[ad_1]
Today, the Kaunas Regional Court has taken up a lawsuit that caused great repercussion in society, in which Jurgita Jankauskienė from Vilnius found herself at the dock, driving a Toyota collision with a luxury SUV and losing her decade-old daughter to it’s front. The Varėna court acquitted her of the accident, but the prosecutor continues to demand that the mother, who lost her daughter, be found guilty of a minor death.
An eloquent context
This tragedy occurred on November 1, 2014.
The police summary of that day provided the following initial information about her: around 12.40 pm In the Varėna district, Valkininkai nursing home, on the first kilometer of the Naujieji Valkininkai-Daugai-Alytus road, the Audi Q7, driven by JV , a Vilnius district resident, born in 1980, missed the Toyota Avensis, which was driving in the same direction and turned left, which he drove in 1977. JJ, a Vilnius-born passenger from Vilnius, was seriously injured in The 1990s “. He died in hospital a few days after the injuries.
Alytus County VPK Photo
However, the pre-trial investigation into this traffic accident resulted in the death of the deceased’s mother. J. Jankauskienė was accused of violating the Rules of the Road, that is, not taking all the necessary precautions, because when turning left she did not make sure it was safe and she did not lose the Audi car she was passing. The driver of the truck was only a witness when he brought the case to court. However, her husband was recognized as a victim in the case of J. Jankauskienė, both for the death of his daughter and for the injuries sustained during the traffic accident itself, bruises on the shoulder and hip.
Such a turn of the case was accompanied by rumors that a wealthy businessman driving a luxurious SUV is the son of an influential person in Alytus. And after taking the case to the Varėna Chamber of the Alytus Court, the former Varėna Police Chief, who testified in it, testified about the pressure he felt to blame the deceased’s mother for the tragedy.
Following these testimonies, the Police Immunity Service immediately began its own investigation into the alleged circumstances. However, he was unable to find evidence of the statements of the former Varėna police chief.
Different accents
Last December, the Varėna Chamber of the Alytus Court finally handed down a judgment in this case, acquitting the mother of the deceased minor without finding clear evidence that she had caused the traffic accident. Although Regina Juškevičienė, the prosecutor of the Varėna section of the Alytus District Prosecutor’s Office, who supported the prosecution, proposed to J. Jankauskienė that he be sentenced to two years in prison, postponing his execution for a year and forcing him not to leave the residence without a permit. This punishment is said to be only symbolic, because the accused has already lost his daughter.
Lawyers for J. Jankauskienė and her husband asked the court to acquit the mother of the deceased. She relied on testimony from both her husband and other witnesses that the tragedy was caused by a truck driver passing a column of speeding cars in front of a Toyota trial. And the convict showed the turn of the road and slowed down before turning into the rest zone.
Wife of J.Jankauskienė / Photo by Justina Lasauskaitė
J. Jankauskienė’s lawyer, Linas Kuprusevičius, proposed to initiate a pre-trial investigation into the real culprit of this collision: the off-road driver. However, the prosecutor objected, arguing that if the Audi driver exceeded the speed limit, it was not his alleged violation of traffic rules that caused the tragedy, but the fact that Toyota prevented him from stopping the SUV.
After the acquittal, the spouse cried
In this case, up to five forensic examinations were carried out. Most of them have already been referred to the court, which has delayed their questioning in the Varna court.
Finally, the acquittal of J. Jankauskiene was based on the conclusion of a study carried out by a private expert commissioned by his lawyer that Audi was traveling at 99 km / h before the collision. speeds of up to 90 km / h at the scene of the tragedy. speed, that is, the speed of this SUV on a busy country road was not safe.
This verdict of the Varėna court was accompanied by the decision to initiate a pre-trial investigation against the off-road driver.
After such a judicial verdict, the wife of J. Jankauskienė, who requested the acquittal of his wife, did not stop the tears. The defendant herself, having given her the last word, said that she had complied with all traffic regulations and therefore did not admit her guilt, she no longer had to react to the emotions of her lawyer after the marathon of court hearings. By the way, an off-road driver who only had witness status in this case only had to attend a court hearing.
