Minnesota judge frees man convicted in acceleration crash of Toyota

Josh

Lifer
Mar 20, 2000
10,917
0
0
(CNN) -- A Minnesota man sent to prison after the deadly sudden-acceleration crash of his Toyota Camry has been freed by a judge, and the local prosecutor says he will not be retried.

Ramsey County, Minnesota, District Court Judge Joanne Smith on Thursday ordered Koua Fong Lee released from prison pending a new trial related to the 2006 crash that killed three people. Ramsey County Prosecutor Susan Gaertner immediately said she would drop the charges.

"Mr. Lee will be a free man," Gaertner said in a written statement.

Outside the courtroom after the ruling, Lee, 32, said he wanted his four children, one of whom was born after he was jailed, to know what "Daddy" means.

"It's a long time," he said with tears in his eyes. "They don't know me."

Lee had always maintained his innocence, saying the 1996 Camry accelerated uncontrollably before it crashed into two vehicles, killing a man and his 10-year-old son and a 6-year-old girl.

On Thursday, Lee asked the family to forgive him and believe his story.

In fact, the family of the victims had long ago become convinced of Lee's innocence and joined the effort to free him. They are suing Toyota.

"It's a bittersweet victory," Bridgette Trice, whose daughter died of injuries suffered in crash, told CNN affiliate KARE-TV on Thursday. "I'm happy for the Lee family, that they're getting their justice. We want answers, and they're coming slowly but they're coming surely."

Mae Adams, whose nephews died in the accident, told KARE, "Our day is yet to come. ... We couldn't let this man sit in jail, no matter how much we wanted to know what happened."

Lee was driving home from Sunday services with his pregnant wife, and father, daughter, brother and niece. He told investigators that he pumped the brakes as he exited Interstate 94 in St. Paul, Minnesota, and approached an intersection, said his new lawyer, Brent Schafer.

But Ramsey County prosecutors asserted at trial that Lee had his foot on the gas as he approached cars waiting at a red light. The car was moving at 70 to 90 mph when it struck the other vehicles.

Two mechanical engineers examined the car before trial on behalf of the state and the defense, Gaertner said earlier this year. Both concluded the brakes were operating and there were no problems with the acceleration, she said.

"Bottom line, two experts -- one for each side -- said there was nothing wrong with the car," she said.

A jury convicted Lee of criminal vehicular homicide in 2007, and he was sentenced to eight years in prison. But he continued to maintain his innocence.

"I know that lives were lost that day, but I did everything within my power to try to stop that vehicle," Lee said in a prison interview with KARE last spring. "I never intended for this to happen."

The 1996 Camry is not a part of Toyota's recall.

Lee's accident is among the first of a growing number of cases getting a second look since Toyota announced the recall, acknowledging that problems with sudden acceleration were more extensive than originally thought.

In testimony before Congress, company executives apologized for underestimating the problem.

Toyota recalled more than 8 million vehicles, prompting Schafer to seek a re-examination of the vehicle in the 2006 accident.

"This never seemed right. A man with his family in the car -- his pregnant wife -- goes on a suicide mission? Then, the recalls started, and the complaints sounded just like what happened to Mr. Lee," Schafer said in March. "It sounds just like a case of unintended acceleration."

In the end, though, the conviction was vacated not only because of evidence of mechanical failure, but also because Judge Smith determined Lee's original attorney, Tracy Eichhorn-Hicks, had failed to defend him adequately at trial.

Eichhorn-Hicks had stated in court that Lee must have had his foot on the accelerator, even though Lee himself always maintained that he had pumped the brake to no avail.

"Compelling evidence was produced at Mr. Lee's evidentiary hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel," prosecutor Gaertner's statement said.

"I wish Mr. Lee and his family the very best."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/06/toyota.recall.appeal/


Interesting comments at the end of the CNN article, seems a good number of people believe that he's guilty.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,570
969
126
WTF? Put a guy in jail for an accident? He wasn't drinking, there was no evidence he had any malice toward these people or that he was suicidal. What were the idiots on that jury thinking?
 

KeithP

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2000
5,664
202
106
The 1996 Camry he was driving was not part of the recall. It had a mechanical throttle linkage.

To summarize the story, someone that should be spending more time in jail has been able to use the Toyota sudden acceleration hysteria as a get of jail free card.

-KeithP
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,437
23
81
WTF? Put a guy in jail for an accident? He wasn't drinking, there was no evidence he had any malice toward these people or that he was suicidal. What were the idiots on that jury thinking?

He's one less asian driver on the streets is what they were thinking.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
WTF? Put a guy in jail for an accident? He wasn't drinking, there was no evidence he had any malice toward these people or that he was suicidal. What were the idiots on that jury thinking?

