Toyota driver released from prison

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

ST. PAUL, Minn. (CBS/WCCO/AP) Koua Fong Lee, the Minnesota man convicted in a 2006 Toyota crash that left three dead is now a free man. Shortly after a judge ordered a new trial for Lee - citing new evidence and a shoddy defense - Ramsay County prosecutor Susan Gaertner said she will not seek another trial.

Gaertner said Thursday that she thinks "it is time to bring this very tragic situation to a close," according to CBS affiliate WCCO. She spoke shortly after Judge Joanne Smith - the same judge who had sentenced Lee to 8 years in prison - ordered the new trial for Lee, 32, of St. Paul, Minn.

Gaertner said, according to WCCO, that Lee will not face further prosecution in connection with the events of June 10, 2006. She also said she understands why the judge ruled in favor of a new trial, though Gaertner stands by her office's opposition to it.

She finished by saying, "I wish Mr. Lee and his family the very best."

"It's not a dream. It's true," Lee said, as his wife, Panghoua Moua, buried her head in his shoulder. "When we are asleep in the cell, sometimes I dream and I wake up in the little room, still in the little room. But now my dream come true."

Lee, who immigrated to the U.S. from a Thai refugee camp in 2004, was driving a Toyota Camry when it plowed at high speed into the back of an Oldsmobile as Lee exited a St. Paul freeway ramp in 2006. He insisted during his trial that he did everything he could to stop the car but couldn't.

After being released, Lee said he wants to get to know his children. He has four children, ranging from 8 to just 2 years old. He said he wants them to know what the word "daddy" means.

Earlier Thursday, the Ramsey County Attorney's Office offered a deal to Lee, which gave him the chance to be released immediately if he withdrew his petition for a new trial.

Though the deal would've allowed Lee the chance to walk away from his eight-year prison sentence on criminal vehicular homicide and other charges, Lee rejected it because the conviction would've still stood. He would have remained a convicted felon and would have also had restrictions on his ability to drive.

Lee requested a new trial after Toyota recalled millions of vehicles because of problems with sudden unintended acceleration. Defense attorneys argued that Lee's original defender was ineffective and failed to explore the possibility of unintended acceleration.

Prosecutor Mark Lystig said Lee was driving too fast and was unfamiliar with the car when the crash occurred.

Lee was driving a 1996 Camry at the time of the crash. His car wasn't part of the recall.

Lee's attorneys had argued that evidence backed up Lee's account he was trying to brake. Prosecutors had opposed a new trial, saying there was no compelling new evidence.

Judge Smith said if that testimony from the other Toyota drivers had been introduced then, it would "more likely than not, or probably, or even almost certainly" have resulted in a different verdict for Lee.

Javis Trice Adams, 33, and his 10-year-old son, Javis Adams Jr., died in the 2006 accident. Adams' 6-year-old niece, Devyn Bolton, was paralyzed from the neck down and died shortly after Lee was convicted. Two others were badly hurt.

Bridgette Trice, Devyn Bolton's mother, welcomed Thursday's ruling. The victims' families had supported Lee's effort for a new trial, but Trice was crying outside the courthouse as she spoke to reporters.

"I'm happy for him but I'm still sad for us, cause he's going back to his but ours are never coming back to us," Trice said.

Lee said he wanted the victims' families to know he didn't intend to cause the accident. "I want them to know that I will pray for them and I also want to ask them to forgive me and to believe me," he said.

source

[Neil D]

Was listening to the news regarding this man's release....He said that he and his family was "coming home from church on saturday when the car sped up and crashed into the other vehicle".

...Perhaps he was an Adventist...? Anyone know?

[GreatLakesGramma]

It's about time!

[bonnie]

It's about time!

Most Minnesotans believe he should have had a new trial as his public defender did a lousy job. However most are a little put off by the rapid release without process.

If it is as Lee has said it was not rapid.What colored the impression of this was the rapid response of the victims.I think it was the same day as the release the family of the victims had filed a wrongful death suit against Toyota. A lawsuit is not the problem but the appearance of waiting in the wings to go after the money.

Be interesting to see what happens from here. I am sure Lee will go after Toyota

[phkrause]

It's about time!

