Dr. Kendall Crowns

Why wasn't there better lighting?

That's what he's going to argue.

And he's going to argue also a

Was there a guardrail here?

I don't think there was.

And if there wasn't, there should have been.

And that might have minimized the impact.

And this tragedy might have been avert.

Well, look, I respectfully disagree that my argument applies to a civil case.

You know as well as I do you've got to prove causation, even in the murder case here.

And what Jackson's going to argue is there could be concurrent causation.

And here's another point.

In order to prove murder in this situation in California, you've got to prove causation, what's called implied malice.

Not that he intended to drive over these young women.

You've got to prove that he acted in such conscious disregard for the lives of others that he knew that it was likely that these young women would die.

Yeah, I'm not sure if that's a jury instruction in California.

You could try to make that argument as a prosecutor.

Well, let me refresh your recollection.

Look, if this case goes to trial, Boehm is going to have to testify to try to refute.

Wait, let's assume you're correct, Nancy.