quote of his post will appear there when others google her name as soon as the google spiders get there.

not that it's bad idea, a lil evil but not bad.

alanbikehouston,
Do you have any friends in Dallas who might be able to go to the courthouse to peek at the public file. An update with some facts (instead of rehashed insults) would be helpful.
And yes, I know Texas is a big place and that not all Texans know each other.
-DC

A conviction for a felony, even with probation and no jail time would be devestating to a law professor's career. Loss of job, loss of law license, probably the loss of a lot of friends as well.

.

So what? You think she's better than a garbage truck driver? I don't.

It is interesting that several people are CONVINCED this lady is a monster, simply based on a glance at one newspaper article.

And, maybe she IS a monster. Who knows? But, I hope none of YOU are the victim of a false accusation or a false newspaper story. Because the false newspaper stories tend to be on page one. And, the corrections tend to be on page D14.
.

You're the same guy who defended Chai Vang for blowing away 6 people.

Credibility = zero

So what? You think she's better than a garbage truck driver? I don't.

But since the accused is a law professor, not a garbage truck driver, I tailored my post to the likely penalties that she would incur.

However, since you brought it up, a garbage truck driver convicted of the same felony offense would probably lose her job, her driving license, and a lot of friends as well. Most people convicted of a felony would suffer a similar fate, regardless of whether there was any jail time.

But since the accused is a law professor, not a garbage truck driver, I tailored my post to the likely penalties that she would incur.



Why?

You're the same guy who defended Chai Vang for blowing away 6 people.

Credibility = zero

No, I'm the guy who said that NONE of the newspaper reporters were witnesses to that event and so people ought to consider all the facts and both sides of the story. The ONE surviving witness is Vang. He says he was attacked, and was fighting for his life. A jury will have to decide if THEY believe him.

The number of "hate crimes" against Asian immigrants here in Texas is a long and sad story...maybe it will turn out that Vang is telling the truth. And, all of the newspapers that have been "pre-convicting" Vang will apologize...yeah, right.

Get this straight: newspapers are in the entertainment business. If they cover a bloody event, and get even the names spelled correctly, it is a miracle.

My one semi-funny experience with newspapers "juicing up" a story: a guy in Houston commits a murder and writes "Skinhead" slogans on the dead man's bedroom wall. He does so because the killer HATES skinheads and wanted to "frame" skinheads for the murder.

So, during the trial, witness after witness testifies under oath that the killer was NOT a skinhead, and hated skinheads and wanted to "frame" the skinheads. When the jury verdict came in, the headline was "SKINHEAD GETS DEATH SENTENCE".

I run into the newspaper reporter at a bar. We have a beer, or three. I ask him WHY did the story continue to falsely label the killer as a skinhead? His answer "Pretending he was a skinhead made it a better story".

So, should you believe the stuff witnesses say at a trial, as opposed to the fiction published in newspapers? Well, Virginia, not only is there a Santa Claus, but witnesses in trials lie a lot. Who comes to court to say, "Well, yes, after drinking five beers, I did blow throw through the red light at 90 mph, and run over little Johnnie on his bicycle". Ain't gonna happen.

No, I'm the guy who said that NONE of the newspaper reporters were witnesses to that event and so people ought to consider all the facts and both sides of the story. The ONE surviving witness is Vang. He says he was attacked, and was fighting for his life. A jury will have to decide if THEY believe him.

The number of "hate crimes" against Asian immigrants here in Texas is a long and sad story...maybe it will turn out that Vang is telling the truth. And, all of the newspapers that have been "pre-convicting" Vang will apologize...yeah, right.

Get this straight: newspapers are in the entertainment business. If they cover a bloody event, and get even the names spelled correctly, it is a miracle.

My one semi-funny experience with newspapers "juicing up" a story: a guy in Houston commits a murder and writes "Skinhead" slogans on the dead man's bedroom wall. He does so because the killer HATES skinheads and wanted to "frame" skinheads for the murder.

So, during the trial, witness after witness testifies under oath that the killer was NOT a skinhead, and hated skinheads and wanted to "frame" the skinheads. When the jury verdict came in, the headline was "SKINHEAD GETS DEATH SENTENCE".

