The fact of the case are as follows. Goodman ran a stop sign and smashed into the car of Scott Patrick Wilson, killing him. Goodman failed to call 911 and fled the scene on foot. When the police finally caught up with him, his blood alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit.

Goodman’s criminal trial is on March 6th, and he faces as many as 30 years in prison. It’s the civil trial, set for later in March, where things get weird.

Goodman had set up a trust fund for his two children, and it was determined that the funds in that trust account weren’t subject to punitive damages the Wilson family could collect in their civil trial. His children can’t collect on their trust funds until they reach the age of 35. Following the ruling, Goodman adopted his 42 year old girlfriend, making her an immediate beneficiary of the trust account and giving Goodman access to 1/3 of the funds, which as of now, can’t be touched by the Wilson family.

The courts must decide of the adoption is a “sham” before moving forward with the civil case to determine just how much of Goodman’s assets should be available for punitive damages to the Wilson family.

The suit also claims that the victim, not Belniak, caused the accident by abruptly changing lanes. Belniak is suing for medical bills, pain and suffering, and “loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life”.
Belniak’s attorney, who remember is also his sister, claims that the buildup to the criminal trial was an exercise in character assassination and her brother had no choice by to accept blame and a plea offer because he wouldn’t have received a fair trial.

Belniak was sentenced to 12 years in prison, in 2007 for his role in the accident.

The families of the victims in the suit have also filed a civil suit against Belniak.

Belniak’s recollection of the events falls into question, as six corroborating eye witnesses report that McWilliams was stopped at a stoplight when Belniak rear-ended them at speeds exceeding 70 MPH. An event data recorder in McWilliams’ car also indicates that his vehicle wasn’t moving at the time of impact.

It’s hard to grasp why Belniak and his sister would file a countersuit in this instance, as all the evidence seems to support Belniaks guilty conviction, and by filing suit, he’s more likely to aggravate jurors rather than win any sympathy.

This is a case we definitely have our eyes on and will update as new details emerge.

If you or a loved one is facing this charge, contact the criminal defense attorneys at Wallin and Klarich.  We at Wallin and Klarich have many years of experience successfully defending people charged with these types of crimes. We will work to aggressively defend you by investigating all aspects of your case.  We will work to ensure that your rights are protected and that you clearly understand the legal process.  The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can be reached by phone at 1-877-230-1529 or through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Under California Penal Code Section 192, manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.  It is involuntary when the act was committed in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.  Involuntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

Involuntary manslaughter is a serious crime.  It is important to speak with an experienced involuntary manslaughter attorney if you are being charged with this crime.  At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California involuntary manslaughter attorneys have over 30 years of experience.  We will fight to keep you out of jail.  Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through out website at www.wklaw.com.  We will be there when you call.

In 2006, defendant Koua Fong Lee was accused of speeding into a vehicle and striking it, killing the other vehicle’s three passengers.  Lee argued that he did not press the accelerator and he did everything he could to stop the collision, but his 1996 Toyota Camry would not respond to his frantic braking.  Lee was convicted in 2007 and sentenced to eight years in prison.

Numerous people have complained about problems with sudden acceleration and poor braking in their Toyotas, even those that were not subject to the 2009 recall.  The court held a post-conviction hearing and examined evidence regarding the possibility that the incident was caused by a mechanical failure in his Toyota.

The court also examined the numerous errors made by Lee’s trial attorney, noting that the attorney told the jury that Lee had his foot on the pedal just before impact, even though he himself maintained that his foot was always on the brake.  The court found that her performance was so poor that it violated defendant’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and ordered a new trial.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.  Ineffective assistance of counsel occurs when the defense attorney’s representation is deficient, meaning that the representation fell below the reasonable standard expected of attorneys.  The law presumes that an attorney’s representation is not deficient, so this is a high standard for the defendant to overcome.  Furthermore, the deficiency must have prejudiced the defendant, meaning that if representation had not been deficient, the outcome of the case would have been different.  Ineffective assistance of counsel may be a form of legal malpractice.

In California, vehicular manslaughter is punishable under California Penal Code section 192(c).  Gross vehicular manslaughter occurs when a vehicle driver commits an unlawful act, or commits a lawful act in an unlawful manner, with gross negligence and causing death.  (California Penal Code section 192(c)(1).)  It is punishable by up to a year in jail, or two, four, or six years in prison.  (California Penal Code section 193(c)(1).)

Vehicular manslaughter occurs when the driver commits a lawful act in an unlawful manner which might produce death, but without gross negligence.  (California Penal Code section 192(c)(2).)  It is punishable by up to a year in jail.  (California Penal Code section 193(c)(2).)

If you or someone you know has been convicted of homicide, you will need an experienced Southern California defense attorney who will closely scrutinize the facts and law to present your best appeal possible.  At Wallin & Klarich, we have over 30 years experience defending people from a variety of crimes, including murder and manslaughter.  Call us at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call

The report indicates that the surfer lost control of the Toyota Avalon he was driving while traveling about 65 mph in a 25-mph zone. The sedan hit a parked car and smashed into a palm tree. The surfer suffered serious injuries in the crash, the passenger in the vehicle (and owner of the car) died.

DUI accidents escalate the severity of a DUI charge even further by adding an “aggravating circumstance” to what would otherwise be routine DUI prosecution. In the vital days following your DUI arrest, you have little time in which to mount a DUI accident defense. An experienced California DUI attorney will review the police’s investigation and perform independent inquiries, if deemed appropriate. They will also have the resources and knowledge to ask the proper questions when it comes to mounting a potential defense.

In tragic instances where a life has been lost (as is the case here), the charges are escalated to vehicular manslaughter. Though vehicular manslaughter charges are serious, they do not always result in a felony conviction. A qualified DUI attorney will understand the sentencing guidelines and options for lessening the charges, or having them thrown out of court all together.

One of the worst parts of a DUI vehicular manslaughter charge is the negative social stigma that is involved with the crime, even before a case has gone to trial. Although all individuals are innocent until proven guilty and have a constitutional right to a competent, strong defense, those charged with this crime tend to be thought of as “guilty until proven innocent.” The right DUI attorney is not intimidated by a vehicular manslaughter and DUI case. Instead, he or she confidently relies on a long-standing track record and deep knowledge of the DUI field to aggressively defend the client.

If you or someone you love has been accused of vehicular manslaughter charges in California, contact an experienced DUI attorney at Wallin & Klarich today for a consultation of your case. Our attorneys can help defend your rights under the law. Call Wallin & Klarich at 888-749-0034 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

Source:http://www.10news.com/news/21093572/detail.html