More

Koua Fong Lee, 'Toyota Defense' Driver Who Killed Three In Crash, Will Go Free

MARTIGA LOHN   08/ 6/10 03:07 AM ET   AP

Koua Fong Lee Free

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Koua Fong Lee dreamed of life outside prison, of returning to the family he left when a jury didn't believe he tried to stop his Toyota from speeding up a highway ramp and a judge sentenced him to eight years for the ensuing crash that killed three people.

On Thursday, Lee fought back tears, suddenly a free man after the same judge ruled new evidence and a shoddy defense entitled him to a new trial. The county prosecutor agreed, and said she wouldn't bring charges again.

"It's not a dream. It's true," Lee said, as his wife, Panghoua Moua, buried her head in his shoulder. "When we are asleep in the cell, sometimes I dream and I wake up in the little room, still in the little room. But now my dream come true."

Lee, who immigrated to the U.S. from a Thai refugee camp in 2004, was driving a Toyota Camry when it plowed at high speed into the back of an Oldsmobile as Lee exited a St. Paul freeway ramp in 2006. He insisted during his trial that he did everything he could to stop the car but couldn't.

Jurors weren't convinced and Lee's own attorney suggested his client might have accidentally stepped on the accelerator.

But Lee sought a new trial this spring in the wake of Toyota's widely publicized problems with sudden acceleration in some newer models. Even though his 1996 Camry never had been recalled, Lee was granted a hearing.

Prosecutors opposed a new trial, arguing Lee hadn't offered conclusive new evidence in the case. But after the judge's ruling, County Attorney Susan Gaertner conceded Lee's team had shown his trial attorney was "ineffective."

"I think it's time to bring this very sad situation to a close," Gaertner said.

Lee and Moua have four children, ages 8, 5, 3 and 2, and Moua said her husband barely knows the youngest two because of his time in prison. Changing that was Lee's first intention, he said.

"It's a long time, very long time, and they don't know me. I want to know them, who I am, I am their daddy," he said.

During four days of testimony this week, Lee's attorneys didn't prove his car had a sudden acceleration problem. But they argued evidence backed up Lee's account he was trying to brake. They also argued his defense attorney did a poor job. And they called a parade of witnesses who testified they had sudden-acceleration experiences in Toyotas similar to Lee's.

Ramsey County District Judge Joanne Smith – who presided over Lee's original trial and had sentenced him to the maximum – said if that testimony from the other Toyota drivers had been introduced then, it would "more likely than not, or probably, or even almost certainly" have resulted in a different verdict for Lee.

Smith also said Lee's limited English was a factor in her conclusion, as well as the work of his defense attorney.

"There were multiple errors and omissions by his attorney that necessitate this result," Smith said.

Lee's release capped a dramatic day during which he earlier rejected prosecutors' offer to set him free and vacate his sentence. But that offer had included several conditions, including a stayed remainder of his sentence that meant he could face prison for a new violation in the future.

Javis Trice Adams, 33, and his 10-year-old son, Javis Adams Jr., died in the 2006 accident. Adams' 6-year-old niece, Devyn Bolton, was paralyzed from the neck down and died shortly after Lee was convicted. Two others were badly hurt.

Bridgette Trice, Devyn Bolton's mother, welcomed Thursday's ruling. The victim's families had supported Lee's effort for a new trial, but Trice was crying outside the courthouse as she spoke to reporters.

"I'm happy for him but I'm still sad for us, cause he's going back to his but ours are never coming back to us," Trice said.

Lee said he wanted the victims' families to know he didn't intend to cause the accident.

"I want them to know that I will pray for them and I also want to ask them to forgive me and to believe me," he said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
Filed by Ryan McCarthy  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 507
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
11:43 PM on 08/09/2010
I live in St. Paul. What could never be explained, except by him, was why he would be going 90 mph up an exit ramp on a Sunday morning after going to church with his family in the car. The only logical explanation was sudden acceleration (or mass suicide). His own lawyer, not a public defender, but paid for by his extended family, The judge found, among other things, that his lawyer did not investigate the sudden acceleration issue, arguing instead that is client mistakenly hit the accelerator.

