Dec. 5th, 2003
So, his defense is that he was hallucinating and passing out because he has diabetes and hadn't eaten for the past 19 hours.
What I don't understand is why his lawyers consider that to be a defense against manslaughter. He's being charged with accidentally and negligently killing someone. Not eating for nineteen hours when you have diabetes, and then operating a motor vehicle, and you KNOW that this causes you to pass out and hallucinate, since in at least one of your PREVIOUS arrests for a motor vehicle violation, the EXACT SAME THING HAD HAPPENED -- in fact, you hallucinated the exact same white car that you hallucinated the LAST time you operated a motor vehicle while you had low blood sugar. . .
I mean, isn't Janklow just admitting that he's guilty of exactly what he's charged with?
What I don't understand is why his lawyers consider that to be a defense against manslaughter. He's being charged with accidentally and negligently killing someone. Not eating for nineteen hours when you have diabetes, and then operating a motor vehicle, and you KNOW that this causes you to pass out and hallucinate, since in at least one of your PREVIOUS arrests for a motor vehicle violation, the EXACT SAME THING HAD HAPPENED -- in fact, you hallucinated the exact same white car that you hallucinated the LAST time you operated a motor vehicle while you had low blood sugar. . .
I mean, isn't Janklow just admitting that he's guilty of exactly what he's charged with?