Motion Denied in Brock Franklin Case

[Goody]

Motion denied in Brock Franklin case
Posted: Sep 16, 2009 5:04 PM EDT
Updated: Sep 16, 2009 6:44 PM EDT
Brock Franklin (File photo)

CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV)- A judge has denied a motion filed by an attorney for a man convicted of causing a deadly accident which killed two people on I-485 three years ago.

Brock Franklin's attorney, Paul Whitfield, filed a 'motion of appropriate relief' Wednesday afternoon which is a motion applied for by the defense to have the court review the case.

Whitfield was hoping to get a new trial and that Franklin might be given a lesser charge than second-degree murder.

Whitfield said there is new evidence that Franklin was drugged at the party he attended prior to the fatal crash. The judge, however, denied the request. Whitfield now plans to file an appeal.

According to the highway patrol, Franklin had been drinking before driving the wrong way on I-485 in February of 2006.

He slammed head-on into a car occupied by Eddel Rivera and Richard Charles Bryant. Both of them died at the scene.

Franklin has served 3 years of a 12-year sentence for their deaths.

[Goody]

CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV)- Brock Franklin's new lawyer was back in court Wednesday requesting a trial. The judge denied his request. The attorney says he'll appeal the decision.
After Franklin killed two people while driving drunk on February 19, 2006, he became something of Charlotte's poster child for the negative effects of underage drinking.

Franklin was 18 when he drove the wrong way down I-485 and killed 23-year-old Eddel Rivera and 22-year old Richard Bryant. They were engaged. Franklin later blew a .12, well past the legal drinking limit in North Carolina.

Franklin was found guilty of murder two. Murder means you must prove malice.

Today Franklin's new attorney, Charlotte veteran Paul Whitfield, says he filed a motion for appropriate relief because he thinks he can overcome the presumption of malice. A judge denied the motion, saying there wasn't enough convincing evidence.

"Our position is that because he was drugged -- and there seems to be plenty of evidence today that he was drugged by somebody," said Whitfield, "is that he was oblivious and could not possibly have intended to drive into the vehicle. It wasn't malicious intent."

Whitfield went on to say Peter Demas is the person responsible for "drugging" Franklin. He says Demas spiked Franklin's drink. Whitfield claims there's a witness who says Demas confessed to doing so.

Back when the story was breaking, Demas's attorney said Demas did admit to buying the beer he and Franklin took to the party. It has always known Demas was close to what happened that night. The accusations he drugged Franklin are all new.

Only Whitfield says Demas isn't in the country right now to question.

"Two people called yesterday and said he went to Greece," said Demas. "I'm not sure why he left."

Click the red camcorder to see the report.

[Goody]

CHARLOTTE, N.C.-- A high school student who caused a deadly drunken-driving crash in 2006 will not get a new trial.

An attorney for Brock Franklin went to court on Wednesday, saying he had new evidence that Franklin was drugged at a party he attended before the crash.

That evidence comes from a deposition that was given as part of a civil lawsuit filed against Franklin.

Attorney Paul Whitfield said that if Franklin was drugged, he wasn't fully responsible for the crash and should face a charge lesser than second-degree murder.

"Our position was that because he was drugged -- and there seemed to be plenty of evidence today that he was drugged by somebody -- that he was oblivious to what was going on and could not possibly have intended to drive a motor vehicle," Whitfield said.

[Wasted days Wasted nights]

Hilarious!!!

Somebody should go after BF's previous attorney Goerge Lauren!!! ROFLMAO!!

Lot's of evidence of him being drugged. If you go to the Fox Charlotte news report: http://www.foxcharlotte.com/dpp/news/brock_fr...

The video shows a copy of the original Brock Franklin Topix thread. That's the evidence that Whitfield presented!!! Hilarious.

Not surprised the motion was dismissed.

[Wasted days Wasted nights]

I just remembered that Whitfield is the attorney that Mr Bill met at a dry cleaners. Robin pounced on that advice.

I wonder if Mr Bill will be in town next month to support Robin during the civil trial? If I recall she asked him to come and he was unsure about his ability to make it down.

[Goody]

I wonder if the Franklin's are going to pay Whitfield. Tobin admitted she never paid George Laughran.

[Wasted days Wasted nights]

Who knows. I'm sure she's pissed, since all of the news reports misquoted Laughrun's name as Lauren. She didn't even get the satisfaction of dragging his name through the press.

[Just Wondering]

I watched this on the news and was wondering if it's just me or is this new attorney (Paul Whitfield) a complete moron???
When I was looking at it I thought it might be a youtube kinda joke. Is this guy really a lawyer???
I mean this fool was stupid enough to try to argue an appeal case with he said she said evidence without even presenting a witness. I don't know but I guess it's really true there is one born everyday.

[DR LOVE]

Great legal minds at work...you gotta love it.

[whatever]

DR LOVE wrote:

Great legal minds at work...you gotta love it.

Yeap wasted :
Just slithering ( SNAKES ) in the grass !

And now you are calling yourself DR LOVE:?
HUH (LOL)

[DR LOVE]

whatever wrote:

<quoted text>
And now you are calling yourself DR LOVE:?
HUH (LOL)

I'm considering opening a hydrogel butt injection franchise. I think the new name will help with branding.

[whatever]

DR LOVE wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm considering opening a hydrogel butt injection franchise. I think the new name will help with branding.

COOL !

[Tell Us All]

DR LOVE wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm considering opening a hydrogel butt injection franchise. I think the new name will help with branding.

Are you the one doing all the Cherry Dr. Pepper commercials? Damn, I thought it was Gene Simmons!

