Nonlawyer Matt Steffey continues to break his own record for utterly stupid statements. In yet another Jimmie Gates article, the learned professor weighs in heavy on Karen Irby’s claim that she was being assaulted by Stuart Irby as she was driving. She contends that this attack is what led her to enter the oncoming lane of traffic and strike another vehicle.
Professor Neverhandledacriminalcaseinhislife dismissed the claims:
Absent of corroboration, I have to take all these things with a grain of salt.
This single sentence demonstrates once again that Matt Steffey is exactly where he needs to be–in a classroom setting far away from a courtroom where he might hurt somebody. The fact of the matter is that there was corroboration of her story. Her story is corroborated by (1) the manner in which the accident happened; (2) a rate of speed which is inconsistent with alcohol impairment; (3) simple biomechanics and principles of human reaction; and (4) Stuart’s well-documented history violence against Karen and at least one of the children–a fact that has been verified by law enforcement.
These facts have been well-publicized in media outlets, and it seems likely that Steffey would have known about these facts before he opened his blowhole. The problem with Steffey is that he doesn’t understand the importance of these facts. In other words, he does not understand that these facts could very well have convinced a jury to acquit Ms. Irby. The reason he does not understand why these facts are important is because (1) Steffey is not a lawyer; (2) he has never handled a criminal case in his life; and (3) and never tried a jury trial of any type or nature.
I understand that reasonable legal minds could differ over whether Ms. Irby’s claims are true. For example, the Hinds County District Attorney’s office does not believe Ms. Irby’s version of events, and points to other evidence of her guilt. That’s a legitimate argument. It’s also an argument that the prosecutors are qualified to make. Unlike Steffey, these prosecutors (1) have a license to practice law; (2) actually practice criminal law; (3) have trial trial experience; and (4) reviewed the evidence of the case in great detail.
On the other hand, Steffey’s pronouncement of a total lack of corroboration is just ignorant. If anything should be taken with a grain of salt, it is Matt Steffey’s opinion on anything even remotely related to law. If anyone out there knows Steffey personally, or happens to care about him, please tell him to shut up for his own good. The more he talks, the more he looks like a clueless bafoon to the rest of the legal community.