Conception trial begins

[rmorgan]

And that’s really what it comes down to, isn’t it?

Had the person responsible for following the regulations followed the regulations, would those 34 people have died?

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not "beyond all doubt," of course. Juries routinely apply their collective wisdom to the evidence to decide whether any doubts as to causation are reasonable. The final jury charge in the Conception case hasn't been made available yet, but it will be interesting to see how the Court squared the causation circle. In brief, the defense claims line up with your thought, Wookie; his jury-instruction brief urges a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, of "but for" causation as to at least one decedent: That is, regardless of whether it was grossly negligent not to follow applicable maritime law, the failure to have a proper watch must also have (beyond a reasonable doubt) actually caused a death. The government's proposed instruction is that "the defendant’s misconduct, gross negligence, or inattention to his duties was the proximate cause of the death of a victim. A proximate cause is one that played a substantial part in bringing about the death, so that the death was the direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the defendant’s misconduct, gross negligence, or inattention to his duties."

To me, there's not really much difference; if the death was "the direct result or reasonably probable consequence" of the breach, then without the breach, the death wouldn't have occurred. I'll post the final charge if it comes available, but it is often only in the transcript, which is unlikely to be available anytime soon, and not at all if there's no appeal (i.e., if the government loses).

 

[The Chairman]

So...who sees the fire on the CCTV?

The jury.

The issue is pretty straight forward: did they follow the requirements? Yes/No

It really didn't matter until someone died. Now that we have multiple casualties, it boils down to "did they follow procedure"?

 

[lowwall]

Actually, that's pretty much the prosecution case and certainly the public perception (read a bunch of the posts here). The underlying theme: If there had been a night watchman, none of this would have happened.

That's not the legal requirement.

For criminal negligence in California (and most other states), the prosecution has to show two things (in reality, there's an additional practical requirement that a death or great bodily injury must have occurred, but that's not a question here):

- That the defendant acted in a reckless manner which created a risk of death or great bodily injury to another person, and

- That a reasonable person would have known the risks associated with the reckless action.

Look at the first part. The prosecution has only has to show that failing to set a roving watch causes a risk of death. It does not have to show that failing to set a roving watch caused the deaths.

On the face of it, failing to set a legally required watch on an anchored boat at sea so obviously creates a risk of death that I don't even understand why this trial is taking place instead of a plea deal. Somehow the defense is going to have to create a reasonable doubt about whether roving watches could ever prevent a death in an anchored vessel at sea, whether or be from fire, sinking, collision, loss of anchor or anchor hold, etc.

Edit: I just read a new article on the closing arguments. It looks like the defense is keying on the second requirement.

“There absolutely should have been a roving patrol.” But he did not know he was endangering people’s lives, [the defense lawyer] said. “He didn’t know he should have done anything differently.”

I didn't address this above because it's such a stretch I didn't believe they'd even try it.

This makes me wonder about the politics behind the reason for this trial. Did the prosecutors even offer a plea deal, or did they want a public trial to get some TV time?

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Did the prosecutors even offer a plea deal, or did they want a public trial to get some TV time?

I've also wondered about a plea deal. I don't know if one was never offered, or if one was offered but not accepted.

 

[Wookie]

And what if we decided that we cannot prove that following regulations would have saved these people? What if we decided that you have to be 100% sure (not 99%) sure that following the regulations would have saved them?

I submit that it is an unreachable standard, and it would be much like the analogy previously offered that you can excuse a drunk driving accident because you cannot prove that the accident wouldn't have happened if the driver were sober. If that is what we decide, it means there is no point in having the regulation, since the people responsible for following them will know they can never be prosecuted for not following them.

Do we have to prove that the regulations were adequate for safety of life at sea, or do we merely need to prove that the Master didn’t follow them and 34 folks died on his watch?

The Coast Guard is not on trial here, although maybe they should be. The owner of the vessel is not on trial here, although maybe he should be. Nope, it’s the captain. And he didn’t follow established safety protocols. And 34 people died.

Most of here are not lawyers, myself included. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. Someone didn’t follow the rules, rules designed to prevent someone from dying in a fire, and someone died in a fire.

Everything else is just chaff.

 

[The Chairman]

Of all the people posting in here, there are two I pay especially close attention: @Wookie and @Capt Jim Wyatt. These guys are not only real captains but were in the US Navy to boot. Frank was on a Boomer (I think) and Jim served on the Speigel Grove. Of course, the SG is at the bottom of the ocean, but Jim swears that didn't happen on his watch!

 

[boulderjohn]

- That a reasonable person would have known the risks associated with the reckless action.

...

Edit: I just read a new article on the closing arguments. It looks like the defense is keying on the second requirement.

“There absolutely should have been a roving patrol.” But he did not know he was endangering people’s lives, [the defense lawyer] said. “He didn’t know he should have done anything differently.”

I pointed this out earlier. I said that if I were on the jury and heard them make the claim that a man who has been a captain for decades would not know that not setting a watch endangered people and did not know he should have set one is such bullscat that I would not believe a word they said after that. the claim is ludicrous.

 

[boulderjohn]

Someone didn’t follow the rules, rules designed to prevent someone from dying in a fire, and someone died in a fire.

Everything else is just chaff.

That's exactly how I see it. that's why I as trying to point out the absurdity of arguing that they would have to prove without a doubt that people died because of his failure to follow the rules. A requirement like that would make rules effectively optional.

 

[Cthippo]

While we wait for definitive information, this video is from a National Institutes on Standards and Technology (NIST) project on fire growth in modern furnishings. Ignore the room on the left, those kinds of furnishings have not existed in my lifetime.

 

[Wookie]

That's exactly how I see it. that's why I as trying to point out the absurdity of arguing that they would have to prove without a doubt that people died because of his failure to follow the rules. A requirement like that would make rules effectively optional.

You and I are violently agreeing.

It's nice.