Watching this man on TV only strengthens one's belief that his story was the right one. He turned down a "deal," just before he was granted a new trial, that would have released him from jail for time served. Koua said "no," he would rather stay in jail that admit to a crime he knew he did not do. That is, in my opinion, an innocent man.

According to the local news, Koua is now enjoying spending time with his family, including a son born after he was incarcerated. The system worked,but only after Koua spent 2.5 years in prison for something he clearly did not do.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SeaMikeC
Retired Retailer/Former Mortgage Loan Officer
06:56 PM on 08/09/2010
I remember this accident, and from the time they arrested this man, my gut told me it made no sense. I mean why would a man, with small children himself, out of the blue, ram his car into another, possibly killing himself, and them. I'm so glad the Prosecutors have realized the error, and I hope this man has a wonderful life with his kids and wife. This was an accident, and frankly the family of the victims should be suing Toyota.
01:38 AM on 08/09/2010
But they shouldn't be regulated, lest we restrict their profits. They are expendable.
03:46 PM on 08/07/2010
I find it interesting that the prosecutor defended the verdict against Lee until the judge ruled for a new trial. What happened to all the evidence against Lee? Other comments have claimed there were eyewitnesses. Why was their testimony no longer enough to convict?

Prosecutors want convictions. They often use those convictions to enter politics. Prosecutors never admit to wrongful conviction. No matter how wrong they are shown to have been, they blame the jury for the conviction. "He was convicted by a jury of his peers" is how they put it. The Grand Jury is supposed to guard against prosecutorial excess. They are supposed to judge whether there is sufficient evidence for prosecution, as well as looking at any mitigating circumstance. However, the Grand Jury only sees what the prosecutor presents, and a new Grand Jury is especially gullible as it doesn't understand its purview.

As jurors, our responsibility is to look at the evidence objectively. You cannot just take the word of police either. I have sat on too many juries where shoddy police work was evident. I have also seen police lie on the stand, believing their word would carry more weight than their police video. I have seen prosecutors release a sexual predador because he was "connected." I've also seen a woman who drove into a flooded area at night on a rural road charged with negligent homicide because her children died in the incident. Where is the justice?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
munki
Global to Local now Local to Global
01:32 PM on 08/09/2010
Good point, unfortunately... there's no perfect solution.

Prosecutors may not want the conviction in this case, but also consider...

everything in this country - weigh "liabilities"... fear of it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrm3
01:58 PM on 08/07/2010
Eyewitnesses said it looked like Lee was trying to time the light.

Think: how often do accidents, or near accidents like this happen?

I was driving home yesterday (Friday) after work, and I hit a 3-second yellow light and had to brake pretty rapidly from 60 to 0 MPH. An SUV (Nissan Armada I think - a really really big car) accelerated up to probably 70 MPH and ran the red light, passing me in the process.

The SUV then had to brake extremely hard to avoid stopped traffic between lights ahead of him.

Had the driver of that Armada hit the accelerator pedal on accident, he would have plowed into stopped traffic, probably killing commuters in the process.

And I'm sure that that driver would swear up and down that he hit the brake, or at least intended to hit the brake. Even if the car's computer proved otherwise, as it has with the supposed Priuses, in which Toyota has been exonerated.

Does anyone think that maybe - just maybe - Lee was trying to make the light, got going too fast, and hit the wrong pedal? Even if the brake light fused, he may have just hit the brakes at the very last moment after realizing his mistake.

