Kerry Kennedy, the daughter of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy and ex-wife of Governor Andrew Cuomo, was charged on July 13th with DWAID, or driving while ability impaired by drugs in Armonk, New York. The charges stem from an incident at approximately 8:00 AM on July 13, 2012 when Kennedy was allegedly driving her 2008 Lexus 350 erratically and struck a tractor-trailer on I-684 southbound near Exit 4 in Mount Kisco. Supposedly, Ms. Kennedy then left the scene and exited the highway at Exit 3 on Route 22, where she was found with a flat tire, slumped over her steering wheel, by a North Castle police officer.

Reports say that Ms. Kennedy failed the 3 Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, including the nystagmus test, walk and turn, and one leg stand. The District Attorney’s Office states that Ms. Kennedy informed the investigating officer that she had taken an Ambien before driving. Ms. Kennedy has alleged that she may have had a seizure at the time of the accident, and has stated that she has no memory of anything from the time she entered 684 until a police officer was at her car door and began asking her questions.

Preliminary reports show that Ms. Kennedy had no alcohol in her system, but although she and her attorney have claimed that drugs tests were also negative, this would seem to be premature, as laboratory reports are usually not available within 4 days of a DWI charge. Ms. Kennedy is charged with the misdemeanor of DWAID, and it possible that she could also be charged with leaving the scene of a property damage accident under section 600 (1) (a) of the New York State Vehicle & Traffic Law, which is a traffic infraction and not a crime.

Ms. Kennedy was arraigned on July 17, 2012 in North Castle Town Court and pled not guilty to the charges against her. If she were convicted of the DWAID charge, she would face a six month revocation of her driver’s license; a $500.00 fine and mandatory New York State surcharge of $400.00; be required to install and maintain an ignition interlock device (IID) in any vehicle she owned or operated for one year; be screened for alcohol and/or substance abuse, be required to attend a 7 week Drinking Driver Program sponsored by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (known as the “DDP”), and also be required to attend a Victim Impact Panel. Further, she would be facing an additional fine of $750.00 known as a “Driver’s Responsibility Assessment” from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Ms. Kennedy was ordered to be evaluated for alcohol and drug abuse and fingerprinted by Town Justice Elyse Lazansky. She is due back in Court on August 14, 2012.

Continue reading ›

On Sunday, June 10, 2012, New York Giants offensive lineman David Diehl was charged with DWI in Queens, New York. Apparently, at approximately 8:20 PM, after watching a soccer game at a bar in Astoria, Diehl entered his BMW and struck two parked vehicles on 35th Avenue near 31st Street. Diehl was arrested and brought before a Queens judge that evening. He spent the night in jail and was released on his own recognizance the following morning.

After being apprehended by police, Diehl submitted to a breathalyzer, which purportedly revealed a BAC of 0.18% of alcohol. Under the New York State vehicle & Traffic Law, anyone operating a motor vehicle in the State of New York with a BAC (blood alcohol concentration) of 0.08% or above is charged with a DWI. However, if the driver’s BAC is 0.18% or above, they are likely to be charged with aggravated DWI, which is a relatively recent enhanced charge that was first instituted in New York in 2006. Thus, although it has been reported that Diehl is being charged with DWI, the charges could be amended to include an aggravated DWI violation.

Since Diehl reportedly has a driver’s license issued in New Jersey, the New York Courts do not have jurisdiction to suspend or revoke his driver’s license on the DWI charge. In this situation, the Queens County judge suspended Diehl’s privileges to operate a vehicle in the State of New York, rather than his driver’s license, under the doctrine of “suspension pending prosecution.” Many people have the false notion that there is a constitutional right to a driver’s license, and express protest over this doctrine, since it is unknown whether the charges against Diehl will be proven. However, a driver’s license is a privilege, rather than a right, and thus, there is no valid constitutional objection to the suspension of a driver’s license or privilege pending prosecution.

If Diehl were to be convicted or pled guilty to the DWI charges, he would have his license revoked for a minimum of at least six months, be required to install an ignition interlock device (IID) in any vehicle he owns or operates for at least six months, have to pay fines and surcharges approaching $1,000, have to be assessed and possibly treated for alcohol abuse, pay additional fines to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles in the amount of $750.00 for what is called a “Driver’s Responsibility Assessment”, and be required to attend the Drinking Driver Program (DDP) at the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, which is a seven week program sponsored by the New York DMV.

