The Senser Verdict

Joe Senser was a great Viking for many years. It's his wife that's been making the news lately, though.

I've only followed her trial for the last few days in the news but was absolutely stunned by the jury's verdict.

There basically were three outcomes that could be decided.

1. She was negligent (impaired or not paying attention) and that negligence resulted in someone's death. AND she was aware that she hit someone and failed to report it.

2. She had an accident because someone was not visible and she hit him with her car as a result. AND she was aware she hit someone and failed to report it.

3. She had an accident because someone was in a dark area. She hit that person and didn't even know it because it happened in an area with lots of construction cones and things to hit. Later she found out what she had hit someone and failed to report it quickly enough.

The prosecution never proved she was negligent. The jury found her not guilty of that.

But the jury found her guilty of criminal vehicular homicide, which basically is the the second option above.

The problem? The prosecution never proved she KNEW she hit anybody. Even in their closing arguments they said she was "probably" impaired, and that she "probably" erased text messages to her family that dealt with her accident to protect herself.

"Probably?" What kind of evidence uses the word "probably?"

The saddest part about all of this is that the jury has to be reasonably convinced that she KNEW she hit somebody for there to be a real conviction. Despite all the testimony from all of the prosecutions witnesses there really was no evidence that Amy Senser was covering up anything.

I figure I must have missed something until KARE 11 news last night interviewed a jury member just hours after the verdict. When asked if he thought Amy Senser KNEW she hit someone with her car, he stated quite pointedly, "I couldn't tell you."

THE JURY HAD TO BE CONVINCED SHE KNEW to bring back a guilty verdict. In other words they convicted her without believing she actually knew she hit someone. It was the most critical piece of the entire trial and they skipped right over it.

I hope I never go to trial for anything. People have lost their ability to think or reason and they just want their opinion to be heard. It doesn't matter that their opinion has nothing to do with presented fact.

If I were Amy's lawyers I'd get a copy of that interview last night and show it to the judge. That's enough for a mistrial.

Of course, that's just my opinion.