A case of unintended acceleration may have occurred. Can happen with any car, especially in Minnesota where throttle cables are subject to extreme cold and may become brittle over time. If it happened at just the wrong time, it's a
11:38 PM on 08/06/2010
This is great for the Twin Cities Hmong community who've been treated callously by the judicial system in such cases as this and the Fong Lee shooting (troubled cop, gunned-down teen, planted firearm). I don't know the extent that racism led to Koua Fong Lee's eight year sentence (but never call us redneck Minnesotans), but convictions for criminal vehicular homicide or negligence are common in Minnesota. It's ridiculous to call deadly car ACCIDENTS "homicides", but contrary to what many commentators are saying, fatally-reckless driving is a crime punishable with prison time, and not just for Hmongs. The idea is that in driving a car, you accept liability for your own capacity to make mistakes. But that's beside the point, because there's physical evidence (not just speculation) that Koua Fong Lee didn't make a mistake and did engage the brakes. The filaments in the brake lights had exploded indicating that Lee stepped on the proper pedal, so if the brakes had been operating, there would've been skid-mark evidence to show when he'd applied the brakes. (This is some of the evidence that wasn't submitted in good time - or allowed - and which Gaertner coldly tried to downplay in the run-up to this recent hearing.) But I believe the story was that the car accelerated into the impact. So, since the ignored evidence proves Lee stepped on the brakes, we can be pretty sure that the brakes didn't work, no matter when he stepped on the proper pedal.
11:53 PM on 08/06/2010
But even if there wasn't a problem with the brakes or the accelerator, the legal system did treat Lee vindictively. It seems that natives are punished but pitied for making such mistakes while immigrants are not only punished for their crimes but also for the very fact that they made that mistake in a foreign country, as if they came looking to cause trouble. Anyway though, this is a time for celebration and I'm gonna make a toast to the Hmong neighbors, coworkers, classmates and friends I've had.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:53 PM on 08/06/2010
Finally. Something right.
06:24 PM on 08/06/2010
It has been really nice to see the justice system working the way it should these last few weeks :)
I had lost faith in the system for some time.
photo
johngary66
Accused of heresy and decided to go with that.
07:34 PM on 08/06/2010
This has been a travesty of the worst kind. The Ramsey County attorney Susan Gaertner should be ashamed of her role. The only reason she dropped the case is the overwhelming support from the community Fong Lee had.She was against giving him another trial and she certainly was at the first trial and knew he had incompetant representation. She and the judge were responcible for his receiving eight years in the first place. A drunk who recently killed someone in a car accident only recieved four years. Fong Lee was sober and it should have been obvious it was an accident and he gets eight? What's wrong here? Susan Gaertner tried unsuccessfully to run for Governor. Was she trying to make a name for herself? She's a prime example of why lawyers get a bad name.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cherry Davis
Blogger, On Air Personality & Social Media Mngr
05:59 PM on 08/06/2010
May both families find peace after this miscarriage of justice and senseless deaths because of a car's mechanics.
photo
blastocyst
Happy to be here
06:00 PM on 08/06/2010
"...senseless deaths because of a car's mechanics.'

Ill-fitted and ill-designed at that.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PanFx
Chief Iconoclast
05:46 PM on 08/06/2010
People, if your car ever accelerates out of control the first you should do is turn off the motor using the key. If that doesn't work, put the car in neutral. I know it's hard to think under duress, but those two actions will stop the car.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:07 PM on 08/06/2010
A few months ago, I took my Lexus (not under recall) to the car wash and the guy who vacuumed it had placed the forward edge of the very stiff floor mat OVER both the accelerator and brake pedals. As I pulled out of the car wash and onto a very large L.A. blvd, I pressed my brake pedal but the engine begin to race and the car kept going forward. The harder I pushed on my brakes, the higher the engine would rev and the car kept going forward.

As I approached the rear of a car that had come to a stop at the light about 20 feet in front of me, I tried to reach under the dash to pull the floor mat off but the damn thing was hooked in and I couldn't pull it back. With my engine at about 5,000 rpm, I finally shifted into neutral and turned off the ignition.

I must say that unless this is something that you've rehearsed in your mind beforehand, the idea of shifting into neutral, dealing with the noise of a engine revving at high rpms and then shutting off the ignition in the middle of heavy traffic can be harder than you think.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chickline
08:19 AM on 08/07/2010
Though we all hope that we never need to use this knowledge, it should be one of the things that driver's ed classes should teach and should be printed in large letters in any of the manuals that one receives but places quickly under the seat or in the glove compartment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JustMyWords
08:47 PM on 08/06/2010
Not necessarily bad advice, but also not necessarily practical. Turning off the car and/or putting it in neutral will not stop the car. Inertia will continue to carry the car forward, and when you're talking about an incident that occurs in a matter of seconds at most, that could be sufficient forward motion to cause serious injury or death.

