Defense presents arguments in Wright vehicular homicide case

The second half of a pre-trial hearing has begun for the case involving a 27-year-old woman accused of killing two Carlton county highway department employees while driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The woman is being charged with two counts of vehicular homicide.

The crash occurred at around 8:45 a.m. on Oct. 21, 2012. According to witnesses, the woman’s 1996 Oldsmobile weaved over the centerline and entered the path of the oncoming highway department truck, which held two passengers, ages 25 and 29. The drivers of the truck swerved to the right to avoid a collision, but the guardrail prevented them from being able to fully dodge the Oldsmobile.

The woman struck the truck on the rear driver’s side, forcing the truck into oncoming traffic. The truck then hit a gooseneck trailer, causing the two highway department employees to be ejected from the vehicle. The men were not wearing seatbelts. Officers responding to the scene discovered a syringe in the woman’s car, which still contained a small amount of liquid thought to be methadone. Officers were able to gather three witnesses.

The case may seem fairly open and shut; however, a defense attorney for the woman is calling some of the presented evidence into question. Statements that the woman made before she was read her Miranda rights are being contested, as well as the blood sample that was taken from the woman. The defense is referencing a U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was determined that drawing blood from a DUI suspect against their will requires a warrant, which the police in this case did not have. Also, police removed certain items from the woman’s vehicle with no warrant.

While it’s uncertain if the case will go to trial, it seems that the defense might be able to at least reduce the woman’s sentence if she is found guilty. While a charge such as vehicular homicide is very serious, it must be remembered that this woman still has rights and should not have had to endure an unlawful search.

Source: pinejournal.com, “Attorneys battle it out in Brigan case” Jana Peterson, Nov. 08, 2013

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

You might need to know the long-term impacts of a 3rd degree DWI if you have been arrested or charged with driving while impaired (DWI) in Minneapolis, MN. A 3rd-degree DWI conviction can affect you personally, professionally, socially, and financially. A DWI conviction carries consequences, such as paying huge fines, loss of income, paying higher insurance premiums, strained relationships, and reputation damage. Your driver’s and professional license may be suspended or revoked after you are charged or convicted of a DWI. You may also face a civil lawsuit, which costs you money in the form of financial compensation to the accident victim.
One of the questions that people facing sex crime charges in Minnesota ask is: Will I have to register as a sex offender if convicted? You will most likely be required to register as a sex offender if convicted of a sex crime. Factors that determine sex offender registration include the nature and severity of the offense, aggravating factors, civil commitment, and risk level. You must register as a sex offender if you are relocating to Minnesota for school, work, or to live and have been convicted of sex crimes elsewhere.
People facing drug crime charges who were victims of unlawful search or seizure may wonder, “What role does search and seizure law play in drug cases?” Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure law protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. The Minnesota constitution provides similar protections.