a nightmare scenario for any emergency responder and also for any driver and yet it seems almost inevitable that it happened given chain of  to make sure to warm drivers to slow down and get over the right lane ahead of this fun forseen danger of icy conditions and the bottleneck created by the fire department directly blocking the of southbound traffic mr shakra had the great misfortune to be the first driver who approached the scene who did not have the benefit of that buffer zone that advance before the danger of that bottom had passed and then this tragedy it's too big trucks that are the slid off the icy highway the same location into the ditch earlier that night that's the reason the emergency responders were there first place and we can hear the emergency responders on that video just mention discussing these terrible road conditions in real time discussing how slick the road was and trooper firmly testified that those conditions were deceptive that the high winds had blown the snow off the roadway the most part there leaving black ice that was hard to see that's what makes it on pursuing that's where this conscious disregard comes  the same thing happened first car slid off the road a second car came along slid off the road and hit a pedestrian that was responding to the first the first acts in this case looks quite a bit like that the key difference is the state has pointed out when he first saw those lights that he slowed down as he approached the scene the problem is that as you can see from the video although you can see the lights from a ways away you would have to drive fairly close to be able to make out where on the roadway the emergency vehicles were alone and though you could see emergency lights in general from greatest you would have to drop quite close before you could make out the narrow strip of yellow to rationalize telling drivers to move over to the right this is not like at a construction zone where you have the very large yellow arrows it's a very small strip of yellow lights and you cannot the cerne as you can see from the video you cannot discern that signoff telling you to move over from the greater spot of emergency lights reflections and headlights that would have appeared to a southbound driver the jurga road to the sentencing judge described it as a carnival of lights but by the time he got close enough to realize that he was in the wrong lane he was in the left lane it may have been too late he also told the police that when he tried to break he lost control of the truck stop the trucks lived for this enormous truck that that number actually should have been somewhat lower the problem of the fiction prohibition would lower that number even further to thirty two miles per hour and the fact that they had improperly weighed the truck that the weight estimate they were using for the change lanes he didn't even signal that he was going to change lanes but in that situation if he thought he had moved over correctly and that the the urgency vehicles are on the right side of the road it's the left they actually work at that point where he lost control and trying to break he may have been the best choice available to that situation instead of trying to turn with no traction which might oppose the joke the truck that jack knife was for the loss of life the fact that this decision to make did not work that he still crash in the vehicles does not make that and on reasonable might have been the best choice available for me from a range of bad options i can't emphasize enough how important watching the video is understand this case shows how hard it would advance is to make out these different facts and so we are very close and that mr schechter of might not realize it  but just highlight that mr schechter of needed the advance warning of this buffer zone more than anyone else on the road that day he was driving an enormous semi truck with the responder's of the biggest truck many of them had ever seen some of them refer to it as looking like the titanic for either of these errors a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but also argue that cumulative error the combination of the two errors in the alternative should require a new trial so the first is the this technical fourteen explanation of how that would have made him more tired of driving the exact same amount of time straight through without a break which would not have been a violation of any rule but instead he took this regular middle of the  this is the only piece of evidence that purports to tell us mr schechter of state of mind what he was thinking whether he was sleep but it doesn't actually help us make that decision it wouldn't help the jury that decision but it would be extremely prejudicial he also had ten and a half hours in the sleeper berth that night after that day of driving and additional time off duty before start starting the day of driving at issue in this case this evidence should not have allowed  prosecution that could have confused the jury it added nothing of help to the jury it in no way helped the jury including this evidence did not help the jury any way to decide whether or not mr sha but it did create the risk of using the jury especially since the testimony by lieutenant who i am this scott's law violation seems to create the implication that it was a strict liability  that the mere fact that this accident occurred that the outcome occurred was automatically a scots law violation as he testified because mr shakra did not get over the outcome and did not slow down the out moving argument and couldn't change lanes because of these conditions then they also could have decided that that he was only guilty of a class three out