MAN FREED AFTER MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION VACATED; CLAIMED “TOYOTA DEFENSE” AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 192
On August 6, 2010, a man convicted of vehicular homicide in 2006 will be freed after the state court ordered a new trial and the prosecutor declined to re-file the charges.
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 40 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
