With Toyota, once the car company that all others aspired to beat, now the poster boy car for defects (and likely the precursor for reliance on electronics where once humans drove), the claims of innocence by Koua Fong Lee have been given new life. Though the story itself has already made the rounds, here’s the high points :
This is an important case for a variety of reasons, revealed only by dint of the fortuitous (for Lee, though not Toyota) turn of events.
Experts can be wrong. An expert is, at best, a person with greater knowledge of a subject than an ordinary person would possess. There are lots of people who claim to be experts. Some are, in a real sense. Some are, in a more generic sense of having more knowledge than the average bear. Some are, only in the sense that they call themselves experts and hope they can get away with it.
Even real experts, those with a substantial amount of knowledge, education, experience in a specific field, can be wrong. They sound very authoritative when they testify. They mean well. They refuse to sell their opinion to the side that pays them, though its usually impossible to wholly separate fee from perspective, but a real expert will never overtly sell an opinion. And yet, there are usually experts with similar, if not equal or better, expertise who disagree with the expert in whole or part. One (or more) has to be wrong.
Get two experts together, however, as happened in Lee’s case, and you’ve got a movement. While one can be wrong, can two? When the experts for both sides agree, everyone in a court room smiles, except the fellow on the losing side of the issue. Everyone else is very happy to have one less issue to decide. Maybe the opinion would be different with ten experts. Maybe even ten experts would all be unable to find the defect. If two experts an be wrong, can ten? We can keep going with this, but the points remains.
Innocent people who lose are punished more harshly than guilty people. Initially, the pay the trial tax, the enhanced sentencing that any defendant pays for asserting his constitutional right to trial and ending up on the wrong side of the verdict. There isn’t supposed to be a trial tax, but we all know there is. But the defendant who refuses to show remorse, the one who, despite the verdict, maintains his innocence, has a special place in the judge’s mind: prison. For a long time. He comes off defiant. He comes off unrepentant. He comes off as dangerous and insolent. He needs a harder smack than the defendant who begs for the mercy of the court. And he almost always gets it.
Stercus Accidit. Lee’s crime was being involved in an accident where people died. When someone dies, people see a crime and demand a criminal. Separate the anger at the outcome from the conduct involved, as we are now able to do in light of the Toyota defense, and this doesn’t appear to have been a crime at all. In fact, the allegations clearly lead to the conclusion that it was a tragic accident, Lee was in his 1996 Toyota with his pregnant wife, father, daughter, brother and niece. Was his care for others so demented that he put them all at reckless risk by driving at ramming speed into other cars? It sounds ridiculous. Now.
Today, a couple of years and an intervening recall of Toyotas later, the conviction looks horribly wrong. It was just as wrong then, but reason was blocked to anger and the lust to find someone against whom the anger could be directed.
The shame is that Lee’s Toyota defense, even now, doesn’t disprove his “guilt”. It might be that the car accelerated unintentionally due to a defect. It might not. The burden now is for Lee to prove his innocence rather than the prosecution prove his guilt. Nobody will ever feel good about this case in light of the Toyota defense. But nobody should have felt good about it before either.
Koua Fong Lee has always maintained his innocence in the 2006 crash. Then 29 years old, he was driving home from Sunday services with his pregnant wife, father, daughter, brother and niece in his 1996 Toyota Camry.Mechanical engineers for both sides examined the car. Both agreed, there was no defect. Lee was tried and convicted of vehicular homicide. He maintained his innocence. He was sentenced to 8 years for his troubles. Suddenly, Lee’s claim, that it was the car, not him, doesn’t look so crazy. Even his prosecutor believes that the case should be reopened in light of new information about Toyotas.
Lee told investigators that he pumped the brakes as he exited I-94 in St. Paul, Minnesota, and approached an intersection, his lawyer, Brent Schaefer, said. But Ramsey County prosecutors claimed Lee had his foot on the gas as he approached cars waiting at a red light.
The car was moving at between 70 and 90 mph when it struck two other vehicles. Javis Adams, 33, and his 10-year-old son, Javis Adams Jr., were killed instantly. Another passenger, 6-year-old Devyn Bolton, was left paraplegic. She testified in a wheelchair at Lee’s trial and later died from her injuries.
This is an important case for a variety of reasons, revealed only by dint of the fortuitous (for Lee, though not Toyota) turn of events.
Experts can be wrong. An expert is, at best, a person with greater knowledge of a subject than an ordinary person would possess. There are lots of people who claim to be experts. Some are, in a real sense. Some are, in a more generic sense of having more knowledge than the average bear. Some are, only in the sense that they call themselves experts and hope they can get away with it.
Even real experts, those with a substantial amount of knowledge, education, experience in a specific field, can be wrong. They sound very authoritative when they testify. They mean well. They refuse to sell their opinion to the side that pays them, though its usually impossible to wholly separate fee from perspective, but a real expert will never overtly sell an opinion. And yet, there are usually experts with similar, if not equal or better, expertise who disagree with the expert in whole or part. One (or more) has to be wrong.