The prosecutor appealed against the acquittal of J.Jankauskienė.
Photo by Jurgita Jankauskienė / Justina Lasauskaitė
Arguments of the complaint
Today, the panel of judges of the Kaunas Regional Court Jūratė Jakubonienė, Algirdas Remeika and Gytis Večerskas, who examined the complaint, made its content famous. It turned out that, in the prosecutor’s opinion, the Varėna court had incorrectly assessed the facts of the case and the examinations carried out on it. Especially the study of a private expert commissioned by J.Jankauskienė’s lawyer, which is neither an act of expert examination nor a conclusion of a specialist, but was given priority by rejecting the conclusions of specialists from the Lithuanian Forensic Science Center, although there is no reason to doubt its competence.
Furthermore, according to the prosecutor R. Juškevičienė, there are witnesses who claim that the Audi driver initiated the flexing maneuver before the Toyota driver indicated that he was going to turn left. And her own testimony casts doubt on whether she did so convinced it was safe, as she admitted to seeing only two cars behind her in the mirror and drove into the opposite lane, not convinced there were no cars in it, despite He was driving at that time a column passing Audi, which the Toyota driver did not see and causing an unexpected obstacle to this SUV. And crouching in that place is not prohibited. Seeing this obstacle, the truck driver tried to brake and turned right, but due to too short a distance he was unable to avoid the collision. According to the prosecutor, there are no objective data on the speed at which Audi was driving, although it cannot be ruled out that it may be higher than the permitted speed. However, according to experts, even at the permitted speed, you would inevitably have encountered a Toyota in such a situation.
Photo by Regina Juškevičienė / Justina Lasauskaitė
Counterarguments of attorneys
The aforementioned panel of judges of the Kaunas Regional Court, having examined the prosecutor’s complaint, decided not to reopen the evidentiary examination in this case, since neither the prosecutor nor J. Jankauskienė and his spouse’s lawyers had requested it, and Juozas Gaudutis had requested it. he already represented the latter in the Kaunas Regional Court. The panel decided to limit itself to evaluating the evidence.
Only the prosecutor and the lawyers were already arguing. The lawyer for J. Jankauskiended’s spouse recalled that the private expert, whose conclusion was based on the Varėna court, is a doctor of technical sciences. And his conclusion was based on the fact that the experts from the Lithuanian Forensic Science Center made major mistakes, which was established by the Varėna court, which analyzed and compared all the expert examinations. Furthermore, the conclusion of the study by the aforementioned private expert coincided with the testimony of the driver who followed J. Jankauskienė that Toyota drivers did the same when they started to brake. They were then overtaken by a Renault Laguna driver who, seeing Toyota turn left, tried to get back into his lane, but then Renault overtook Audi at high speed. And all the experts concluded that the driver of this off-road vehicle exceeded the speed limit. Only their conclusions differed, starting at 93 km / h. up to 125 km / h.
J. Jankauskienė’s own lawyer first wondered why, according to the prosecutor, only a Toyota driver had to follow the Traffic Rules. Although a private expert clocked 99 km / h. The speed of the SUV was already two after its braking: the first time he saw a Renault trying to bend the column, and then J. Jankauskienė’s car turning left. So he even made a double curve, ignoring the warning signal from Renault, that he could not return to his lane, that there was an obstacle ahead. And in such a situation, he went to the curb and finally collided with the left-hand turn maneuver of J. Jankauskien auto’s car. Although this, according to witnesses, began to show a turn signal to the left a few hundred meters before the site to which it went. But the truck driver, who had thought of bending the column, did so without seeing what was happening in front of her.
Photo by Justina Lasauskaitė
The Kaunas Regional Court panel of judges, considering the complexity and size of the case, plans to announce its decision on the prosecutor’s complaint on April 23 only.
According to the prosecutor, if his complaint is rejected, the Varėna court’s orders to initiate a pre-trial investigation against the off-road driver will be enforced. The statute of limitations in this case is 2022.
Justina Lasauskaitė, Alytus County. VPK photo
[ad_2]