If Diehl were to be convicted on an aggravated DWI charge, he would pay additional fines in the amount of approximately $1,400, and have his license revoked for at least one year. He would also be subject to the remainder of the above conditions of treatment, IID installation, alcohol screening and payment of the Assessment.

Continue reading ›

In November of 2009, New York State enacted Leandra’s Law after the tragic death of 11 year old Leandra Rosado, who was killed when a friend’s mother drove while intoxicated on the way to a birthday party. One of the main provisions of the statute was that anyone convicted or who pled guilty to a DWI related crime (with the exception of driving while ability impaired, which is a traffic infraction, not a crime, and thus not included in the statute) would be required to install and maintain an ignition interlock device (IID) in any vehicle they own or operate for at least 6 months. The IID prevents a driver from starting a vehicle unless they blow into the device with alcohol free breath (the device is actually calibrated to detect a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of approximately 0.2%). Additionally, the operator of the vehicle must continue to use the device in regularly scheduled intervals as they drive the vehicle, approximately every 15-30 minutes, and if he or she fails any of these tests, the vehicle will lock up if a re-test is not passed within a short period of time.

Apparently, what state lawmakers are addressing is that approximately 30% of drivers are complying with the requirements of the law. According to an article in the Journal News published this past week and written by Aaron Scholder, many drivers have circumvented the law by transferring the ownership of their vehicles to family members until the IID requirement is over (although the law requires a minimum of six months, in my experience, it is almost always for one year), or driving vehicles other than their own which do not have the IID installed. New York State Transportation Committee Chairman Charles Fuschillo cites statistics that only 31% of those convicted of DWI have installed the devices in their vehicles, or approximately 7,100 drivers. Many convicted under Leandra’s Law will simply claim that they do not own a vehicle or have access to one, and sign a certification or swear under oath to that effect. To address this problem, the State Senate wants to require that those convicted under the law who claim to have no car wear an ankle bracelet that would monitor alcohol levels.

The legislation passed by the Senate has now been delivered to the State Assembly for their review, but seems to have stalled. Considering that the session will end at the end of June, the pressure is on the Assembly to act on the new bill. It would appear that no legislator would want to publicly oppose a law which seeks to address problems in a statute already on the books, but there is certainly the possibility that the new law will not pass both chambers prior to the late June end of session.

Continue reading ›

John Goodman, the Florida multimillionaire who was found guilty of DUI manslaughter in March of this year, was sentenced to 16 years in jail and a $10,000 fine by Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath on May 11, 2012. In sentencing Goodman, Colbath noted that his motivation after the accident occurred was only “to save himself”, and not to assist the victim Scott Wilson, who died in the accident.

Colbath denied the application of Goodman for a new trial after his March 23, 2012 conviction for vehicular homicide and DUI manslaughter. (In Florida it is known as DUI Manslaughter, which means driving under the influence, rather than driving while intoxicated in New York State). As we originally reported in March, the accident which killed 23 year old engineer Scott Wilson occurred on February 12, 2010 when Goodman’s Bentley passed through a stop sign and broad sided Wilson’s vehicle at approximately 63 miles per hour. Wilson’s car flipped over and was apparently pushed into a canal by Goodman’s car. The prosecution was able to prove that Goodman’s BAC (blood alcohol concentration) at the time of the crash was .177%, more than double the legal limit of 0.08%.

Goodman’s attorneys initially moved for a new trial based on the statements of one juror, Michael St. John, who alleged that he was pressured into the decision to find Goodman guilty in Wilson’s death. However, the prosecution argued successfully to Judge Colbath that these statements were too late, as when the jury originally announced its verdict, Mr. St. John indicated his agreement with the verdict and did not claim that he had been pressured. In denying the new trial motion, the judge stated: “To allow such decisions to be attacked months or even years after the close of a case because a juror experiences post-verdict regret would open our trial system to a virtual onslaught of attacks from dissatisfied parties and jurors.”