And when you're talking a matter of seconds, it's not realistic to think that there's time for the sequence of events - the car begins to accelerate, the driver tries to break, realizes it isn't working, puts the car in neutral and turns off the ignition. (Which would have to be done in that order in many cars.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
10:05 AM on 08/07/2010
You are correct. Some people get the impression that once you do put the car into neutral, and your brakes are applied - you will instantly stop. You won't. You should still try.
When this happens, especially in a relatively crowed area - chances are that you will hit some thing, or someone. It can even be a longer distance and then you finally do what you need to, but it could be too late.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrm3
05:18 PM on 08/06/2010
Friends don't let friends drive automatic transmission cars.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrm3
05:08 PM on 08/06/2010
I don't think he should sue Toyota at all.

Toyota didn't put him in prison.

Toyota didn't allot him essentially a mistrial.

Toyota wasn't responsible for the miscarriage of justice that stole 4 years of this man's life.

Toyota just has $$....

Sue the State of Minnesota
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GandenT
05:14 PM on 08/06/2010
The victims' surviving family might consider suing Toyota on the other hand.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrm3
05:24 PM on 08/06/2010
True, but I don't think they will find evidence that the car was at fault.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:25 PM on 08/06/2010
I've spent the past couple of days reading over court documents in the Toyota liability lawsuits and they could be in for a world of hurt. The accumulated internal emails and NHTSA figures lead to some degree of corporate cover up and evasion.

Bad news for the good folks from Nagoya.
06:12 PM on 08/06/2010
How foolish to say not to sue Toyota, their car which accelerated by its own accord cost this man a tremendous amount of suffering. Even if he hadnt gone to jail he would have had to live with the fact he was involved in the accident which killed those people. Absolutely sue Toyota and the state of MN! I couldnt believe it when I saw this on TV, I looked it up on here to see if he was drinking or something...having had to go to jail. Since when do you go to jail for an accident in an auto...sounds like a redneck lynching to me in redneck MN! Who would purposely run into the back of another car at a high speed..God the ignorance in this world...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
10:11 AM on 08/07/2010
Jeff, we are not all rednecks. I was in a southern state. In court, what I witness was pure lack of knowledge and slapped together case.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LabRat
Common sense ain't
05:03 PM on 08/06/2010
I'm glad the prosecutor isn't insisting on a new trial. Both of those families have been through enough. I hope the rest of his new life here in the USA is as wonderful for him and his family as the last few years have been bad.
photo
johngary66
Accused of heresy and decided to go with that.
07:46 PM on 08/06/2010
Her name is Susan Gaertner, remember it because she tried once to get the endorsement for Governor as a Democrat. She was against his getting a new trial, who knows why. Fong Lee recieved so much support and there was such outrage in the community that she had no choice but to drop the charges. She needs to consider resigning. The judge should also, she was the one who sat through the original trial and sentenced him to eight years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
10:12 AM on 08/07/2010
she was against it because as his lawyer, she would not make any money and she would have to implicate that she didn't do well the first time around. A new motion means you can bring more evidence in court, an appeal means they use same evidence in trial.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wvuweirton
04:44 PM on 08/06/2010
This shows the difference between being rich or working class poor - the quality of lawyer the accused is able to hire....

If this happen to some rich guy, he would have never served a day in jail based upon the evidence presented....

Example: The Pittburgh Steeler Quarterback who has walked away from two rape charges... His punishment - a 4 game suspension.... If that would have happen to you or me, we would be in the hot seat.....MONEY TALKS....
04:01 PM on 08/06/2010
Corporate CEO's and shotty lawyers. This story shows the very real life eccect both of those dregs have on people.
04:27 PM on 08/06/2010
Not to mention idiots on juries. I can assure you, juries make up facts that were never even discussed at trial. Our system of "justice" is way off kilter. Then, when the jury finally gets one right, the system figures out a way to protect the corporation and the prosecution.