“The defense had argued Dinkins, who had a .20 blood alcohol content at the time of the accident, couldn’t be guilty of murder because he was too drunk to know what he was doing. The legal blood alcohol limit is .08.”
Has to be about the most stupid line of “reasoning” ever proffered by a scumbag defense attorney.
He was sober as he drank and made each decision to have another drink. What he did after he decided to get that drunk (drive) is his responsibility.
The line of reasoning is like saying, “Sure my client purchased a handgun illegally. Sure he loaded it, he hid it on his person, he walked into a bank, he robbed a teller with it. But it wasn’t his fault and it wasn’t his intent that he shot and killed a security guard who tried to stop him. That wasn’t part of his plan.”
BINGO! It was frustrating to be isolated from the jury room—especially knowing that the law and the facts of the case were black and white. I think the killer may actually have a case of malpractice from his counsel. This scumbag bastard attorney was basically calling for jury nullification, trying to get the jury to ignore the parameters of the law. His whole pitch was for manslaughter instead of murder 2 having ceded that all evidence to convict was indisputable.
The crime was done when Dinkins put the car in gear and ultimately wound up not just killing a baby, but dragging her under his SUV a mile and a half until her head was ground down like a pencil eraser. They couldn’t even find more than one tiny skull fragment, just one long bloody smear in the road from where he should have stopped to his girlfriend’s driveway.
As revolting as the coroner’s photos were, some ironically impacted me more than others. There were several DOZEN pictures of those plastic yellow numbers next to shredded pieces of pink fabric from her sweat pants. But the kicker for me (the one I can’t stop dreaming about) was one that showed her profile on her right side of her face. Only slightly bruised and scraped, she looked whole, angelic, peaceful. The others were ... I won’t describe it. God bless her parents who had to Identify her the day after it happened.
It should have taken 15 minutes to return the proper verdict. The law was clear. The evidence was clear. This was murder with malice aforethought. Textbook. Any other verdict would be a mockery of our system of justice. This was the very kind of act that this law was made to protect society from.
The line of reasoning is like saying, “Sure my client purchased a handgun illegally. Sure he loaded it, he hid it on his person, he walked into a bank, he robbed a teller with it. But it wasn’t his fault and it wasn’t his intent that he shot and killed a security guard who tried to stop him. That wasn’t part of his plan.”
Actually your post is incorrect and illogical.
The more alcohol you consume, the more your judgment and coordination are impaired. So in your first statement, the issue becomes how much you have consumed and how much that consumption has eliminated your ability to make sound decisions. (intent)
While in your second example, absent some mental impairment, each step you outline are examples of intent - including the decision, made while unimpaired by any substance, to shoot someone that tries to stop you.
Your analogy is flawed.
The defense attorney, who has an obligation to make sure the State has met it's burden of proof, made a legal argument that due to the high level of intoxication the defendant was unable to form the specific intent to kill. Specific intent to kill is an element that the State must prove in a normal murder trial. Most states have a specific statute regarding homicide by motor vehicle while intoxicated that contains no intent requirement for just this reason. All the state must prove is that you were operating/in control of a vehicle, you were intoxicated and you killed someone with the vehicle.
I won't bore you with the discussion on whether voluntary intoxication should/should not/is a defense to a specific intent crime, however that issue is germane as well.
However you might try removing emotion from your analysis.
I remember when killing people while driving drunk - even multiple offenses- was not seen as a crime.
It is a crime to drive drunk if you care about not taking innocent human life.
Maybe his attorney wanted him to be convicted.