of last year i think in addition to the general please the court counsel that afternoon your honour's my name is john zimmerman court this week l a prosecutor's office on behalf of the state although counsel just did a great job of presenting the facts in the light most favorable to defendant as your hono are aware that is not the standard of review when it comes to sufficiency of the evidence here the facts in the light most favorable to the state are as follows the fin it drove a semi willing over seventy thousand pounds and precarious winter conditions somewhat similar to today at a speed not more than fifty mph which has counsel said of this was in its own words immediately after the crash and then he crashed into a group of clearly visible emergency responders and ultimately killed one his failure to slow down his failure to move into the unobstructed lane his failure to take any action attempting to warn the responder such as honking his horn or turning on his hazards or even breaking evidence his recklessness moreover though is it your position that basically the record just shows he just plowed through here no intention of stopping your attempt to stop just drove through your honored feel like humiliation of the facts through direct testimony of some of the witnesses and some circumstantial evidence such as the logbook violation and in fact when did he start stopping if you even continue drive could you let me use a fourteen hour violation night and so the evidence was from the log book that he stated driving them straight fourteen hours he took a break which took can technically over the fourteen hours but there was a three and a half hours of something around that time the break was that he took yes so i don't understand how that means he would have been tired were tired yes your honor the logbook violations are somewhat complex i believe the fourteen hour rule requires that once the driver begins driving he cannot drive after that fourteen hours now i believe he can only he's only legally allowed to drive with then a fourteen hour period a lot of an hours he stopped a ten a half hours but basically in this case he was supposed to stop driving nine thirty yes he took a break in the middle of the day i'm not sure if he was resting or what he was doing maybe he was just eating some food but we know that he did not drive in told well past the total number of hours he can drive and again right there is a difference between the fourteen hour rule and the number of hours within a twenty four hour period that the person can be driving that's eleven is it right is that right i believe that's correct so he didn't drive in excess of eleven hours twenty four hour period prior to the accident right i would have to do the math on that but basically what he did here he started at seven thirty on page thirteen of my brief charts out he started seven thirty on the day before the crash and he should have ended at c i cannot answer that this upon my own recollection but i believe this is still highly relevant evidence if he's regardless of whether he drives how many ever ever supposed to he was up from seven thirty until twelve am and yes maybe he did was in the sleeper berth front and a half hours the following day but just because you're in the sleeper berth doesn't mean you're sleeping you could be reading a book or on your phone so by your logic it's going to be relevant in any certain circumstances there wasn't factor violation and i think that is what's relevant and why this issue was so thoroughly that it did that if you review the record which was discussed in various pretrial proceedings  didn't even allow it in until an expert testified outside of the presence of the jury about why this was an important violation and how it was possibly relevant and how was it because it showed that he was possibly i'm i'm not certain but the trial court said that there were several witnesses during the course of trial testified the vehicle did not slow or change lenses or take any of ace of maneuvers even though there were lights on the scene the fact that the arrows in getting them to the right and he light most favorable to the state when looking at evidence obviously the defendant's statements are not the evidence that's the most favorable in fact multiple witnesses testified that the scene was visible for miles away so if you believe his testimony that he saw the light and st on the brakes or he then moved in the lane that that meant he slid for numerous miles that doesn't seem like a logical or credible account on his part and the defense counsel discusses the buffer zone as the state put forth in its brief the very first responder on the scene was able to kentucky traffic just a single i believe squad car appropriately and southbound and northbound so the cars were noticing the lights and slowing down and i do believe counsel said defendant struck was the last vehicle to it was the only vehicle without the buffer zone but i'm not sure if that's an accurate same and i believe the car moved out and then several other vehicles went through after the buffers the buffer zone came up i think defendant argued that they had the guidance of the taco buffer truck as they were going back but i'm not sure how accurate that fact is and another issue regarding the sniper the defense counsel would not hit upon regarding the definition of reckless is that it was unjust file forest conscious disregard where such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation if you look at the video if you look at all the testimony every other vehicle responded appropriately to the first responders whether there's a single car and seeing whether there was the inside and the