Last Thursday, Aug 5, Koua Fong Lee was released from prison after serving 2.5 years after a fatal Toyota crash that took the life of three people--Jarvis Trice Adams (33), Jarvis Adams Jr. (10) and Devyn Bolton (6)-- and injured two others.
Lee was exiting the freeway when his car accelerated to "between 70 and 90 mph" in his 1996 Camry and struck the back of an Oldsmobile stopped at a red light.
During the initial trial, Lee's attorney, Tracy Eichhorn-Hicks, made the argument that Lee may have stepped on the accelerator instead of the brake pedal.
In the Minnesota Court's decision dated, August 9, Judge Joanne M. Smith wrote, "First of all, Mr. Lee has raised the issue of newly discovered evidence..."
Hm. Newly discovered evidence?
The Judge goes on, "In order for a person to prevail on a claim of newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial one must establish, first of all, that the evidence was not known to the defendant or counsel at the time of trail; secondly, that the evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence before trial; thirdly, that the evidence is not cumulative, impeaching or doubtful and that; four, the evidence would probably produce an acquittal or a more favorable result at trial."
Got that? Evidence needs to be new, can't be something they just forgot about, can't be impeaching-- you can't say you found out X is a liar--, and it must be big enough news to potentially change the outcome.
Moving on....
"Now, the respondent has argued that the proposed new evidence that petitioner has attempted to establish with respect to sudden unintended acceleration was known for years before petitioner's trial which had occurred in the first instance and this information could have been discovered through due diligence before trial. Respondent has also presented witnesses, that is, their experts, who by their opinions would, in fact, say that their expert opinions and others who experienced the same or similar phenomenon as petitioner alleges is doubtful."
"The court finds that the information about sudden unintended acceleration certainly was known prior to petitioner's trial and could have been discovered through due diliegence, so up until 2007, that type of information could have been found.
"However, the experiences that witnesses who testified to during this hearing could not have possibly been discovered because they did not occur until after petitioner's trial. Respondent's position is that they are irrelevant and doubtful with respect to this case and would not be admissible at the time of trial.
"However, the court must disagree. Each of the witnesses who testified were credible and certain that their Toyotas of the same vintage as petitioner's had experienced a nearly identical or similar event as occurred in this case. When asked if there was any chance that they were stepping on the brake, they emphatically denied that that had occurred."
Ramsy County Attorney Susan Gaertner said after the decision that she would not persue an appeal, "I think it's time to bring this very sad situation to a close."
But then, yesterday, an early report came out of NHTSA stating that in their analysis, 38 of 58 cars tested, data recorders showed that the drivers didn't apply the brakes. and last week, Toyota released that they'd tested over 4,000 vehicles, without finding a single electronic defect.
Interesting...
We've contacted the Attorney's office for comment and will update if it becomes available, but for now: Was this justice served, or did this decision jump the gun? Are the complaints reasonable doubt? Or do the NHTSA findings cancel them out?
(information from CBS News, the Las Vegas Sun, KTLA and the Ramsy County Courts were used for this article )
kevm14 says:
06:26 PM, 08/11/10
96 Camry = throttle cable.
greenpony says:
07:31 PM, 08/11/10
That's "reasonable doubt" for you.
brn says:
07:55 PM, 08/11/10
The media has been playing the UA angle. It was just one of many tactics.
The REAL REASON he was released and not retried was that the original trial was a farce. Evidence was sketchy. His attorney mis-poke left and right, effectively confessing on his behalf. The so-called expert witnesses were a joke. I don't know if Koua is guilty or not. I do know that he didn't get a fair trial (the first time).
billt9 says:
08:53 PM, 08/11/10
Plus the victim family wanted the case dropped.
So everyone's happy.
The guys' got 4 kids, and the victim's side don't want to pursue it.
tp660 says:
08:58 PM, 08/11/10
Actually, there is a good chance that this guy is innocent. 96 Camrys were recalled for a problem with the cruise control that could cause unintended acceleration. Look it up http://www.toyotaproblems.com/recalls/Camry/1996/. That's probably what he was using as an arguement since his car is not included in the 2010 accelerator pedal recalls.
acbayard says:
09:09 PM, 08/11/10
@tp660: Even if his defense counsel could have demonstrated that he was utilizing the cruise control, the defendant would likely still be negligent, as using the cruise control at 70mph on a highway exit is negligent.
scottyscooter says:
05:17 AM, 08/12/10
I definitely have an opinion on this. I don’t believe for a second that this was caused by any malfunction of the car. I believe that Koua Fong Lee confused the gas and brake pedal. Even if there was some malfunction that cause his car to go WOT when he was exiting the highway, it has been proven on this website as well as other sources that the brakes are more than adequate to overcome the acceleration and bring the car to a stop.
