Driver Freed In Minneapolis "Toyota Murder" Case
Koua Fong Lee, who had spent over two years behind bars for his role in a collision that killed three people, was freed today when a judge vacated his sentence. The reason: ineffective legal counsel, and evidence that suggested Lee’s 1996 Toyota Camry could have been driving out of control. The Ramsey County (MN) prosecutor has decided against re-trying Lee, making him a free man. Meanwhile, the fact that 1996 Toyota Camrys have not been recalled for faulty brakes or throttle units leaves a huge question mark hanging over this case.
CNN explains the basic conflict in Lee’s trial thusly:
Lee was driving home from Sunday services with his pregnant wife, father, daughter, brother and niece. He told investigators that he pumped the brakes as he exited Interstate 94 in St. Paul, Minnesota, and approached an intersection, said his new lawyer, Brent Schafer.
But Ramsey County prosecutors said at trial that Lee had his foot on the gas as he approached cars waiting at a red light. The car was moving at 70 to 90 mph when it struck the other vehicles.
Experts from both the prosecution and the defense both inspected the vehicle in question during Lee’s 2007 trial, and found nothing wrong. Since then, Lee’s new lawyer explains that more information has come to light
We found out, actually, it was known back in 2006, not long after this accident occurred, that if you were to look at the brake filament, you would have been able to tell that the brake lamp was illuminated at the time of the impact, which basically was evidence in support of Koua’s story that the car was out of control and that he did everything to stop it. So, in fact, his foot was on the brake. That evidence was known prior to the trial. By looking at the filament, it was clear — and I don’t think any experts disagree with this — that the brakes were on at the point of impact.”
In addition, there was evidence at trial that this car did not have ABS brakes, which was a big part of the state’s case. Because there were no skid marks, they concluded Koua was not on the brakes, and that was simply false testimony and I think that was also a key issue that led to his conviction
Of course, criminal procedure is designed to prevent wrongful imprisonment, and surely nobody wishes to undermine the joy that Lee’s family must certainly be feeling right now, but if Lee is not guilty, one must assume that his car is. Given that 1996 Camry’s have no known record of unintended acceleration, that no recalls have taken place for issues related to unintended acceleration, and that Lee’s vehicle in particular was found to have no malfunctions, it’s obvious that the 1996 Toyota Camry is having the burden of proof shoved squarely on its shoulders.
Should Lee or the family of those who died in that terrible accident sue Toyota, this case will get a lot more interesting. In the meantime, it shows just how nebulous and yet far-reaching the idea of unintended acceleration has become… and how ill-prepared our justice system is to deal with it.
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Comments
Join the conversation
jenneil624, You are right and "clearly proven otherwise" is correct - the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." I don't necessarily disagree with you. Accidents do happen. But it's interesting to me that many are having a hard time wrapping their brain around the fact that killing someone with your car may be a crime. Many seem to think that killing someone with your car should only be a crime if you were intoxicated. Indeed many DAs agree as a practical matter. But if you intentionally run a stop sign and kill a pedestrian, you should go to jail. The killing may have been an accident, but your the running of the stop sign was not. At some point if a person's shitty driving is accountable for death, they need to go to jail whether or not they were intoxicated. Think about it this analogy, if I shoot someone with a gun, it may not be a crime if it was an accident. But if I like to juggle loaded guns in crowded places, I drop one and it discharges, killing a bystander, that's a crime. Dropping the gun was an accident but it was an accident that happened with an inherently deadly intrumentality.
I have been following this case for a long time. There are several facts missing from recent media reports including CNN. First, there was a recall for the 1996 Camry due to a defect in the cruise control. This defect was shown to lead to unintended acceleration. However, for some reason the recall was limited. It did not include all 1996 Camry's and only those with certain serial numbers. I don't remember the details. I do know that the Camry in question here was not included in the recall. Since we know that Toyota has actively tried to limit recalls in the past, we can assume that it is also possible in this case. Second, it was stated in the trial by an expert for the prosecution that the 1996 Camry did not have an ABS and would therefore have left skid marks if the brakes had been applied. The defense didn't counter this. We know of course that the 1996 Camry in question does in fact have ABS and would not have left skid marks during braking. Third, the expert witness for the defense in 2007 never investigated recalls related to the Camry and never considered the cruise control of the car as a possible problem. Clearly, the defense did a horrible job of defending the client. I have to agree with others who have posted that just because he got out of jail and the prosecutors aren't going to try him again doesn't mean he wasn't stepping on the gas instead of the brakes. It only means that they either don't have sufficient evidence to convict him a second time, or that they don't believe taxpayer dollars would be appropriately used to try him again. Another piece of information that isn't widely mentioned. The prosecutors offerred Lee a plea bargain just before the judge ruled in favor of Lee. Under the plea bargain Lee would be released from jail but his conviction would stand. Lee refused, insisting that he was innocent. Then, hours later, after the judge called for a new trial, they said they were not going to retry the case. To me that indicates that the prosecutors believed that they no longer had sufficient evidence to convict Lee a second time, especially considering the filament data that was not refuted by expert witnesses for the prosecution. The only thing the prosecution witnesses testified towards was that the car brakes appeared to be operating normally. That doesn't mean they operated properly during the accident.