I run into the newspaper reporter at a bar. We have a beer, or three. I ask him WHY did the story continue to falsely label the killer as a skinhead? His answer "Pretending he was a skinhead made it a better story".

So, should you believe the stuff witnesses say at a trial, as opposed to the fiction published in newspapers? Well, Virginia, not only is there a Santa Claus, but witnesses in trials lie a lot. Who comes to court to say, "Well, yes, after drinking five beers, I did blow throw through the red light at 90 mph, and run over little Johnnie on his bicycle". Ain't gonna happen.


Oh yeah, he shot women and kids in the back who had no guns...he's innocent...dah :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, he shot women and kids in the back who had no guns...he's innocent...dah :rolleyes:


No kids, just younger adults. The woman shot hiding behind the ATV IS a surviving witness to the intitial gunfire, and the guy's current story is his SECOND one.

I am impressed how many people who were NOT present at the scene of alleged crimes become "experts" based on newspaper reports. And, people dumb enough to think newspaper reports are TRUE are gifted with long memories, so the false stories become "true" in their little minds forever..

During the Atlanta Olympic games, a security guard saved many lives by moving people away from a bomb. When the FBI fell under attack for "solving" the bombing, the FBI leaked a rumour to newspapers that the security guard was the actual bomber. The story was fiction. He was a hero, not a bomber.

And, to this day, the security guard says he meets morons who hear his name and say "Hey, you have the same name as that guy who bombed the Atlanta Olympics".

It is fun to gossip about stories we read in the newspaper. To speculate about what is true or not true. But, before you start organizing a lynch mob based on something you read in the newspaper, remember you are reading entertainment and fiction, not verified facts, based on the sworn testimony of "neutral" witnesses.

Last year's three "big" stories about media fiction including a New York Times reporter who interviewed the family of a war hero in West Virginia. He invented up the interview in a Starbucks in New York City. And, the Pentagon made up the story about the young lady being a war hero.

Also last year. Pat Tillman was awarded numberous medals for fighting to the death against terrorist forces in Afganistan. The Washington Post revealed he was acually killed by poorly trained and poorly led fellow Rangers...the story about him being a "hero" was part of a Pentagon coverup of the "friendly fire" killing.

USA Today admitted that its "award winning" international news reporter had made up stories where he was an "eye witness" to terrorist activities in Pakistan, Afganistan, and Israel. All fiction, year after year. Won awards for the stuff.

And CBS News. Gave huge coverage to an old,old story about President Bush going AWOL for six months during the Viet-Nam War, dodging drug tests and physicals, and being suspended from flying duty. All of which was true, but the documents used in the story were so clearly faked that they were exposed within hours.

So, you all still want to go out and "lynch" the SMU professor and Mr. Vang without giving them their day in court, based on the stuff you read in a newspaper? I hope that none of YOU or members of your family are ever the victims of the modern American "news" media. Because, there are morons who believe every single thing that they read.

If nobody ever discussed the world's happenings until people had their "day in court", this forum would be a fairly empty place. What I put forth above was not just taken from the newspapers, but from the initial complaint filed against Vang by the police, and the exact document the D.A. files with the court when he/she brings charges. This is part of the exact evidence that the jury will hear when someone is given their "day in court". There are also irrefutable facts that exist that are verified by courts/D.A's/police that already exist.

If nobody ever discussed the world's happenings until people had their "day in court", this forum would be a fairly empty place. What I put forth above was not just taken from the newspapers, but from the initial complaint filed against Vang by the police, and the exact document the D.A. files with the court when he/she brings charges. This is part of the exact evidence that the jury will hear when someone is given their "day in court". There are also irrefutable facts that exist that are verified by courts/D.A's/police that already exist.

If you call the police, and claim that you saw your neighbor steal a bike off your porch, there is a good chance that charges will be filed. The police officer and prosecutor won't know whether or not you are telling the truth. Filing the charge is simply the method to get your accusation into court, and to give both you and your neighbor the opportunity to convince the jury who is telling the truth. Where did you get the bizarre notion that prosecutors investigate cases and talk with witnesses? You must watch a LOT of television.