There was then a second application by Goodman’s attorneys for a new trial, as the result of the publication last week of a book by another juror, Dennis DeMartin, entitled “Believing In The Truth.” In the book, DeMartin reveals that during the case, before deliberations began, he engaged in an experiment in which he drank three vodkas the night before the jury deliberated to determine what impact this would have on his driving. Goodman had testified during the trial that he had only three drinks before the fatal crash, which would seem to be belied by the evidence that his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was noted to be .177%, more than double the legal limit.

During preliminary instructions to the jury, judges generally inform the jurors that they should not read, listen to, or attempt to obtain any external evidence, including returning to crime scenes or reenacting any elements of an event. Judge Colbath, an experienced jurist, undoubtedly gave the jurors an instruction to avoid any external evidence during the pendency of the case, but DeMartin has claimed that he didn’t recall Judge Colbath instructing the jurors not to conduct any experiments. Based upon DeMartin’s allegations about the drinking experiment he performed, Goodman’s attorneys asked that the guilty verdict be tossed out as a result of what they claimed was a clear case of juror misconduct, stating “Mr. DeMartin flagrantly violated this Court’s instructions not to engage in personal investigations into the facts…” However, Judge Colbath rejected this second application for a new trial as well.

Although it is rare, there have been cases in which a verdict was thrown out due to juror experiments. For example, in 1986 in California in a case involving defendant Johnny Ramon Castro, a juror used binoculars to confirm the accuracy of the testimony of a prison guard who had testified that be viewed the defendant with binoculars during a prison riot. The verdict was overturned, despite the fact that the judge in the Castro case never specifically instructed the jurors not to conduct experiments, which Judge Colbath did do in the Goodman case.

Goodman could have faced up to 30 years in prison. He has been released on seven million dollar bond while his appeal is pending. Goodman is on house arrest, will be monitored with a GPS device, is not permitted to apply for a passport and his driver’s license has been permanently revoked.

Continue reading ›

When stopped on a DWI charge in New York, the investigating officer will conduct what are known as “Standardized Field Sobriety Tests.” (SFTS) These tests are utilized by law enforcement officers to establish probable cause prior to the arrest of a driver who is suspected of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. A standardized field sobriety test is one of three separate tests which were designed to, and allegedly can successfully, predict a driver’s level of impairment. The SFST was created based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) research. The NHTSA sponsors a formal field sobriety test training program designed to teach police how to more accurately detect individuals who are potentially driving while intoxicated (DWI). The NHTSA’s field sobriety test program is administered by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The three components of a standard field sobriety test are the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN), the walk-and-turn (WAT), and the one-leg stand (OLS). HGN testing evaluates an allegedly intoxicated driver’s natural eye movements. The human eye involuntarily jerks when gazing too far to the side. In an allegedly intoxicated driver, the natural jerking motion occurs at a lesser angle than under normal circumstances. During the HGN, a police officer will evaluate how a driver’s eyes track a slowly moving object such as a flashlight or pencil. Throughout the exercise, the officer is examining whether the driver has the ability to follow the object smoothly and at what angle involuntary jerking of the eye occurs. According to NHTSA research, the HGN is capable of accurately predicting a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 (the standard for intoxication in New York and many other states) about 88 percent of the time. This testing may not successfully establish alcohol impairment, however, as seizure medications and other drugs can also affect a driver’s ability to track slow moving objects. Further, if the driver has allergies or recently suffered a concussion, (which the officer is required to inquire about but often do not), the test results will likely not be accurate.

Both the WAT and OLS tests are “Divided attention tests”< which measure both the driver's ability to perform physical tasks and follow instructions at the same time. Both examinations require an allegedly intoxicated driver to simultaneously listen, follow instructions, and perform specific physical movements. Normally, most individuals who have consumed alcohol will find the tasks more difficult to perform than those who have not.

A WAT test requires a driver to take nine heel-to-toe steps along a straight line, turn on one foot and repeat the exercise in the opposite direction. During the test, a law enforcement officer is examining a driver’s balance and ability to follow directions. According to NHTSA research, a failed WAT test accurately predicts a blood alcohol level of .08 approximately 79 percent of the time. An OLS examination requires a driver who is suspected of being intoxicated to stand on one foot and count aloud for about 30 seconds. During the test, a police officer is again watching the driver’s ability to maintain their balance. According to the NHTSA, the OLS test can accurately predict a blood alcohol level of .08 in approximately 83 percent of cases.

