This woman gets a DUI, then 2 months later kills someone while drinking and driving. Send her to prison-MURDER.  She obviously didn't learn anything in her DUI classes or was she even enrolled in them, considering her prior was only 2 months before the deadly tragedy.  

Sounds like another judge legislating law from the bench instead of administrating it. So, does this mean another drunk driver is off the hook for killing somebody? Did the court give her permission to do it again?

Catpaw, I guess they want to give her one more chance to take out a family?  My sisters favorite movie, is an old one, can't remember the name.  But you get points for running over people. Points depend on age, sex of victim.  I thought of that movie when I read this.

Is she white?

There you have it....

The judge just turned centuries of contract law on its head.

My sisters favorite movie, is an old one, can't remember the name.  But you get points for running over people.

Death Race 2000.

http://www.imdb.com/title/t...

TSM, I see the judge as rightly separating civil law (contracts) from criminal law.  I see the declaration more in the nature of a coerced confession, not a contract.

That said, I think she *SHOULD* have been charged with murder 2 whether or not she signed anything. 

TSM- THANK YOU!!

Agree, RF. I'm not clear about the judge's logic. How can he determine what's in somebody's "heart?" What about her brain? That doesn't seem to be a consideration.

Signing a guilty plea in advance as a condition to drive a car does seem to be a coerced confession. However, I was under the impression the document merely made the person aware of the law and an acknowledgement that it was explained to her, not evidence in a criminal proceeding. The court reprimanding the DA?

I see the judge as rightly separating civil law (contracts) from criminal law

Not necessarily. It should be considered a civil law issue because it's an agreement of action.The fact that the action can result in criminal prosecution would probably be considered irrelevant to an appeals court.

I see the declaration more in the nature of a coerced confession

If that were the case, the declaration would be considered illegal.

I don't know if the legality of the declaration was ever challenged in court, but it's used in a bunch of states.

I was under the impression the document merely made the person aware of the law and an acknowledgement that it was explained to her

A very good point, one that makes the legality and contract law issues of the declaration moot.

This is what she signed. Section 23593 is added to Vehicle Code, to read: 23593. (a) The court shall advise a person convicted of a violation of Section 23103,  as specified in Section 23103.5, or a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, as follows:

" You are hereby advised that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, impairs your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.Therefore, it is extremely dangerous to human life to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both. If you continue to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, and , as a result of that driving, someone is killed, you can be charged with murder."

Brinkman signed this declaration just two months before the crash.  I can't believe the judges ruling on this matter. I'm sure he would feel a bit different on this if it was his loved one killed by her. My son was killed by a 3 time repeat offender and I know this law very well.

 I feel that the declaration is enough to charge second-degree murder.

A DUI crime requires malice, which can be implied if the facts demonstrate that the driver was personally aware of he risk to human life and he/she unlawfully drove under the influence anyway. Brinkman did just that. She was told that it was extremely dangerous to human life and she made a decision to drive anyway.  She needs to be held accountable for her actions.  

Seems to me like walking across Hwy 33 after dark if you can see car lights coming, and you aren't wearing reflecting clothing,  you are attempting suicide. I'm not trying to condone her actions, but I live in an area of the county where there no streetlights (kinda like McKittrick) you would not believe the number of people who walk down the middle of the street after dark like they are invincible. I know that pedestrians have the right of way in an intersection but just a little common sense here on his part would have saved his life.

I can sign a document that says I give up my constitutional rights but that doesn't mean it's valid or legal.  I'm inclined toagree with Judge Judy on this one.

I think pedestrians at night think because they see a vehicle coming, the driver must see them, as if it were day. Pedstrians invariably have the right of way even when they don't have the right of way. The driver is expected to drive at such a speed and sobriety to anticipate driving hazards. Only the pedestrian's stupidity can save a driver when a pedestrian is run over. Happens all the time to jay walkers on dark nights, like Union Ave.and Edison Hwy. There have been a couple of occassions when I didn't see some idiot in the road at night until I was almost on top of him. My speed and attention to the road made the difference. No telling if I had been jabbering on a cell phone or had been smoking dope or drunk the outcome would have been different.

In as much as the pedestrian contributed to his own demise in some small way by stepping into the roadway, I would think that a charge of vehicular is warranted and more easily prosecuted. It does not require an intent to kill, premeditation, or malice aforethought as the murder conviction would.