Not sure what you mean by this response? Could you explain? Thanks

[phkrause]

Most Minnesotans believe he should have had a new trial as his public defender did a lousy job. However most are a little put off by the rapid release without process.

If it is as Lee has said it was not rapid.What colored the impression of this was the rapid response of the victims.I think it was the same day as the release the family of the victims had filed a wrongful death suit against Toyota. A lawsuit is not the problem but the appearance of waiting in the wings to go after the money.

Be interesting to see what happens from here. I am sure Lee will go after Toyota

I agree and if Lee does this also, I'm not sure how I will feel about this.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Most Minnesotans believe he should have had a new trial as his public defender did a lousy job. However most are a little put off by the rapid release without process.

If it is as Lee has said it was not rapid.What colored the impression of this was the rapid response of the victims.I think it was the same day as the release the family of the victims had filed a wrongful death suit against Toyota. A lawsuit is not the problem but the appearance of waiting in the wings to go after the money.

Be interesting to see what happens from here. I am sure Lee will go after Toyota

I agree and if Lee does this also, I'm not sure how I will feel about this.

MN does not have a policy for paying for a wrong conviction. If Lee does sue maybe his attorney could be successful in changing that.Not quite sure how I feel about it.If a person is wrongly convicted on the evidence available at trial they have acted within the law.

The suddenness of the wrongful death suit by the family does kind of stick in my craw. It makes it look like they were on Lee's side so they could go after the big money in Toyota

[phkrause]

Agreed bonnie

[GreatLakesGramma]

Originally Posted By: GreatLakesGramma

It's about time!

Not sure what you mean by this response? Could you explain? Thanks

With a probably innocent man sitting in prison, it should not have taken them this long to call for a new trial for this man, after Toytota's sudden acceleration issues became known.

[phkrause]

With a probably innocent man sitting in prison, it should not have taken them this long to call for a new trial for this man, after Toytota's sudden acceleration issues became known.

Thanks

[bonnie]

Quote:

With a probably innocent man sitting in prison, it should not have taken them this long to call for a new trial for this man, after Toytota's sudden acceleration issues became known.

New trials are pretty tough to get with a very high bar to reach.

There is a lot of question/confusion over exactly what Lee said at his trial.More than anything if true what is now being said,he had a sloppy attorney.

It really is not as simple as "the gas pedal struck"

It is a pretty wide spread opinion that there should have been a new trial rather than release him based on what they had.

I don't think they could have tried and convicted Charles Manson of this crime because of the involvement of Toyota

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

From what I read, Lee kept repeating his story of what happened and didn't deviate from it at all. And his family members all confirmed that he was saying that the brake didn't work when he was trying to stop the car.

I had that happen to me. My car had the throttle stuck in high gear and the brake system wouldn't slow me down. It's a terrifying feeling...you don't know what to do as you go careening down the road!!!!

[bonnie]

From what I read, Lee kept repeating his story of what happened and didn't deviate from it at all. And his family members all confirmed that he was saying that the brake didn't work when he was trying to stop the car.

I had that happen to me. My car had the throttle stuck in high gear and the brake system wouldn't slow me down. It's a terrifying feeling...you don't know what to do as you go careening down the road!!!!

At trial that is not what the lawyer said.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Didn't they put the man himself on the witness stand, as well as the family members?????

[bonnie]

Our family has reason to put a great deal of faith in what Ron Meshbesher says after dealing with him for over five years.It is kind of hard to blame anyone but his attorney

Koua Fong Lee's attorney failed him, legal peer says in court

Meshbesher: Defense essentially said, 'I don't believe my own client'

By Emily Gurnon

egurnon@pioneerpress.com

Updated: 08/05/2010 02:11:26 PM CDT

A veteran criminal defense lawyer blasted a fellow attorney Wednesday in Ramsey County District Court, saying that if he had done a proper job, Koua Fong Lee may not have been convicted.

Prominent Minneapolis attorney Ron Meshbesher said Tracy Eichhorn-Hicks, who represented Lee during Lee's 2007 trial, failed to exercise the "skill and diligence (of) a reasonably competent attorney."