A DWI charge in the State of New York can result in serious repercussions for a driver. Most individuals who are accused of DWI fear they will lose their driving privileges, or are concerned that losing their license will cause a loss of employment and consequential implications for their families. If you are charged with DWI felony DWI under Leandra’s Law or any other impaired driving charge, you need to consult with a knowledgeable criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Continue reading ›

Earlier this month, an allegedly intoxicated Hudson Falls man was arrested after he reportedly drove in the wrong direction on southbound Interstate 87. According to the Warren County Sheriff’s Office, 32-year-old Jeremy Belden was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) following the incident. The arrest was Mr. Belden’s sixth DWI charge in approximately nine years. It was also the fourth time Mr. Belden was accused of felony DWI.

Mr. Belden was reportedly driving on a revoked driver’s license. At the time of his arrest, he was on probation and his automobile was not equipped with an ignition interlock device (IID) installed as required by the sentencing court. Although no one was injured during the incident, Mr. Belden is now facing felony DWI charges, reckless endangerment, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, and a misdemeanor charge of operating a motor vehicle that was not equipped with an ignition interlock device.

An IID is connected to the engine of a motor vehicle and its primary purpose is to prevent intoxicated drivers from operating motor vehicles on roadways in New York and other states. Since August 15, 2010, any driver who is convicted of any DWI charge (but not a DWAI, which is a traffic infraction, and not a crime) in the State of New York must have an ignition interlock device installed in any vehicle the driver owns or operates before he or she may resume driving a motor vehicle. An ignition interlock device will not allow the engine of a motor vehicle to start without first taking a breath sample to determine the level of alcohol in a driver’s system. If the alcohol level is above .025 percent, the engine will not start and the driver must retest. Drivers must also retest during specified intervals once the engine has started. The device will forward information regarding any failed tests to the driver’s sentencing court, the District Attorney’s Office, and the driver’s probation department.

Following a DWI conviction in New York, an ignition interlock device must be installed for at least 6 months. Monthly maintenance and installation fees are collected from a driver who is convicted of DWI unless the driver can demonstrate financial hardship or an inability to pay. Additionally, any ignition interlock device requirement is also noted on a driver’s operator license in an effort to ensure the driver fully complies with the requirement. Any evidence of tampering with the device may result in criminal charges.

A New York DWI charge can have serious implications for a driver. Most people charged with DWI do not want to lose their driving privileges and worry their job or family will be affected. If you were charged with DWI, you should contact a skilled criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Continue reading ›

On March 26th, Bobby Brown, the 43 year old ex-husband of the late Whitney Houston, was arrested on driving while intoxicated charges in Los Angeles. He was apparently observed speaking on a cell phone without a hands-free device when he was pulled over at approximately 12:30 PM. The arresting officer requested that Brown perform Field Sobriety tests, which he allegedly failed.

It has been illegal to speak on a cell phone without a hands-free device in California since 2009. In New York, the law was recently changed under section 1225 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to make a cell phone violation a 3 point infraction, in addition to $150.00 fine for the violation.

Mr. Brown has a prior DUI conviction in Georgia in 1996 and served 8 days in prison. Fortunately for him, in California, DWI convictions remain on a driver’s record for only 10 years, so the 1996 Georgia conviction will not affect the outcome of Brown’s present charges in California.

After Brown was stopped on March 26, he submitted to a breathalyzer which reportedly revealed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.12%, which is higher than the legal limit of 0.08%, The legal limit was reduced to 0.08% from 0.10% in California in 1990. If Mr. Brown is convicted or pleads guilty to the DUI charges in California, he is subject to a fine of up to $1,000.00, a possible jail term of up to six months, and a six month license suspension.