"The car was moving at 70 to 90 mph when it struck the other vehicles."
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,437
23
81
The 1996 Camry he was driving was not part of the recall. It had a mechanical throttle linkage.

To summarize the story, someone that should be spending more time in jail has been able to use the Toyota sudden acceleration hysteria as a get of jail free card.

-KeithP

Why would a man driving his pregnant wife and kids drive that unsafely? As for the recall, Toyota has admitted it had understated the acceleration issue. They may very well have been withholding that data to prevent further embarrassment and financial loss.
 

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,697
161
106
WTF? Put a guy in jail for an accident? He wasn't drinking, there was no evidence he had any malice toward these people or that he was suicidal. What were the idiots on that jury thinking?

From what I've read, he had a really bad lawyer. Go figure.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
Yeah, I don't really understand why this guy was in jail in the first place. I think it's fairly obvious that it was either mechanical failure or an accident.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
One thing that I'm not understanding is the brakes. I mean, they guy should have been standing on the brake petal. If he was standing on the brake and the car was still going 70-90 MPH, the brake shoes should have been completely worn out. Were they? I don't think the article really makes that clear.
 

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,697
161
106
WTF? Put a guy in jail for an accident? He wasn't drinking, there was no evidence he had any malice toward these people or that he was suicidal. What were the idiots on that jury thinking?

Yeah, I don't really understand why this guy was in jail in the first place. I think it's fairly obvious that it was either mechanical failure or an accident.

Do you guys know what the definition of Involuntary manslaughter is?
 

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,697
161
106
Probably, but he was jailed for Criminal Vehicular Manslaughter. Not involuntary.

Actually, he was jailed under Criminal Vehicular Homicide under Minnesota law, which falls under the Involuntary Manslaughter umbrella in most states.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
If the impact was 70 to 90 MPH, how did no one in the Camry get killed... or did they?
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
If the impact was 70 to 90 MPH, how did no one in the Camry get killed... or did they?

Seatbelts + airbags would be my guess.

Whenever I see a story about a fatal accident I read it to see if they mention whether or not the person was wearing a seatbelt, it's amazing how many times the person was not wearing a seatbelt.

They don't work everytime, but they sure do seem to improve your chances.
 

MaxFusion16

Golden Member
Dec 21, 2001
1,512
1
0
I saw this the other day and personally I'm conflicted.

on the one hand, I'm certain he panicked and floored the accelerator instead of the brake pedal, trying to pin this on toyota is complete BS; a 96 camry does not use drive by wire, and even if the accelerator was somehow jammed, the brakes would still be able to overpower the 130hp 4 cylinder engine, no question.

however, on the other hand, this was clearly an accident, should he be punished so severely for it?
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
I saw this the other day and personally I'm conflicted.

on the one hand, I'm certain he panicked and floored the accelerator instead of the brake pedal, trying to pin this on toyota is complete BS; a 96 camry does not use drive by wire, and even if the accelerator was somehow jammed, the brakes would still be able to overpower the 130hp 4 cylinder engine, no question.

however, on the other hand, this was clearly an accident, should he be punished so severely for it?

This is what I believe too. But is it possible there was some other source of unintended acceleration?

Either way, if there's no evidence to suggest that it was anything but an accident, I also see no reason that he should be in jail.
 

KeithP

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2000
5,664
202
106
Why would a man driving his pregnant wife and kids drive that unsafely?.

LOL, really? You are asking this question? Because he was in a hurry and stupid. Shocking, I know, but there are drivers like that.

-KeithP
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
LOL, really? You are asking this question? Because he was in a hurry and stupid. Shocking, I know, but there are drivers like that.

-KeithP
The article states that he was exiting the freeway.

Lee was driving home from Sunday services with his pregnant wife, and father, daughter, brother and niece. He told investigators that he pumped the brakes as he exited Interstate 94 in St. Paul, Minnesota, and approached an intersection, said his new lawyer, Brent Schafer.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
So no matter which way you cut it, he is negligent.
He either fucked up driving or failed to maintain his motor vehicle. This resulted in someones death.

This is most certainly negligent manslaughter.
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,134
2,450
126
So no matter which way you cut it, he is negligent.
He either fucked up driving or failed to maintain his motor vehicle. This resulted in someones death.

This is most certainly negligent manslaughter.

Not to mention that he could have stopped the car by putting it in neutral or simply turning the car off. You can't put someone in prison just for being stupid, though... can you?
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,253
1
0
One thing that I'm not understanding is the brakes. I mean, they guy should have been standing on the brake petal. If he was standing on the brake and the car was still going 70-90 MPH, the brake shoes should have been completely worn out. Were they? I don't think the article really makes that clear.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Plus, can't you just turn off the ignition or switch gears? I suppose that its possible he didn't have enough time to think of doing that though.