Quote:
Originally Posted by su_maverick
.The fact that Ward placed himself into an extremely dangerous situation and even moved to be directly in the line of Stewart would render a civil trial very tough to prove unless there is sufficient evidence for a criminal one (Stewart did something intentionally that lead to the death of Ward).
|
One more (and last) time. Criminal liability is not contingent on intent. The terms negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter are appropriately descriptive. If Stewart nailed the gas at 40 MPH under yellow, since there is absolutely no need, that would be enough. As a pro he is well aware what 600 HP at 40 MPH on dirt can do. Witness the guys spinning at Indy on the pace lap.
Making the "lack of intent can still be criminal" thing clear (it's widely misunderstood by the media) is one reason the article is a good one.
If he is found guilty or pleads to any crime at all, the civil case is a slam dunk. In any event a multimillion dollar settlement is no doubt better for Stewart than a trial.
Whether they have strong legal significance or not, Stewart's reputation and past actions are going to make any process more difficult for him. They'll almost certainly be admissible, as a "pattern of conduct".
The lawyer quoted in the article is clearly not in the bottom of his profession. Law school professor (even at a school rated 68th of 200) with several publications puts him well into the top 10%.
Finally, Stewart would definitely be looking that way, if only to see how badly the other car was messed up. The idea any pro would be staring straight ahead, ignoring the scene, like a racehorse with blinders, is not credible.
Everything turns on one question. Did he nail the gas? If not, everything everybody says about the difficulty of proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, is true. But if he did, that's enough, intent to harm Ward or not. I'll bet the video is good enough to show wheelspin, and that the prosecutor has forensic scientists studying it in detail.