Why Morgan crash might be a crime

Actor Tracy Morgan is in critical condition after a six-vehicle accident in New Jersey early Saturday, June 7, authorities said. The former "Saturday Night Live" cast member and "30 Rock" star was riding in a limo bus when the accident occurred.

Morgan got his start as a stand-up comedian, working at Harlem's Apollo Theater before landing his gig with "Saturday Night Live." He was a cast member from 1996 until 2003. In the October 3, 1998 "Big Bernard" skit, Morgan performs with basketball star Shaquille O'Neal.

Tracy Morgan with Maya Rudolph in the "On The Subway" skit on April 13, 2002.

In 2003, Morgan left SNL to start "The Tracy Morgan Show," but it ran for only one season before it was canceled.

Morgan's acting career branched out from television to include movie titles such as "30 Years To Life." Director Vanessa Middleton, left, appeared with Allen Payne and Morgan at the premiere on March 27, 2002.

Actor Tracy Morgan and his wife Sabina pose on the red carpet during the premiere of "Are We There Yet?" at the Mann Village on January 9, 2005 in Los Angeles. The couple divorced in 2009 after 23 years of marriage.

Tracy Morgan and Tina Fey worked together after SNL on the show "30 Rock." Morgan played Tracy Jordan, a character that was loosely based on himself.

Members of the cast of "30 Rock" joke around with their award for outstanding comedy series backstage at the 60th Primetime Emmy Awards in Los Angeles on September 21, 2008. Morgan was also nominated for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series.

Morgan starred with Bruce Willis in the 2010 movie "Cop Out."

Morgan has stirred up controversy with some of his comments in his comedy acts. "I hurt people with this, so from the bottom of my heart I apologize to everybody who I offended with my words on stage," he said in 2011 after an anti-gay rant in one of his shows. Stand-up comedy should "heal people, not hurt."

Tracy Morgan promotes his new book "I Am The New Black" at Barnes & Noble Union Square on October 22, 2009 in New York City.

• Danny Cevallos: Trucker in Tracy Morgan crash charged with death by auto, assault by auto


• In N.J. vehicular homicide from reckless driving


• He says state must show conscious disregard of risk


• Cevallos: Assault charge defines culpability based on severity of injuries

Editor's note: Danny Cevallos is a CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney and partner at Cevallos & Wong, practicing in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Follow him on Twitter @CevallosLaw. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- Truck driver Kevin Roper has been charged with death by auto and four counts of assault by auto in connection with the crash last weekend that killed comedian James McNair and injured comedian Tracy Morgan.

The question has arisen: Why was he charged with death by auto and aggravated assault before we even know how he was driving? In this sort of crash, what makes the difference between an accident and a crime?

The answers lie in the criminal code.

Homicide

Roper has been charged with "death by auto" in connection with the killing of James McNair. In New Jersey, homicide as a crime is divided into three different categories: murder, manslaughter and -- in a category by itself -- death by auto. Vehicular homicide is causing a death by driving a vehicle or vessel "recklessly."

There are two elements hidden in that definition. First, causation: The defendant has to have caused the death. It must be shown that the defendant caused the crash, the crash caused the death, and that the victim's death was foreseeable. The concept of recklessness, however, is a little more difficult to grasp. Recklessness and negligence are often spoken of together, but they are two very different points on a "mens rea" (state of mind) spectrum.

Criminal negligence is the least blameworthy state of mind. It's an "objective" standard, which means that we simply ask if an ordinary, reasonable person would have done the same act -- the act that created the risk in the first place. The prosecution doesn't have to prove that the defendant actually knew better, just that he should have known better.

Recklessness is totally different. Both the negligent person and the reckless person create a risk of bodily injury, but the reckless person does so in conscious disregard of that risk. So, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant's driving created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of bodily injury. With recklessness, the state must also prove that the defendant consciously disregarded this risk, which was a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would have done.

So how on earth does a prosecutor get into a defendant's brain to know what he was thinking at the moment of impact? The truth is that we never know for sure what a defendant actually thought -- unless, of course, the defendant tells us what he thought.

