Posted on 05/09/2023 7:25:05 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Attorneys representing the accused drunk driver who struck and killed newlywed bride Samantha Hutchinson on the day of her South Carolina nuptials are asking the public “not to rush to judgment.”
Jamie Lee Komoroski, 25, last week retained two high-powered attorneys, Nathan S. Williams and Christopher S. Gramiccioni, to defend her in her criminal case.
Williams is a former federal prosecutor best known for trying mass shooter Dylann Roof and convincing a jury to give him the death penalty.
Gramiccioni spent nearly a decade serving as a prosecutor in Monmouth County, New Jersey, before entering private practice in 2021.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Wonder what their screen names are.
and...how does the evil broad afford these lawyers?
The way the American legal system works is for each side to throw everything they have at it. Unlike the French system where all the lawyers are "seeking truth" - works fine for your average case, but if there's a lot of publicity and some social pressure, it does not work at all (see Alfred Dreyfus).
It has its downside - wealthier people get better representation as a general rule. Although the public defenders do a surprisingly good job, and you're better off with one of them than picking somebody out of the phone book.
A criminal defense lawyer friend of mine says, when people ask him "how can you defend this guilty person?" -- "My job is not to get somebody off . . . it's to make the State prove its case." Because when the entire machinery of the State plus public opinion is against a criminal defendant, it's not a fair fight unless the defense gives its all.
(I've been in the legal biz since 1980, in the appeals system for over 30 years. Never been in criminal practice so I have no axe to grind.)
Trade?
Why is more space given to the attorneys than to the person who apparently was responsible for the tragedy? What’s her story - background etc.?
Lawyers have already clamped down on that.
Uh, I am kind of dumb. She was driving drunk, killed a bride, was caught and this fool says, “Do not rush to judgment?” I am simply guessing but it may be that I am smarter than this scheister! ;-)
My opinion would be (not that anyone would care) that judging a person’s ability to drive strictly by their blood alcohol level is a miscarriage of justice.
A non drinker can and often is more impaired after one beer or glass of wine, than someone who drinks a six pack a week is if they blow .08.
Anybody can be hit by a car if they behave in a stupid way. That should be taken into consideration.
Just so you know, I’m a non drinker...
” I am simply guessing but it may be that I am smarter than this scheister!”
Who is making the big bucks?
BS. She was drunk and driving at a high rate of speed.
She was wrong and ended up killing someone.
She’s guilty of causing her death.
There’s no *judgment* there.
Those are the facts.
She was going 65 in a 25 mph zone. She refused a sobriety test, so they went to a judge and got a warrant to draw her blood. She is being held without bail (this is South Caroline). Apparently her family is wealthy, as someone hired those fancy lawyers.
I do not know how much money he makes. You are assuming that he makes big bucks but that I do not make big bucks. Assuming makes an ass out of you, not me. ;-)
And, FYI, I do make big bucks on prior investments.
“You are assuming that he makes big bucks but that I do not make big bucks. “
I assumed nothing. OTOH, you stated you were smarter than someone else without basis.
Yet she killed a bride, so I think your point makes no sense in this case.
My comment was about rushing to judgement, not about this specific case. She could have been over the limit or under the limit and be negligent. But we should not judge her just with the limit alone.
That is the news that has been put out by the media. You do not know that it is true, or that it would be admissible in court.
Trying a case in the newspaper is complete and total idiocy. In every single case I have been involved in that made the news, in some 45 years of practicing law, the news got the facts wrong. Not just a little wrong -- dead wrong. In every single case.
She may be guilty as charged. Or, she may not be. But you can't prove anything by what the newspapers/TV/radio chose to report.
“you stated you were smarter than someone else without basis.”
I stated no such thing. I said, “may be”
In addition you certainly did assume because you implied that the lawyer was making big bucks.
However, I am wondering why you would attack a fellow Texan about such a benign topic.
Go away son, before you embarrass yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.