Lee, 32, was convicted of vehicular homicide after his 1996 Toyota Camry rear-ended an Oldsmobile Ciera in St. Paul in 2006, killing three people. His attorneys now argue that his car experienced sudden unintended acceleration and that Eichhorn-Hicks did not present an adequate defense.

Lee is serving an eight-year prison sentence. But a judge

Koua Fong Lee, shown holding his daughter and pointing, is questioned by police at the scene of the fatal 2006 accident in St. Paul. Three people died as a result of the crash. (Pioneer Press file photo)

agreed to the hearing so attorneys for the defense and prosecution could present evidence as to whether Lee should get a new trial.

During the 2007 trial, Eichhorn-Hicks told the jury that Lee "clearly had his foot on the accelerator" rather than the brake, according to the trial transcript presented during Wednesday's hearing. That contradicted Lee's testimony at his trial.

Eichhorn-Hicks also said in his opening and closing statements that his own client was negligent.

"In effect, he told the jury, 'I don't believe my own client,' " Meshbesher said.

In questioning by defense attorney Bob Hilliard, Meshbesher said that wasn't necessarily a bad thing — except that Eichhorn-Hicks didn't get his client's permission to

use that strategy.

Hilliard showed Meshbesher a portion of the trial transcript. In it, prosecutor Derek Fitch suggested it would be prudent to have a waiver by Lee that he understood his attorney was going to say his driving was negligent.

Eichhorn-Hicks responded, "It would be my intention to acknowledge that my client hit the accelerator instead of the brake and that if the jury felt that was negligence, that they certainly had a right to find that. I'm not going to say it was negligence."

At that point, Judge Joanne Smith asked Lee if he understood what Eichhorn-Hicks had just said.

Lee said, "I don't really quite understand."

Eichhorn-Hicks said in his closing, "I guess what (Lee's) mistake was was that he hit the accelerator instead of the brake ... if he's negligent in hitting the wrong pedal ... I guess you'd find him guilty (of careless driving)."

Called to testify Wednesday afternoon by the prosecution, Eichhorn-Hicks said he thought that telling the jury Lee had made a mistake was, at the time, the best trial strategy.

If they had decided that Lee was guilty of simple negligence, they would have convicted him of only a misdemeanor, and Lee would likely have gotten no jail time. He was arguing that Lee was not guilty of the much more serious gross negligence — which led to the eight-year sentence.

In any case, Eichhorn-Hicks said, his client agreed to his strategy.

When asked if he would have gotten a waiver from his client had the court felt it was necessary, he said yes, but "the issue never arose."

Hilliard also asked Eichhorn-Hicks about a letter from the attorney for Lee's insurance company that said their expert had found Lee was "engaged in a braking maneuver" at the time of the crash.

Wouldn't that be contrary to his position at trial, Hilliard asked Eichhorn-Hicks.

Not necessarily, Eichhorn-Hicks said.

"There are many potential reasons why someone's brake light might come on," such as an inadvertent bump by a foot.

On another issue, Meshbesher said that Eichhorn-Hicks should have had his own expert look at Lee's car rather than relying on the state's witness — a city mechanic who testified during the trial that the Camry did not have anti-lock brakes.

The mechanic was wrong.

The defense displayed a copy of the original sticker from the Camry. Under "Safety," the first item of standard equipment listed is "anti-lock brake system (ABS)."

A Toyota spokesman said Wednesday that anti-lock brakes were standard equipment on all 1996 Camrys.

That issue was important because it would explain the lack of skid marks after the collision, engineer Samuel Sero testified for the defense.

The prosecution had noted during the trial that there were no skid marks and no "squealing" of the tires, and used that evidence to bolster their argument that Lee had not been braking.

Sero said Wednesday that anti-lock brakes are designed to equalize the speed of the wheels and prevent them from locking up and dragging. The locking is what causes the skids, he said.

An expert hired by the Ramsey County attorney's office to inspect Lee's Camry in April agreed that his car had anti-lock brakes.

And while such a car will not leave traditional skid marks, expert Wade Bartlett said Wednesday, it will leave what accident reconstructionists refer to as "shadow marks" —- light but visible marks that fade very quickly.

Meshbesher concluded that if Eichhorn-Hicks had handled the case as he should have, "I believe that a jury would have found at least a reasonable doubt and acquitted him."