Driver: Tracy Morgan screamed in crash

Actor injured in multi-vehicle crash

Former 'SNL' star in intensive care

Often defendants give statements or admissions to the police that can be introduced against them in court. While it's true that hearsay (what the person told someone else) is supposed to be inadmissible, the admission of a criminal defendant is an exception to this rule. Of course, if a confession is obtained through compulsion or coercion, it is considered unreliable, and is inadmissible. But, as long as the state can prove conclusively that a confession was made voluntarily, it will be admissible.

But how often does a driver admit to police "I drove recklessly?" Not often. Therefore, the law also permits us to draw inferences about a person's state of mind, based just on their conduct. In fact, certain behavior is specifically considered reckless by the law. And that's where this defendant may find his words come back to haunt him -- even if he never uttered the words "reckless" to the police.

New Jersey's criminal code has this to say: "[p]roof that the defendant fell asleep while driving or was driving after having been without sleep for a period in excess of 24 consecutive hours may give rise to an inference that the defendant was driving recklessly."

The easiest way to find out a driver was dozing off is if he admits it. Since the defendant in this crash was alone, only he would be able to tell police if he was asleep. Even an offhand comment to investigators about "drifting off" would have dire consequences, because it all but establishes a major part of the case against him.

The 24-hour alternative could be proved with circumstantial evidence, such as records, communications, or even witness testimony. Either way, the state would have the burden of proving sleep. If the defendant admits to dozing off, he's saved the state the inconvenience of its burden. See why criminal defense attorneys are always begging clients to not try to talk their way out of trouble?

This kind of homicide is a second-degree offense, punishable by up to 10 years in state prison, and there is a presumption of incarceration. This means if he's convicted, he's probably going to prison.

Assault

Roper has also been charged with "assault by auto" in connection with the other injuries caused. Assault by auto also has the recklessness standard, but here the seriousness of injury also guides the degree of the crime charged. Assault by auto is a crime of the fourth degree if serious bodily injury results.

On the other hand, if only "bodily injury" results, it is only a disorderly persons offense. It's interesting that criminal statutes define culpability in part by the injuries suffered, but in this case, the "seriousness" of the bodily injury -- Tracy Morgan was left in critical condition, for example -- is apparent, which is why the state has charged Roper with a fourth-degree offense. This is punishable by up to 18 months in state prison.

Ultimately, for both assault and death by auto, the prosecution must prove reckless behavior beyond a reasonable doubt. If Roper made statements or admissions to the police about falling asleep at the wheel, those statements could dramatically alter the course of the prosecution against him, potentially conceding a major part of the state's case against him.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on http://ift.tt/1bl3g0P.

The age of robots is here

Picture the scene: You walk into a coffee shop and order a cappuccino. The young man behind the counter hands you a drink and wishes you a pleasant day with a Colgate smile. Suddenly his expression drops, his face turns stiff, there's a muted bang and some smoke emerges from his nose. He crashes to the ground in an almighty rigid clunk.Could this be the fate of some poor future android? Will malfunction one day be the only means of telling human and robot apart?Here, CNN takes you through the evolution of the robot: from literary fancy to paranoid androids with artificial brains and emotional baggage.Gallery by Monique Rivalland

It turns out man has feared robots rebellion since the word robot was coined. It was Czech playwright Karel Čapek in his 1920 play "Rossum's Universal Robots" ("R.U.R.") that the term was coined to describe his factory-made people who, in his play, went from serving humans ("robota" is Czech for forced labor) to revolting and rendering them extinct.

Even British robots have afternoon tea, don't you know? Eric -- the first British robot ever to exist -- seemed to believe he had an example to set. The invention of the Englishman Captain W.H. Richards, Eric was able to turn his head and take a bow. Presumably Eric v2.0 loved to queue and always said please, thank you and sorry.

After 14 years and thousands of dollars, the young British scientist Harry May claimed to have made "the perfect robot". Alpha the robot could talk, sing, laugh, tell the time and date, fire a revolver and whistle (but only for half an hour). Perfect.

Move over David Hasselhoff. these ladies have found a real man to take for a dip in ocean. Well, perhaps not, but at 250 pounds, 7.5 feet tall and with a steely look in his eyes, Mac the Mechanical Man had a certain allure on Venice Beach back in the 1930s. What the picture doesn't show is his inventor Leighton Hilbert, who, just a few meters away is fiddling with Mac's remote controls. Way to cramp his style, Hilbert.

