Willmar woman accused of backing van over tent pleads not guilt...

Really interested in what the defense for this one is going to be.

The evidence seems fairly concrete against her... sounds like she's continuing to live in a dream world.

Why does MN have a law that limits sentences for drunks who kill people to 10 years? These people drink voluntarily and deliberately get in their vehicles and drive with no thought of the consequences.
Seems to me that drunk driving is premeditated, and if you kill someone because of your drinking you need to be put away for a lot longer than 10 years.

Interesting that no one has bailed her out yet, even with a reduction in bail. Sounds like her family and friends realize she needs to stay in jail to stay sober. At least no one else will die due to her drinking while she's locked up.

Will someone tell me why the judge would accept any plea deal? Is it to save money, and time? Also, would a plea bargain result in less time served than being convicted by a jury trial? If so, why do they accept plea bargains?

I guess I just don't understand our legal system, her attorneys find no need to challenge the factual basis for the charges nor do they have any constitutional reservations but yet she still pleads not guilty.

Our legal system is whacked!!

I wonder how the parents feel about all of this? I mean here you have a cousin that is basically saying, yes I was drunk, yes I was driving, yes I backed over the tent you were in, but that doesn't mean I'm responsible for the death of your baby.

Independent Voter wrote:

I guess I just don't understand our legal system, her attorneys find no need to challenge the factual basis for the charges nor do they have any constitutional reservations but yet she still pleads not guilty.
Our legal system is whacked!!
I wonder how the parents feel about all of this? I mean here you have a cousin that is basically saying, yes I was drunk, yes I was driving, yes I backed over the tent you were in, but that doesn't mean I'm responsible for the death of your baby.

As far as the legal aspects, I believe her lawyers submitted the not guilty plea, thus NOT challenging the charges, because I think that's what this hearing was for. The judge also stated that the two sides need to agree on charges/sentence for a plea bargain before the pretrial hearing, or else face the original charges with a jury trial. And I agree with the posters here, why even entertain a plea bargain? Do the victims family have to approve of it? I mean, the evidence looks overwhelming and even a below average prosecutor should be able to get a conviction.

motley larry wrote:

Will someone tell me why the judge would accept any plea deal? Is it to save money, and time? Also, would a plea bargain result in less time served than being convicted by a jury trial? If so, why do they accept plea bargains?

Plea bargins are to save the court time, and the tax payer money. With lawyers it is all about the win/lose record. If the plead guilty to a lesser offense, I still win.