Has justice been served? The biggest injustice that I see here is that this guy went to jail in the first place. I know that this opinion is going to be polarizing to some, but there is no way that we should be locking this guy up for this. Is he a bad driver? Yes. Is he negligent? Maybe; but who should take the fall for that, the driver who confused the pedals and killed a family or the guy at the DMV who issued him a driver’s license?
We need to re-evaluate justice and our prison system in this country. Prisons should be for criminals who need to be separated from society and be rehabilitated. Is Koua Fong Lee a criminal? Does he need to be rehabilitated? No. He is just a bad driver who shouldn’t be allowed on the road anymore. The only situation we should be sending him to prison for is if he snapped and was trying to use his car to kill himself while take some people out with him, or something to that effect.
I think that it is tragic that three people lost their lives when an out of control driver smashed into the back of their car. Society can clearly see how unfair this is for the surviving friends and family and they want some one to pay the price. Sometimes life throws you a sucker punch. Sometimes life winds up and punches you in the face as hard as it can, and that’s the way things are no matter how unfair it is. I think that societies drive to punish someone in a case like this is its way of trying to make some sense out of a senseless situation. The reality is that the world is chaos, human life is fragile, and it can be taken away from you at any moment.
ed124c says:
06:54 AM, 08/12/10
Scottyscooter: I agree pretty much with your comments, but you almost lost me with the jail for trying to kill himself. By reading it again, I see that you are saying he snapped AND he wanted to take out some people with him. That validates the VW sign THEN drive law. Sorry, couldn't resist it.
Seriously, justice and human life are fragile, as is all life in general. I really wish there was a benevolent god who (or that) looks down at us and actually helps us. But there isn't, and we, as the defacto protectors of the planet and of human life, must start doing a better job.
kingkhalas says:
09:01 AM, 08/12/10
3 people are dead because of this idiot.
He should be in prison.
felonious says:
09:32 AM, 08/12/10
FYI, kingkhalas, prison terms do not bring people back to life. I hope you do not make a mistake of this magnitude someday! Whether or not he accidentally pressed the accelerator, I don't believe he intended to kill anyone that day, or was reckless or careless enough to warrant a manslaughter charge.
With that said, I have to admit this article is the first I've heard of the case and I don't know all the details.
unigugu says:
09:55 AM, 08/12/10
I don't know why IL has to post this case here. It has nothing to do with TOYOTA. This was a sad accident, and the driver happened to drive Toyota. That's all.
I feel IL is trying very hard ruin Toyota's reputation intentionally.
greenpony says:
10:04 AM, 08/12/10
@unigugu- "I feel IL is trying very hard ruin Toyota's reputation intentionally"
I didn't get that at all from the posting. My impression was that the author was trying to make the connection between court cases and the power of the media.
brn says:
03:40 PM, 08/12/10
unigugu: "I feel IL is trying very hard ruin Toyota's reputation intentionally"
You're reading a different IL than the rest of us.
szn1 says:
09:39 PM, 08/12/10
Obviously this guy didn't do it intentionally, duh.
But the fact is, the car was stated to have accelerated from 70 to 90. Even a slight downhill, this would have taken a few seconds for this car to have accomplished that. When would a reasonable person realize that the car WASN'T slowing down and realize that he was pushing the accelerator instead of the brake.
Tragic accident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZl1CZmc6g4 Look how long it took the car to go from 60-80 ~10 seconds or so.. It would have taken even longer from 70-90 since he would have been a gear higher. Granted this is anecdotal evidence since we don't know if his car was a v6, the ground level etc. but it gives you a general idea of how slow that car really is and how hard he would have had to f up to go from 70-90 w/o realizing it.
lostboyz says:
03:40 AM, 08/13/10
he didn't accelerate from 70 to 90, he accelerated to some value that is between 70 and 90.
goaterguy says:
12:55 PM, 08/13/10
kevm14 says:
"96 Camry = throttle cable."
This says it all. The only computer that wasn't working was the one between his ears.
lt1boy says:
06:59 PM, 08/15/10
I'd have to agree with scottyscooter with this one. Mr. Lee should have never gone to prison in the first place.
He did not kill anybody intentionally. He was not drunk behind the wheel, or intoxicated, or did anything irresponsible to impair his driving.
Either his car had unintended acceleration, or he confused the gas and brake pedals. In the latter case, he is only guilty of making an erronous mistake at an unfortunate time - being a bad driver, perhaps. But any one of us could have accidentally done what Mr. Lee did.
If I was his defense attorney, I'd sue the state of Minnesota for millions for giving him an unfair trial and for sentencing him to prison for a crime he did not commit.
Was the reason why Mr. Lee sent to prison was because he was Asian, perhaps? How many people whose Toyotas experienced "unintended acceleration" were issued reckless driving tickets? I bet you none of them were, unless they were a minority.