If Mr. Brown was found guilty of DWI charges in New York, he would be contending with a six month revocation of his driver’s license; a $500.00 fine and mandatory New York State surcharge of $400.00; be required to install and maintain an ignition interlock device (IID) in any vehicle he owns or operates for one year; be screened for alcohol/substance abuse, be required to attend a 7 week “Drinking Driver Program” sponsored by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (known as the “DDP”), and also be required to attend a Victim Impact Panel sponsored by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Further, he would be facing an additional fine of $750.00 known as a “Driver’s Responsibility Assessment” from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Continue reading ›

The New York City Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau is currently investigating a police officer who was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated while operating his police cruiser late last month. 31-year-old Christopher Morris was arrested after he drove his police cruiser into a light pole while on duty. Although no one was injured, the pole struck a parked van following the early morning crash.

His fellow officers purportedly knew Morris had consumed alcohol prior to the accident. Before his shift, Morris attended a fundraiser with several other officers on behalf on another officer killed in the line of duty in December 2011. At the event, Morris’ co-workers allegedly realized he was intoxicated and requested that he be placed on desk duty during his shift that evening in order to keep him off of the streets in his patrol car. Instead, Morris was allowed to enter his vehicle and crashed shortly thereafter.

After the collision, the five year police veteran refused a breathalyzer test. Morris was taken into custody for driving while intoxicated after a police supervisor reportedly smelled alcohol on his breath. He was also suspended from the police force for 30 days.

A driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge can have serious implications. Most people charged with driving while intoxicated are concerned with potentially losing their driving privileges and how the charge might affect their job or family members. The potential penalties for DWI, aggravated DWI, or DWAID (driving while ability impaired by drugs) include fines, jail time, mandatory alcohol evaluation, screening and or treatment, the requirement to install and maintain an ignition interlock device (IID) in any vehicles the person owns or operates for 1 year, and the suspension or revocation of the accused individual’s driving license. The penalties for those with a commercial driver’s license are even more severe and can certainly cause loss of employment or job opportunities.

Since 2006, a New York driver with a blood alcohol content greater than .18 will be charged with aggravated driving while intoxicated. If convicted on an aggravated DWI charge, a driver will automatically lose his or her driving license for one year. If you were accused of driving while intoxicated or while ability impaired by drugs, you need the services of an experienced, knowledgeable attorney as soon as possible.

Continue reading ›

On March 23, 2012, after approximately five hours of deliberations and testimony from competing experts and the defendant himself, a Palm Beach County jury comprised of 5 men and 1 woman convicted multimillionaire Polo Club founder John Goodman, 48, of DUI Manslaughter and vehicular homicide in the February 12, 2010 fatal crash which claimed the life of 23 year old engineering graduate Scott Wilson. The accident occurred when Goodman’s Bentley went through a stop sign and broad sided Wilson’s vehicle at approximately 63 miles per hour. Wilson’s vehicle flipped over and was apparently pushed into a canal by Goodman’s car. The prosecution offered evidence that Goodman’s BAC (blood alcohol concentration) at the time of the crash was .177%, more than double the legal limit of 0.08%.

Further, the prosecution showed that after the accident, Goodman left the scene without assisting Mr. Wilson or calling 911, and through testimony from the medical examiner, that Mr. Wilson died not from his injuries from the accident, (which were described as “superficial”), but rather from drowning. As a result, Goodman was also convicted of failing to provide aid to Wilson, which will lead to a longer jail sentence.

Mr. Goodman retained noted defense attorney Roy Black (famous for his successful representation of JFK nephew William Kennedy Smith in 1991 on rape charges), who lodged a two part defense: First, Black argued that Goodman was not drunk at the time of the accident; rather, he began drinking after the accident. Black contended that after the shock of the accident, Mr. Goodman walked to a local bar, where he drank a half bottle of liquor. Secondly, Black contended that Goodman’s Bentley had a throttle malfunction, causing him to be unable to stop his vehicle as he approached the stop sign. As to the first contention, the defense introduced the testimony of friends of Mr. Goodman, who specifically denied seeing him drink any alcohol that evening. As to the vehicle malfunction argument, there were competing experts from the prosecution and the defense, arguing whether vehicle codes in the vehicle were set prior to the crash, (proving a throttle malfunction), or after the crash, as the prosecution’s expert testified.