[whatever]

Just Wondering wrote:

I watched this on the news and was wondering if it's just me or is this new attorney (Paul Whitfield) a complete moron???
When I was looking at it I thought it might be a youtube kinda joke. Is this guy really a lawyer???
I mean this fool was stupid enough to try to argue an appeal case with he said she said evidence without even presenting a witness. I don't know but I guess it's really true there is one born everyday.

So: Are you Gamblin Man that put on the theatrical performance with Wasted Days and Wasted Nights:
Did you all three receive your pot of Gold.
You, Wasted, and Laughrun.
I love the denials .
JUST WONDERING?

[whatever]

DR LOVE wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm considering opening a hydrogel butt injection franchise. I think the new name will help with branding.

Yes please do TELL US ALL. You are the one that knew everything going on in the Brock Franklin case.
You are a legal attorney from somewhere are you not?
Boy would I hate to be in your shoes right now!

[whatever]

Cover Story: Brock Franklin - New trial?
Posted: Sep 16, 2009 7:09 PM EDT
Updated: Sep 16, 2009 7:41 PM EDT
Featured Videos
Cover Story: Brock Franklin: New Trial?

Top HeadlinesControversy over Charlotte music festival's ties to atheistCMPD cruiser damaged at G20 SummitThe Good News Is... Marine unit returns from IraqA world first: Vaccine helps prevent HIV infectionCrimestoppers: Crook shows his face, hides his plate
RSS FeedsNews Feed
Get news stories via RSS. More>>
Sports Feed
Get sports stories via RSS. More>>
RSS
Add headlines to your RSS news reader. More>>
By Jeff Atkinson - bio | email

CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV)- Major developments in court today surrounding a teenager convicted three years ago in a highly publicized deadly drunk driving case. Attorneys for former Myers Park senior Brock Franklin arguing in Mecklenburg court today for a new trial. Franklin's attorneys claiming they have new evidence that Franklin was drugged the night he drove his car the wrong way on I-485 killing two people.

Brock Franklin's attorneys were arguing that they have testimony from a witness who came forward that Franklin was drugged at a party he attended before the crash.

The evidence coming as part of a deposition in a civil case against Brock Franklin that's being argued right now.

Brock Franklin's attorney Paul Whitfield contends that if Franklin was drugged.. he wasn't fully responsible for the crash and should face a charge lesser than second-degree murder.

Said Whitfield, "We have testimony under oath in a deposition who said the man who did it confessed to it." To which a reporter says, "A judge said it's not credible." Responds Whitfield, "A judge has that opinion. He makes the call.. Because he believes it doesn't make it so."

Franklin's blood alcohol content was .12% legally drunk under North Carolina law.. when on the night of February 19, 2006 he drove the wrong way on I-485 near I-77 in South Charlotte.. slamming head-on into a car killing 23-year old Eddel Rivera and 22-year old Richard Bryant.

"Driving the wrong way"

Franklin, 18 at the time pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 12-years in prison.

Franklin's attorney filing a motion for appropriate relief.. was seeking a new trial on evidence from a witness who admitted under oath spiking Franklin's drink.

A Mecklenburg judge today denied the motion.

Attorney Paul Whitfield says he'll appeal.

"Don't think it's over. Mother's been fighting for two years single-handedly."

The assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case three years ago, Marsha Goodenow said, "All this evidence.. lack of evidence was back then. We investigated it. There was no evidence that anybody drugged him that night.. only that he was drunk."

During sentencing, Brock Franklin argued then that he believed someone slipped something in his drink.. unbeknownst to him.

But an Alcohol Law Enforcement agent testified today that there was no evidence that Franklin was drugged.

Why is proving he was drugged so important?

In order to be convicted of murder you have to prove malice..

If he was drugged Franklin's attorney will argue that Franklin was oblivious to what was going on and could not have intended to drive a motor vehicle.. they would argue in a new trial and get a lesser sentence.

[whatever]

http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp...

[whatever]

The assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case three years ago, Marsha Goodenow said, "All this evidence.. lack of evidence was back then. We investigated it. There was no evidence that anybody drugged him that night.. only that he was drunk."

During sentencing, Brock Franklin argued then that he believed someone slipped something in his drink.. unbeknownst to him.

I would like for someone to tell me who argued this piece of evidence at the sentencing.
At the tome of the sentencing we just knew he had been drugged. By Rumors. Rumors from the very beginning. In fact we thought it may have been someone else.
We did not have this evidence at that time and Mr. George Laughrun would not even say it in court because he thought he would be laughed out of court. Reasonable doubt. He just made a deal by threatening 80 years. Which would not have happened.
I told George Laughrun that the kids said Brock was drugged , that he was not acting like himself and George Laughrun said: Doesn't matter has nothing to do with Brock's case. I said well it does to me. I had heard someone else was driving when they (Brock, Scott Miller,( Christopher Herr which Brock does not know) Geore Laughrun says it has nothing to do with Brock's case. I said what does have to do with Brock's case. He (George Laughrun ) said nothing : DRUNK WRONG WAY , THEY GOT HIM.
George Laughrun , never investigated the case. And no one in the law ever investigated the drugging. Oh , but it did come up in the investigation. That's all.
Just nibble at that for a while>

[whatever]

Yeah I made some mistakes in the last reply , but anyone can get the drift I' sure:::

[whatever]

BTW:

George and Marsha:
Now that I know you are watching this: You know everything I put on here is true.
And you also know things that were on here before the motion was true.
So you won't see anything about anyone's family.
Just facts:

I do not lie, and my kids do not lie and I think by know you know that.