Maybe he wasn't drunk, maybe he was just thrill seeking. In any case, being found driving on the wrong side of the highway should be enough to make him liable for any damages and criminal prosecutions. Don't get caught up on why!

Sounds like Katz's defense attorney is doing what he's paid to do–find some way to get his factually guilty client acquitted.

If he wasn't drunk, he was trying to commit suicide by driving on the wrong side of the freeway. Instead he killed an innocent person and maimed 2 others. Now he is playing legal games and stomping on the grave of the person he killed. Why is this case being prosecuted as manslaughter instead of murder? Surely killing someone is a foreseeable result of driving on the wrong side of the freeway.

Has the victim with the fractured skull fully recovered?

If the ethnicities and affiliations were reversed this would not even be mentioned. There would be no chance of anyone getting off. Disgusting.

The fact is that this young man killed people and badly injured others. It is what it is, no matter his intentions-- deaths have far-reaching repercussions for the families of the deceased. There are also far-reaching repercussions for people with severe injuries, as well as for their families.

I wonder how well-lawyerly-up, how well-defended, and how lightly punished the defendant would be if he were not a Stanford student? If he were a Foothill or San Jose State student, instead?

Does anyone know if the surviving victims are fully recovered now? The collision was in 2013.

There's no question that he was drunk, they did two blood alcohol tests. Requiring that the officer read him the law with no legal requirement or precedent sounds bogus to me. Hopefully the inadmissability of the blood test will be overturned on the appeal. I'd feel better about this if he manned up and plead guilty but with a not guilty plea I hope they lock him up for a long time. Maybe behind bars he'll be able to reflect on how devastating his irresponsible behavior was to the lives of others.

Whatever the merits of this case, this is certain: the Fourth Amendment to U.S. Constitution is NOT a "technicality". It's part of the Bill of Rights.

"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

What other of this society's fundamental rights are "technicalities" in the opinion of this publication? The First Amendment's guarantees concerning religion, speech, assembly, and petition? Or the Fifth Amendment's guarantees concerning due process of law and protection from self-incrimination? Tell us!

The other technicality is the fact that the passengers WERE NOT WEARING SEATBELTS and that contributed to their death and injuries. That question must also be answered. If this defense lawyer is good, this case could last for years and that student stays free.

Web Link

P.S. My 1977 XJ12 has rear seat belts and I require all passengers to buckle up.

.15 BAC ILLEGALLY TAKEN is Drunk. Alcohol Impaired driving is.08 BAC or higher.

The BOR is the ultimate authority. The U.S. Constitution is not a " technicality ". It is the law of our country.

Reading your rights is mandatory. Cops can't just take evidence without informing people of their rights. YouTube is full of videos on illegal stops by authorities.

After the cops are informed that this stop is being captured on video, they immediately let the driver go. Or the supervisor lets them go.

That is the law. Stay informed about the law.

Hmmm, quite a reach. Hello prison.

@the_punisher, @Member: "The judge acknowledged at the time that there is no appellate case holding that reading the defendant his rights was required to draw the blood."

"Why is this case being prosecuted as manslaughter instead of murder? Surely killing someone is a foreseeable result of driving on the wrong side of the freeway."

Because that isnt the legal standard for murder

How does the fact that the taxi's passengers weren't wearing seatbelts work in the defendant's favor, or does it?

It is law in the State of California to require all passengers to wear proper restraining devices when the vehicle is in motion. I posted the relevant sites in my previous posting. Please check out the posted facts.
Yes, that mitigates a point in the defendants favor. No seatbelts=> ejected passengers=> death & injury to passengers by violating California Law(s).

@Flash:

You write: @the_punisher, @Member: "The judge acknowledged at the time that there is no appellate case holding that reading the defendant his rights was required to draw the blood."

This case's issue under the Fourth Amendment is no more a "technicality" than when a Mr. Miranda voluntarily signed a rape confession when there was no appellate case holding that police must read a suspect his/her rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (Bill of Rights).

No genuine issue under the Bill of Rights is a "technicality."

I guess the judge needs to do some more legal research. There has been case law regarding similar situations for quite sometime. In a case such as this where a DUI driver has killed and or injured another and the DUI driver is also taken to the hospital,the arresting officer can have a blood sample taken from the DUI without advising him of the implied consent law. In fact, there is case law where the officer can have a blood sample drawn from an unconscious DUI driver and even have it done forcefully if the DUI driver refuses. That situation usually only happens in cases where there is a death and or major injuries to innocent victims. A person's blood is, in legal proceedings, considered physical evidence, and as such, there is no right for a person to refuse to have a blood sample taken in such situations as a felony DUI case such as this one. The mere fact that a person is driving upon a hwy or any roadway in Ca. "implies" that they have already given their consent to take and complete a chemical test to determine their BAC level. Driving is a privilege and not a "right". In run of the mill misdemeanor DUI cases where one is pulled over by an officer and subsequently arrested for DUI, the officer will advise the person arrested they have a choice of either a blood or breath test. The Implied Consent admonishment would only come into play if the misd.DUI driver refused to take a test, as he would lose his privilege to drive for 6 months as long as the officer gave the admonishment. But again, in the situation we are talking about here, the officer can have a blood sample taken from the felony DUI driver as that person has NO right to keep that blood since it is physical evidence. And that folks is the way it should be. If my wife or anybody I knew was killed or injured by an irresponsible DUI jerk, I would want that idiot's blood sample sucked out of him even if it took 5 officers to hold him down.

Whatever happened with this case? Was supposed to go to trial last month.

A follow up on this by PA weekly would be appreciated. The accused is back at Stanford at the business school, as of a few months ago. Maybe Stanford has an obligation to let him come back to school while he hasn't been convicted, but the whole thing stinks.

Stanford University spokeswoman Lisa Lapin said on June 17 that Mr. Katz is not currently a student at the university. His case is still active and a hearing for new date for his trial is scheduled for August. We will be posting a new story with updated information shortly.