Look we've all got our vices ok? Even tin men. The most pointless function for any robot ever, devised purely as a means to resemble man, electrical engineer Charles Lawson built a robot that could smoke. You have to feel for the robot -- a coerced addict. Shame on you Mr Lawson.

So, they can walk the walk and talk the talk but can they actually think, wondered computer scientist Alan Turing. In 1950 he devised the Turing Test: a test to determine whether a robot can display intelligent behavior indistinguishable from a human. The idea is simple -- a person communicates with a human and a machine through a wall and if they can't tell who's responding, the machine passes.

But who cares if they're big thinkers anyway? As long as they can perform simple tasks like washing the car and the kitchen, feeding the cat, and cooking dinner. Or picking up the kids from school, paying the bills, ANY OF THE ABOVE? What are robots good for anyway?

Ah yes, they make fabulous traffic wardens. Mr Sam here was tried out by French road authorities near the Arc de Triomphe in the Seventies, to warn motorists of approaching roadworks. His job was effectively just to hold a flag up for a very, very long time.

Mr Sam the traffic warden may be unwavering in his mood, despite having one of the world's most monotonous jobs, but by the Nineties Japanese professor Yoshiyuki Miwa decided robots should have the right to let us know when they're a little bit peeved. He developed the Eye Robot which has the ability to express emotions through its eyes such as joy, sadness, anger and embarrassment.

OK so we seem to like making robots look like humans. But this guy had to take it one step further and build a mechanical version of himself, complete with imitation mannerisms and facial expressions. Hiroshi Ishiguro is the director of Japan's Intelligent Robotics Laboratory, who developed the first "actroid," a humanoid robot with features and functions almost indistinguishable from a human's.

Austin Powers thought he had found his perfect woman, until bullets starting firing at him from her brassiere. Here's hoping Le Trung's Aiko fembot doesn't come with such a severe drawback, especially considering the inventor spent his entire life's savings plus a few credit card loans to make her. Aiko, Japanese for "beloved one", can make tea and coffee, tell the weather, read a magazine and is the first android to react to physical stimuli and mimic pain.

Swoon! What a stud. Biceps, kissable lips ... what more could a girl want? 2011 was the year that human-robot love became a genuine area of research. But what would happen if the attraction between the robot and human wasn't mutual. A lonely robot hearts column perhaps? Certainly Business Insider's 13 sexiest robots ever made won't have to worry.

Last month it was a dark day for robotics as the world's media reported the first "robot suicide". A family came home to find the remains of their cleaning bot the Irobot Roomba 760 in the kitchen. The robot had been switched off before they left the house, but had reactivated itself and moved along the kitchen surface to the hotplate, where it began to melt and then burn, leaving just a small pile of ashes. Mocking reporters suggested that a life that only consisted of chores was no life at all. You really can't blame him.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

• Computer program passes the Turing Test for artificial intelligence for the first time


• Mark Goldfeder: It's a sign that the age of robots has truly arrived


• He says it's time to rewrite the law to permit recognition of robots as persons


• Goldfeder: A robot could be held liable for damages -- and it might need insurance

Editor's note: Mark Goldfeder, senior lecturer at Emory University School of Law and senior fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion, is the author of a forthcoming book on robots in the law. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- For the first time, a computer program passed the Turing Test for artificial intelligence. A computer on Saturday was able to trick one third of a team of researchers convened by the University of Reading into believing it was human -- in this case a 13-year old boy named Eugene.

The Turing Test, named for British mathematician Alan Turing, is often thought of as the benchmark test for true machine intelligence. Since he introduced it in 1950, thousands of scientific teams have tried to create something capable of passing, but none has succeeded.

Until now.

And that outcome means we need to start grappling with whether machines with artificial intelligence should be considered persons, as far as the law is concerned.

In 1920, Karel Capek introduced the mainstream world to the concept of artificial people in his play "Rossum's Universal Robots" (the word robot comes from the Czech word for serf labor). Since then, society has been fascinated by the idea of a robot walking among us, or even crossing over into personhood like a modern-day Pinocchio.