There is nothing wrong with reading the newspaper and saying "IF this turns out to be true, I hope this person gets punished real good". But, some folks forget the word "IF" when the person accused is part of a hated minority group (a lawyer, a professor, an Asian-American, an African-American). But, if YOU or a member of your family is ever falsely accused, you will pray for your day in court in front of a neutral, unbiased jury of your peers.

What I put forth above was not just taken from the newspapers, but from the initial complaint filed against Vang by the police, and the exact document the D.A. files with the court when he/she brings charges. This is part of the exact evidence that the jury will hear when someone is given their "day in court". There are also irrefutable facts that exist that are verified by courts/D.A's/police that already exist.

As a criminal defense lawyer, I can tell you that this statement is not accurate. Complaints and formal charging documents contain allegations from various sources, some reliable, some not, some admissible at trial, some inadmissible. Consequently, neither the complaint nor the charging document can or should be taken as "objective truth" or "what really happened," but more along the lines of what the prosecution hopes to prove. Whether or not the jury gets to hear any particular part of that alleged "evidence" will be subject to the rules of evidence and challenges claiming constitutional violations.

The virtue of withholding judgment until the prosecution's claim are put to the test of cross-examination is illustrated by the recent case of the four people (Chinese, I think) arrested on a tip that they were terrorists, but the tip turned out to be false, an act of revenge. And sometimes, the only "facts" are those ultimately determined by the jury in its verdict, after hearing and assessing all the evidence, including the credibility of witnesses. For example, in any typical "he said, she said" case--any case where there are conflicting versions of what occurred--the jury must decide who to believe, and that becomes the operative legal "reality."

Even seemingly "irrefutable facts" such as scientific evidence might not be so pure as we tend to believe. Fingerprints? How many points of comparison were used? Accordingly to the best protocol? Forensic evidence such as DNA? Were they preserved properly or corrupted? Lastly, as cases in Texas and Connecticut (as I recall) show us that even crime lab experts have lied on occasion, so even that seemingly "irrefutable" evidence too must be tested by cross-examination before we accept it unquestioningly.

Apologies for the Crim Law 101 lecture.

take responsibility for her own actions and instead requests her counsel lie on her behalf.


would be well served by taking away her license.


history of eye problems could lead to her license being taken away at a minimum.






So, you all still want to go out and "lynch" the SMU professor


HAHAHAHAHAHAH.

sorry, bu there doesn't seem to be too many people over reacting. There is at least one though

:D

So, you all still want to go out and "lynch" the SMU professor and Mr. Vang without giving them their day in court, based on the stuff you read in a newspaper? I hope that none of YOU or members of your family are ever the victims of the modern American "news" media. Because, there are morons who believe every single thing that they read.


You'd HAVE to be a moron to think it was OK to trespass on someone's land and then mow 8 people down, killing 6. No one is lynching anyone. That's just shrill over reacting doubletalk.
We are allowed to have an opinion based on what we know. Of course more facts will come out in court.

Your hero:

April 29, 2001: He pays a $328 fine in Hennepin County for catching 93 crappies over the fishing limit.

- Dec. 24, 2001: Police respond to a 911 call from Say Xiong, who says Vang waved a gun at her and threatened her life during an argument about their pending separation. He spends Christmas in jail. She soon moves to Milwaukee with their five children.

- April 7, 2002: Vang is fined $244 in Green Lake County, Wisconsin, for trespassing while deer hunting. A warrant is issued when he fails to appear in court or pay the fine.

- April 30, 2003: Vang defaults on child support payments for three children of Youa Lee in Stockton.

- Nov. 21, 2004: With Minnesota deer-hunting season winding down and the Wisconsin season opening, Vang heads 80 miles due east of his Kanabec County home. A confrontation between Vang and local hunters erupts. Court documents charge him with six counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder.

I live in the Dallas area, and I also work in a law firm with a lawyer who had this woman as a professor at SMU. I will make sure to find out what happens in this case.

And CBS News. Gave huge coverage to an old,old story about President Bush going AWOL for six months during the Viet-Nam War, dodging drug tests and physicals, and being suspended from flying duty. All of which was true,

Did you read that in the paper? lol