Dunagan scheduled to be re-tried in April 2010
2 months ago | 2319 views | 21 
| 8 
| 
| 
| 8 | |
Aaron Matthew Dunagan
Dunagan was convicted in 2006 of reckless driving, serious injury by reckless driving and failure to obey a traffic control device in connection with a Feb. 17, 2004, crash that temporarily left Bendek in a coma.
The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s conviction of Dunagan in May 2008, and the state Court of Appeals vacated its previous judgment that evidence about the safety of the intersection was correctly excluded from testimony when Dunagan was tried.
According to the most recent opinion issued by the Court of Appeals, the trial court erred when it granted the prosecution’s motion to exclude evidence that the intersection at Burlington Drive and Ga. 53, where the wreck occurred, was dangerous.
“Because evidence that the intersection was inherently dangerous was Dunagan’s sole defense in refuting evidence of his criminal negligence, its exclusion was harmful error,” the opinion stated.
Changes were made to make the intersection safer.
Dunagan was originally sentenced to serve 10 years in prison, later reduced by two years.
He had been incarcerated at Wilcox State Prison on the charges from 2006 until May 2008 when Judge J. Bryant Durham Jr. granted a $25,000 appeal bond in Floyd County Superior Court.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/11/driver_in_fatal_fairfield_wrec.html
No one wants to see someone injured but be honest. Dunagan was NOT driving Bendek's car.
Even people with the ROW (right-of-way) can get a ticket for NOT observing the "last chance" to avoid a accident. That's what cops use often to rule in favor if a acquaintance involved in a accident.
and keep your head buried in the sand. the fact's speak on their on.oh- by the way he has not been convicted this time around,so you may not get your wish for him to "rot".
When exactly did you drive through the intersection??
What in your ignorant opinion, did Dunagan do to deserve to "rot"?
Also, I do agree with you on one thing that you said..."it is the responsibility of the driver(s) to use caution when driving."
have said mr.dunagan has already done his time. why the witch hunt contenues is only for publicity?
It seems that Rome is the new Salem and we're all gathered around the pond waiting to see if Dunagan will float or sink.
will not back down to you. first have you ever been through that intersection? before and after the state redone it? i'm at that intersection
atleast twice a day and it was concerderd one of the worst in the state. still is as far as i know? i do not know anyone involved? i do know that the judge involved was family friend's with
one of the family's rnt. reported that.did you get your driver's license at sears robuck? do you even drive? are you a lawer or just a wanttabe? i also the man has already served his time as reported by rn-t.
http://www.romenews-tribune.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Man charged in wreck fatalit - Local New &id=3395924-Man charged in wreck fatalit - Local New
I haven't found the sentence yet but I will. The driver in the fatality only recieved a $1200 bail and was only charged with misdemeanors. Maybe you shouldn't speak of what you do not know.
Go back to law school and learn about equity and justice. Or are you going give a bad name to police and prosecutors by being an over-zealous, letter-of-the-law attorney?
And you must not be paying much attention in law school, otherwise you would know that when a higher court reverses a lower court conviction, the party is no longer "guilty." He is presumed innocent once again.
Aren't you supposed to be studying for finals anyway?
You need to study the difference between negligence and criminal negligence. People are at fault in harmful accidents everyday and are not charged with anything, save a traffic violation. If that was what happened in this case, which the study of the intersection may prove, then Dunagan should NOT be guilty of anything more than a traffic violation, if that.
To Montezuma:These are serious questions, I'm not trying to be a smart a$$. What was the results of the breath test? .08? .10? Was he drunk at all? Could the other party have been at fault too? There were a lot of wrecks at that intersection before they reconfigured it a few years ago.
Look I really don't know much about this case, but from the outside looking in, it looks like they made an example out of this guy, and the DA wants more Press time out of the deal.
If the driver that died was at fault for the accident and the driver that was DUI during the accident had the right of way, then that is the only way I could see such a light sentence being allowed. That or the fact that the jury only found the driver guilty of a very minor traffic infraction and not the underlying DUI.
E.W.: Your comment is rather asinine. I could care less whether or not the victim received monetary compensation; Mr. Dunagan deserves to rot for this. A criminal does not get to go free just because their victim received money. That is the least the victim deserves for his or her pain and suffering.
Just because a portion of the roadway could be considered dangerous, it does not absolve a person of responsibility for his or her actions. Every square inch of roadway will not be 100% "safe", so it is the responsibility of the driver(s) to use caution when driving.
I believe that the case was handled as it should have been. Mr. Dunagan needs to deal with the fact that he got what he deserved. He can try and use any excuse that he wants to, but the fact remains that he is guilty. He needs to do his time and move on.
I have driven through that intersection and have not found it to be as dangerous as the defence is making it out to be. There are far more dangerous stretches of road and intersections in and around this area. I just hope the new trial is handled properly and a conviction is obtain as quickly as possible.
I challenge RN-T to find out two things: (1) has the woman who was injured in this accident received compensation through insurance or a lawsuit for her injuries, and (2) how much money did the DA's office spend on the first case and the first appeal which they lost.
If the injured party has received compensation and Mr. Dunagan has already spent two years in jail for this, then the DA's office is wasting our money. And, given the fact that the information regarding the dangers of that intersection will come into evidence, the DA's office has a good chance of losing this case. A study showing inherent danger at the intersection is enough to create reasonable doubt, and that's all that's needed for a jury to acquit.