Primarily, the application of accident reconstruction experts in a criminal case is typically related to a vehicular manslaughter charge stemming from a driving-related offense.

For example, if two people are racing on the streets and a bad accident occurs and somebody dies, those people will probably be charged with vehicular manslaughter. Essentially, the prosecutors will argue that they were grossly negligent in their driving. Therefore, they're responsible for the death, which could subject them to a felony conviction and prison time.

Therefore, we often hire an accident reconstruction expert to demonstrate that the person wasn't driving in a grossly negligent manner.

For example, I had a case recently where my client was alleged to be speeding and racing with somebody and ended up hitting a curb that's in the middle of the roadway to block cars from being able to go from one side of the road to another and flipping up in the air and causing death on the other side of the road.

Essentially, we argued that by placing the curb where it was, it constituted a dangerous design defect in the road, given the nearby curve. You couldn't really see the raised curb. There are tire marks all over that area, indicating that other people have hit the curb.

The accident reconstruction expert was used to determine the time, speed, and distance, and was able to argue that the curbs in the middle of the road constituted a design defect. So, that's a good area to try and argue that the accident, and therefore, the death, was not my client's fault.

Real Case Example Of Involuntary Manslaughter in California

I've had other involuntary manslaughter cases where my client was left with his view being obstructed by a huge truck, and then a motorcycle hit his car, and the motorcyclist was killed, and they tried to blame the death on my client.

Ultimately, we had the case dismissed once the accident reconstruction expert weighed in and demonstrated that my client could not have safely made the left turn because the truck was illegally parked. There was a rise on the highway, so there was no way to see the motorcyclist at the last second. This was a moment of relief and vindication for my client, as the truth was finally revealed.

The best testimony the accident reconstruction expert was able to give was that the motorcyclist was speeding down the road, which also contributed to the accident and the motorcyclist's death. This testimony carried significant weight in the case, underscoring the pivotal role of an accident reconstruction expert in the legal process.

So, accident reconstruction experts in the right case can be very, very beneficial. I've used them a lot when the prosecutors are trying to claim that my client's driving caused the death or caused serious bodily injury.

I've even used them in DUI cases where they're trying to claim that my client caused an injury for purposes of a felony. I used an accident reconstruction expert to be able to show that the person caused their injury by the way they were driving, and just because my client was DUI didn't necessarily mean they were responsible for the accident.

So, accident reconstruction experts are great. I use them all the time, and I have a couple that are very effective.

But again, they have to be used in the right case, and you have to talk to your client about it and see what happened in the case to determine whether an accident reconstruction expert is the appropriate expert to use under the circumstances of the criminal case in Los Angeles. This process of thorough case evaluation and client consultation is crucial, as it makes the client feel involved and integral to the legal process.