ambulance the first initial squad car ride arrives directed traffic then the ambulance arrived and they had to be partially in that left lane to do their job so i'm not to stay aware of the that fact but i know that there was testimony that sort of a fire truck parked in a blocking position in order if there was let's say a smaller car that ran into it it would protect the crash scen in the first responders who run so there was a fire truck kind of parking at an angle to block protect the scene and then there was another truck and they were kind of like blocking the scene it was like a protection plan so that's why the plane was obstructed because it needed to be obstructed want to take care of the scene and defendant likens this case to the wall just for a case and he does note that there were no oversea responders hatch advice here that is totally not the case there were the emergency responders who were showing the foreseeability of the danger of ice patch and so for defendant to say that he stopped on his brakes as soon as on the lights in the sled without any control argues that because he could not tell which lane was unobstructed that that shows he was not reckless but if you cannot if you can't tell which  is an obstructed you wouldn't keep going fifty mph on the interstate he would slow down until you can tell what lane is unobstructed just like every other car did on that night so he's the only one being reckless it was a conscious disregard that was a gross fifty i feel like that's the common interpretation of that statement especially when you're being asked immediately after you her role model vehicles fifty to sixty plus feet down the road if you're asked how fast are you going it's not the conclusion that a public counsel argued that that's how fast is going early it's how fast he was going when he crashed into the scene it's an excited utterance immediately after he threw an individual sixty plus feet i don't i'm not i don't see how that can be interpreted to mean that's how fast he was going and then he slowed down once he saw the lights because obviously first responders even testified there were no hazards there were no blinkers there was no sounds of breaking there was no horns you would think if you were losing control of your car crashing into a scene you would be lying on the horn or trying to notify these people that you're and pending only going to crash into them i just feel like the evidence at trial is overwhelming and stick guilty verdict and on appeal when  that it's not an abuse of discretion the log of phylicia is relevant to show whether they were this circumstantial evidence as to why defendant maybe tired maybe why he wasn't attentive why didn't he stop on the brakes why didn't he warn these people he on a cell phone was he taking on a nap while driving appellate counsel even just argued that this evidence may have shown he was not tired as your honor noted so simply because it could show that he was tired and that it could also show that he was not fired that's not unfairly prejudicial of course it's slightly prejudicial but that's not unfair prejudice the jury could have easily seen that oh look he did get ten and a half hours of sleep after this so we're not going to fact that into our verdict and further as i said sleeper berth does not mean he was sleeping so the state's position as of the logbooks is that the witness who was an expert in the field of crash reconstructionist he was also testifying as an investigator of the scene that evening he said he made contact with the fan and he received information from the finance its driver's license the log books truck paperwork insurance etc and him testifying that he then issued him a citation for failing to yield to the scene the simply another portion of his testimony regarding his cracked the state's position on that would be the shoulder should be considered a lame so possibly caught on the shoulder if that's i believe it's the spirit of the law it was violated i'm not so sure if additionally regarding the judge elevating defendant sentence to a class two felony the state's position although this is there it's harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because clearly defendant did not comply with the traffic control device i don't think that it's really a contested fact there are traffic control devices tell him going left land or right lane he hit them that's not that's a lack of compliance so i driving his partner is driving the truck driving cars cross country so for a half hours of the middle of the day where he's off duty a block of time that follows three and a half hours of driving in the morning and then seven way not more than fifty mph to the exclusion of this other evidence which this or even taking all the evidence in the light most reasonable that the state still has to look at all of the other just as the jury did and that thirty seven two vehicles go through the zone immediately after that happens those two cars would have only been able to follow each other through and see where they go they would have had the benefit of seeing that's how slowly move up to the crash if something in the was not able to see you are asked a question about why the fire it was parked regularly in the roadway of i thirty nine there is testimony from i believe the driver of the fire truck that he was worried about the icy conditions that the shoulder was covered of ice that was ice in the roadway and he was afraid if he parked on the shoulder that the fire truck would slide off into the ditch just like the two large trucks that are the thought that these conditions were terrible every single person to testify that was there in real time at the time of