But you don't even know any of the facts of the case? How would you have no hesitation when you have no idea what happened and haven't even listened to the defenses argument?
That's enough for me. Don't care what the arguments are, how much they were peer pressured or what their home lives were like. Obviously if the argument is "the cops got the wrong guy" then I'll listen to it.
I know all of these things, and furthermore, I'm not in the jurisdiction so it's all a hypothetical. I'm saying that in the hypothetical where I am asked to pass judgment on, and sentence, someone who street raced (for any reason) and killed a person, I would with no hesitations sentence that person to life without parole, and would probably only hesitate about an hour before sentencing them to death.
As far as I can find the lawyers are trying to get the only objective piece of evidence - the cars own logs - thrown out. Claim the witnesses are unreliable at judging speed and are clinging to an early statement that it might have been "low speed collision".
If we give them the benefit of the doubt why would they try to get rid of evidence that they were driving within legal limits? Especially when they have to deal with several "unreliable" witnesses claiming that they were driving too fast?
