UPDATE:
New probe challenges defense in Camry crashAuto experts say convicted driver was stepping on gas
By Emily Gurnon
egurnon@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 06/28/2010 11:10:18 PM CDT
Two experts hired by the Ramsey County attorney's office to inspect a Toyota Camry involved in a triple fatality concluded there was no evidence the driver had experienced "sudden unintended acceleration."
"The best explanation for the event was that (the driver) was depressing the throttle as he approached the crash area," wrote Wade Bartlett, an engineering consultant based in Rochester, N.H., in a report obtained Monday by the Pioneer Press.
Automotive engineer Frank Sonye, a longtime investigator for General Motors, agreed with Bartlett, saying in his own report, "The brakes, when firmly applied, would have prevented the subject vehicle from accelerating to a speed of over 80 mph."
Those conclusions run counter to the claims of driver Koua Fong Lee.
Lee was returning home from church with his family the afternoon of June 10, 2006, when he crashed into the back of an Oldsmobile at Snelling and Concordia avenues in St. Paul, instantly killing a man and his 9-year-old son. Another child was left quadriplegic; she died the next year at age 7.
Lee, who had no alcohol or chemicals in his system, was convicted of criminal vehicular homicide and sentenced to eight years in prison.
Prosecutors — and his own attorney — said during his 2007 trial that Lee must have been pressing the gas instead of the brake as he approached the Snelling intersection from eastbound Interstate 94.
But Lee, now 32, testified that he was pumping desperately on the brake, but that it failed to stop the car.
In the wake of the massive recall of Toyotas for sudden acceleration problems, Lee's new defense attorney, Brent Schafer, petitioned the court in March, seeking a new trial.
The fact that Lee's 1996 Camry was not part of the recall does not mean it didn't experience sudden acceleration, Schafer has argued.
The prosecution has until Wednesday to file a response with the court.
Lee's supporters blasted the reports and their authors.
"To me, they just come off as hired guns," said Mike Padden, an attorney for victims of the crash, who support Lee's motion for a new trial. They have filed suit against Toyota. "It was as if they said, 'This was our argument at trial, it sure would be nice if you guys agree with that.' "
Neither the prosecution's experts nor an expert brought in by Toyota to observe the inspection dispute two other reports released previously that show Lee was, in fact, stepping on the brake, based on the condition of the brake lamp filaments.
But they appear careful to parse the issue.
"The damage sustained by the left brake lamp filament does not indicate how long before the impact the brakes had been applied... the brakes may have been applied very late in the scenario," Sonye wrote.
Or, he continued, "The deceleration forces resulting from the first collision (with the Oldsmobile) caused the brake pedal to move forward sufficiently to turn on the brake lights."
Bartlett agreed that the brake lamp circuit was "energized." But, he wrote, that "does not indicate whether the driver's foot was on the brake and pressing intentionally, or the pedal was actuated by some other means, such as movement resulting from the collision ... or inadvertent contact by the operator's leg."
"It's almost embarrassing," Schafer said Monday. "It's like these guys got together and said, 'How else can we explain this?' I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that."
Concurring with the prosecution consultants was a Texas-based expert, hired by Toyota's attorneys to witness the inspection conducted April 20-21 at the St. Paul police impound lot.
"There is no physical evidence to suggest that a problem existed with the vehicle prior to the crash that would have resulted in its pre-crash motion," James E. Walker Jr. of Carr Engineering Inc. of Houston wrote in his report.
Assistant Ramsey County Attorney Phil Carruthers, one of the prosecutors in Lee's trial, said Monday that Bartlett and Sonye were chosen because they were licensed professional engineers with outstanding credentials.
"We wanted highly qualified people who would examine the vehicle and provide objective, independent opinions on whether there were any defects in the vehicle," Carruthers said. "We weren't trying to hire someone with a particular point of view."
Both Sonye and Bartlett wrote that they also were asked by the county attorney to review the inspection report by Richard Dusek, who examined the Camry on behalf of Lee, and to comment on 23 affidavits submitted by the defense from people who had experienced similar acceleration events in Camrys or other vehicles.
Sonye commented at length on Dusek's report, pointing out what he said were inaccuracies and refuting his conclusions.
Of the affidavits from other drivers, "In general, anecdotal statements are not sufficient to establish a substantially similar event," Sonye wrote. "In these particular statements, some contain inaccuracies; some involve completely different vehicles; some are similar vehicles with different throttle systems, cruise control systems or engines; and in some, driver error cannot be ruled out."
Bartlett wrote, "I do not believe this sample (of 23) is meaningful, nor do these unsubstantiate
d stories have any probative value with respect to the events that transpired in Mr. Lee's car just prior to the crash."
Defense attorney Schafer has since submitted 15 additional affidavits to the court.
Sonye worked for 37 years for General Motors, representing the company as director of product investigations before the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), according to his online LinkedIn profile. He also has testified for the company in personal-injury lawsuits and has responded to governmental investigations of GM.
Carruthers noted that GM is a competitor of Toyota, which he said enhances Sonye's credibility with regard to the Lee case.
Carruthers said his office paid about $12,500 to Bartlett and $14,000 to Sonye, including expenses.
Bartlett is on record as skeptical of sudden acceleration reports, writing in a 2000 essay, "It is not uncommon for someone to claim that their vehicle experienced an 'unanticipated acceleration' or 'sudden acceleration' (S/A). Despite having looked at many cars thusly accused, I have yet to personally find support for such claims."
Bartlett said in March that he stands by those comments.
In his report dated May 5, defense expert Dusek of Orchard Lake, Mich., wrote that the accelerator throttle system parts in the Camry did not move freely, stayed stuck and did not return to an idle position.
The cruise-control mechanisms also were not moving freely, which could have "contributed to the failure of the driver's release of the accelerator pedal to affect engine and vehicle speed," Dusek wrote.
The prosecutor's experts largely disputed those conclusions or blamed the conditions on the nearly four years that the car had been exposed to the elements while it was stored at the impound lot.
Carruthers also pointed out that Dusek's inspection results may be shared with the plaintiffs in the civil cases against Toyota, according to Schafer.
Judge Joanne Smith will decide whether Lee will get a new trial.
Emily Gurnon can be reached at 651-228-5522.
Topic: Is this Koua Fong Lee even guilty at all? I don't think so. (Read 1286 times)