Get two experts together, however, as happened in Lee’s case, and you’ve got a movement. While one can be wrong, can two? When the experts for both sides agree, everyone in a court room smiles, except the fellow on the losing side of the issue. Everyone else is very happy to have one less issue to decide. Maybe the opinion would be different with ten experts. Maybe even ten experts would all be unable to find the defect. If two experts an be wrong, can ten? We can keep going with this, but the points remains.
Innocent people who lose are punished more harshly than guilty people. Initially, the pay the trial tax, the enhanced sentencing that any defendant pays for asserting his constitutional right to trial and ending up on the wrong side of the verdict. There isn’t supposed to be a trial tax, but we all know there is. But the defendant who refuses to show remorse, the one who, despite the verdict, maintains his innocence, has a special place in the judge’s mind: prison. For a long time. He comes off defiant. He comes off unrepentant. He comes off as dangerous and insolent. He needs a harder smack than the defendant who begs for the mercy of the court. And he almost always gets it.
Stercus Accidit. Lee’s crime was being involved in an accident where people died. When someone dies, people see a crime and demand a criminal. Separate the anger at the outcome from the conduct involved, as we are now able to do in light of the Toyota defense, and this doesn’t appear to have been a crime at all. In fact, the allegations clearly lead to the conclusion that it was a tragic accident, Lee was in his 1996 Toyota with his pregnant wife, father, daughter, brother and niece. Was his care for others so demented that he put them all at reckless risk by driving at ramming speed into other cars? It sounds ridiculous. Now.
Today, a couple of years and an intervening recall of Toyotas later, the conviction looks horribly wrong. It was just as wrong then, but reason was blocked to anger and the lust to find someone against whom the anger could be directed.
The shame is that Lee’s Toyota defense, even now, doesn’t disprove his “guilt”. It might be that the car accelerated unintentionally due to a defect. It might not. The burden now is for Lee to prove his innocence rather than the prosecution prove his guilt. Nobody will ever feel good about this case in light of the Toyota defense. But nobody should have felt good about it before either.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think you are replying to a spammer. If you put your mouse over his name you will see the link to his website
I have a feeling, just going by the link in his name, www. specialdiscountcouponsandgiftcards. info/, that the content of the post may not be his primary concern.
Sir, would it be possible to track down Mr. Lee’s suspect vehicle by its VIN & have a regular certified mechanic re-inspect?
Not sure if it’s a coincidence or not but the Gamevance Ads Pop-Up for this Post is by Toyota? Thanks.
Well, that’s curious. First, I have no idea what Gamevance is, but I also don’t quite understand why or how you are viewing my posts via another site that includes pop-up ads. I would appreciate if you could send me an email (not post in a comment) how you are accessing SJ.
Sorry Scott, I don’t know about experts, but I do know about cars.
A 1996 Camry has cable controlled throttle, not electronic. I don’t know of any vehicle of the era that is electronicly controlled. Lumping the Lee case in with Toyota’s present trouble is wrong.
This was not pointed out in any story I have seen. Being such a material fact, I’d expect to hear about it. Both experts are probably right. Mr. Lee made a fatal mistake.
Not related to this case, but to Toyota. Should the manufacturer be responsible if a floormat dislocates? To me this is such an obvious responsibility of the driver to ensure safe condition of his vehicle, that it’s a no-brainer.
I haven’t seen this pointed out either. I wonder why? Ax to grind? Juicy stories? 1980s Audi deja-vu.
We have seen driver irresponsibility activism before: Tire pressure.
The inevitable mandated solutions raise costs for all. Cars are only one part of this trend. I for on am at the breaking point trying to pay for it all.
When will it end?
Don’t be sorry. This is exactly the sort of information that’s critical to making sense of things.
My 94 Mustang LX took off like a bat out of hell as I shifted from 1st to 2nd. I killed the ignition, put it in N & slowly engaged the Parking break.
The silver accelerator cable that ran over a curved piece of plastic (for tension) stuck in the highest position of the shift to 2nd.
Ford said they, “never heard about it before and there are no recalls.” Traded it and haven’t owned a Ford since due to the way they just blew it & me off. Any vehicle (including Mr. Lee’s) with the same mechanism could stick. I’m thankful I didn’t panic any longer than I did.
BTW the Post is dead on. Cable or a curcuit, a stick is a stick.
The great Nobel prizewinning physicist Richard Feynman had quite a lot to say about experts.
In his 1966 address to the National Science Teachers’ Association he said:
“Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
In his 1955 address to the National Academy of Sciences entitle “The Value of Science” he said:
“The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true.”
I can’t remember having a physicist testify, but I doubt many of the narcotics “experts” who testify for the government have a similar grasp of their lack of certainty, or a similar inclination to be as honest about it. Then again, none of them have won a Nobel prize.