The fascination continues; just take a look at this year's box office. In the recent film "Transcendence," Johnny Depp starred as a sentient machine. In the critically acclaimed "Her," Joaquin Phoenix's character fell in love with an advanced operating system named Samantha. Coming attractions include more installments in the rebooted "RoboCop" franchise; "Star Wars: Episode VII," with its universally lovable droids; and, of course, "Terminator 5."

A question at the heart of all these movies is this: At what point does a computer move from property to personhood?

Robotic legal personhood in the near future makes sense. Artificial intelligence is already part of our daily lives. Bots are selling stuff on eBay and Amazon, and semiautonomous agents are determining our eligibility for Medicare. Predator drones require less and less supervision, and robotic workers in factories have become more commonplace. Google is testing self-driving cars, and General Motors has announced that it expects semiautonomous vehicles to be on the road by 2020.

When the robot messes up, as it inevitably will, who exactly is to blame? The programmer who sold the machine? The site owner who had nothing to do with the mechanical failure? The second party, who assumed the risk of dealing with the robot? What happens when a robotic car slams into another vehicle, or even just runs a red light?

Liability is why some robots should be granted legal personhood. As a legal person, the robot could carry insurance purchased by its employer. As an autonomous actor, it could indemnify others from paying for its mistakes, giving the system a sense of fairness and ensuring commerce could proceed unchecked by the twin fears of financial ruin and of not being able to collect. We as a society have given robots power, and with that power should come the responsibility of personhood.

From the practical legal perspective, robots could and should be people. As it turns out, they can already officially fool us into thinking that they are, which should only strengthen their case.

The notion of personhood has expanded significantly, albeit slowly, over the last few thousand years. Throughout history, women, children and slaves have all at times been considered property rather than persons. The category of persons recognized in the courts has expanded to include entities and characters including natural persons aside from men (such as women, slaves, human aliens, illegitimate children and minors) as well as unnatural or juridical persons, such as corporations, labor unions, nursing homes, municipalities and government units.

Legal personality makes no claim about morality, sentience or vitality. To be a legal person is to have the capability of possessing legal rights and duties within a certain legal system, such as the right to enter into contracts, own property, sue and be sued. Not all legal persons have the same rights and obligations, and some entities are only considered "persons'" for some matters and not others.

Just last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Hobby Lobby case about whether a corporation is person enough to ask for a religious exemption.

New categories of personhood are matters of decision, not discovery. The establishment of personhood is an assessment made to grant an entity rights and obligations, regardless of how it looks and whether it could pass for human.

To make the case for granting personhood to robots, it's not necessary to show that they can function as persons in all the ways that a "person" may be understood by a legal system. It's enough to show that they may be considered persons for a particular set of actions in a way that makes the most sense legally and logically.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on http://ift.tt/1bl3g0P.

Obama: Opinions need to change

A woman looks distressed Tuesday, June 10, after a shooting at Reynolds High School in Troutdale, Oregon. One student was killed at the school, and the suspected shooter is also dead, the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office said.

The shooting happened at about 8 a.m., said Sue Strickland of the Troutdale Police Department. A semiautomatic weapon was involved in the shooting, she said.

Family and friends of Reynolds High School students waited outside for word of students' safety. Details about what led to the shooting weren't immediately available.

About an hour after the shooting, Oregon State Police said the area was secure and the situation was contained.

Troutdale, about 12 miles east of Portland, has a population of about 16,400, according to the Census Bureau.

• President says mass shootings commonplace in America


• He said public opinion must change or "we're not going to change"


• Obama spoke as nation reacted to another school shooting -- this one in Oregon

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama said Tuesday the nation should be ashamed of the inability to get tougher gun restrictions through Congress in the aftermath of mass shootings that he said have become commonplace in America.

Student's parent: We just panicked

Student describes the Oregon shooting

He said the United States was the only developed country on Earth where mass shootings occur with regularity, adding that "if public opinion does not change, we're not going to change."

Obama added that politicians from both parties were "terrified" of the National Rifle Association, saying the organization was well-funded and able to influence elections to prevent any significant new gun regulations from becoming law.

He also rejected the contention that mentally ill people were the reason for mass shootings, saying "the United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people ... and yet we kill each other in these mass shootings" at much higher rates than other countries.

His comments came while taking questions online about education, and as the nation reacted to another deadly school shooting -- this one near Portland, Oregon, on Tuesday.

Fast Facts: U.S. school violence