The attorney for the”affluenza” teenager is implying that his client was FORCED against his will to leave the country and go to Mexico.
Do you buy it?
More importantly will the judge hearing the case agree with this argument?
It is a risky strategy to say the least.
Consider this article from the Legal Intelligencer:
Did Ethan Couch go to Mexico because someone made him?
One of his U.S.-based attorneys raised that possible scenario in a Fort Worth courtroom Tuesday and later to reporters after a hearing about Couch’s status as a juvenile was rescheduled for next month.
In court Tuesday morning, Couch’s attorney Scott Brown argued the hearing to transfer the case to adult court shouldn’t be allowed to proceed because there was no proof that Couch “voluntarily absented himself” from being at the hearing.
When asked by CNN whether Couch, the so-called “affluenza” teenager, was taken against his will to Mexico, Brown replied, “I don’t think that’s what I said. As far as Ethan being taken against his will, we are examining the facts, investigating the facts.
“This is an evolving process, and whether he was involuntarily or involuntarily taken to Mexico is something that’s being investigated.”
Before heading to Mexico with his mother, Couch was on probation in Texas for killing four people in a 2013 drunken-driving accident when he was 16. In mid-December, a warrant was issued for Couch, who’s now 18, to be taken into custody after his probation officer couldn’t reach him”.
Is the teenagers attorney pushing a bad argument or is there some foundation to this?
That’s the legal question of this blog.
The attorney for the affluenza teenager is attempting to prevent his clients case from being transferred to adult court.
If the teenagers case is transferred to adult court he will be subject to much stricter penalties than if his case remains in juvenile court.
Many attorneys would probably not take this approach to the case.
Many judges would be very upset with the attorney trying to argue that his client was taken away to Mexico against his will.
That is known as pushing a bad position over the cliff.
Most judges are not going to be sympathetic to this type of argument unless there is absolute concrete proof of the suggestion made by the teenagers
Pittsburgh wrongful death, medical malpractice, car accident, slip and fall and criminal defense attorney Bernie Tully thinks that the strategy used by the attorney will likely backfire.
Because the judge will see the video showing the teenager in an environment where drinking was going on. That may be all the proof that’s necessary to really slam this teenager.
Then after seeing this video, to hear a defense argument that somehow the child was forced against his will to go to Mexico may only serve to infuriate the judge hearing the matter.
That’s way I read it.
What do you think?
Thanks for reading.
Bernie the attorney.