The defense also argued that Goodman suffered a concussion in the accident which prevented him from remembering what had occurred or offering any assistance to Mr. Wilson. In support of this argument, they took the risky step of putting Mr. Goodman on the stand, who was unable to recall almost anything of the evening’s events other than he was not intoxicated at the time of the deadly crash. Without question, Goodman’s testimony did not help his cause. One juror, Dennis DeMartin, called putting Goodman on the stand a “big mistake” after he stumbled through three hours of cross examination and acknowledged having 3 or 4 drinks prior to the accident in contradiction of his defense’ main contention that he had nothing to drink before the accident. The defense was also hurt significantly by testimony of Goodman’s girlfriend, who denied that he complained of any head injury, and the emergency room nurse, who testified that Goodman complained only of wrist pain.

Mr. Goodman faces 30 years in prison on the manslaughter and vehicular homicide charges when he is sentenced on April 30th. Mr. Black has vowed to appeal, citing “multiple errors…committed during and before the trial that, in effect, denied our client’s ability to get a fair trial.” In an unusual decision undoubtedly made as a result of Goodman’s considerable wealth and potential as a flight risk, Judge Jeffrey Colbath denied Goodman’s application for bail while Goodman awaits sentencing.

In all likelihood, Goodman will end up getting a sentence of approximately 12-15 years when he is sentenced on April 30th.

Continue reading ›

There is a DWI trial going on in West Palm Beach now that has captured widespread attention around the U.S. The case involves 48 year old Houston multimillionaire John Goodman, who is charged in the February 12, 2010 death of 23 year old Scott Wilson, who was killed when Goodman’s $200,000 Bentley went through a stop sign and struck Wilson’s vehicle. The accident caused Wilson’s Hyundai to flip over and into a canal, where Wilson drowned. The evidence presented in Court allegedly shows that Goodman’s BAC (blood alcohol concentration) was more than twice the legal limit at the time of the accident.

According to the local medical examiner, Wilson would not have died from his physical injuries in the accident. Accident reconstruction experts claim that the Bentley was traveling at 63 miles per hour at the time of the crash.

Goodman is charged with DUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of a serious personal injury accident, and could face up to thirty years in prison if convicted of the charges. The prosecution contends that Goodman’s BAC was approximately 0.18%, more than twice Florida’s legal limit of 0.08%. Ellen Roberts, the prosecutor, informed the jury that Goodman consumed between 16 and 18 drinks before entering his vehicle. They presented evidence from Palm Beach County Sheriff Richard Safford, who testified that Goodman smelled as if alcohol was “almost coming directly from his pores…” and that he had to roll down his windows to let the smell clear out of his vehicle after transporting Goodman to the precinct.

The defense has offered two arguments for Goodman’s innocence. First, they contend that Goodman was not intoxicated prior to the accident, but rather, began drinking after the accident to deal with the pain of his injuries, which include a shattered wrist, broken sternum and an unspecified head injury. The second contention the defense has made is that a malfunction in the Bentley caused the vehicle to accelerate rather than stop when Goodman approached the stop sign.

In disputing the first contention, the prosecution has offered the testimony of two witnesses who observed Goodman drinking at two establishments before the accident. As for the second argument, Ms. Roberts presented the testimony of Wellington Regional Medical Center nurse Cecilia Betts, who testified that Goodman never made any complaints of dizziness, headache, or any other signs of a head injury at the hospital, only wrist pain. Further, during her testimony, Goodman’s girlfriend Heather Laruso Hutchins did not recall Goodman complaining about pain other than of his wrist.

The defense also claims that a purported head injury suffered by Goodman caused him to forget that he had struck another vehicle and that the occupant of that vehicle would need assistance, or at least a call to 911. Goodman apparently left the scene without making an effort to assist in a rescue of Mr. Wilson after the accident. Goodman’s attorney claims that Goodman suffered a concussion, which was responsible for his conduct. However, the prosecution presented evidence that Wilson was able to call his girlfriend to notify her of the accident, and also was physically and mentally capable of walking to another bar and ordering additional drinks.

Two other facts about this case bear mention. First, Goodman’s attorneys have apparently settled a civil wrongful death action with Wilson’s parents for an undisclosed sum. Secondly, in a bizarre twist, Goodman has adopted his 42 year old girlfriend, ostensibly in an effort to protect his substantial assets.

To watch a computer recreation of the Goodman DWI crash, go to this link from the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

Continue reading ›