liar soorer wrote:
Problem is that with the strict liability rule and the flipped burden where she had to prove where a drug came from a month after a test then no lawyers stand a chance.
And, I repeat, the only grounds for appeal are procedural and I just can’t see what they may be.
Do you believe that in order for a person to be convicted with drunk driving (even where they kill other people) that the police must prove that the alcohol got into the drivers system voluntarily? How do you propose they do that? That would be ridiculous and no justice system anywhere requires that.
It is not strict liability. They proved she had the drugs in her body, at that point she could have escaped penalty if she was able to prove it got there accidentally. She was not able to do that. She told a story which was incapable of belief on the facts. Shelby fans, on the other hand, are willing to believe the earth is flat if it means she didn't do it and do not care for facts, just the result they want to believe.
Drunk drivers have the same option; they can escape penalty if they can prove they were drugged and did not voluntarily get intoxicated.