The Trial of Ethan Couch and the "Affluenza Defense"

In the trial where the defense argued that a young man shouldn't be held accountable for his actions because of a condition prevalent in the wealthy known as affluenza.

The Crash

On the evening of June 15th, 2013, a 16-year-old kid named Ethan Couch was recorded on a Walmart security camera stealing two cases of beer. Shortly after, he was seen driving in his father's red 2012 Ford F-350 pickup truck with seven passengers. Couch was speeding recklessly as he recorded a 70mph speed in a 40mph zone. On the same highway, motorist Breanna Mitchell's sport utility vehicle had stalled. Hollie Boyles, Shelby Boyles, and Brian Jennings were with Mitchell to help her fix the vehicle. Just as he approached the halted car, Couch's truck swerved off the road and into Mitchell's sport utility vehicle, then crashed into Jennings' parked car, which in turn hit an oncoming Volkswagen Beetle. Couch's truck then flipped over and struck a tree. Mitchell, Jennings, and both Boyles were killed, while Couch and his seven teenage passengers, none of whom were wearing seat belts, survived. The two people in the Volkswagen also survived. Couch was arrested on the scene and brought into the police station about 3 hours after the crash, where he registered a blood alcohol content of 0.24%, three times the legal limit for adult drivers in Texas (which he wasn't), and he also tested positive for intoxication of marijuana and diazepam. Couch was charged with four counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault.

The Trial of Ethan Couch

The trial of Ethan Couch began in 2013. The defense was led by attorneys Scott Brown and Reagan Wynn, who wished to use the "affluenza defense." This consisted of proving the Couch family's great wealth and how it influenced Ethan's behavior. Ethan Couch was the son of Fred and Tonya Couch, who used their extreme wealth to shower Ethan with lavish gifts. Furthermore, while Couch admitted to driving under the influence, his legal team argued that he could not differentiate right from wrong because of his "privileged upbringing." The defense attempted to bolster this claim by calling G. Dick Miller, a psychologist, to testify in court that the teen was a product of too much privilege and had never been reprimanded for his actions and therefore was not responsible for his actions. Ergo, justifying calling him a product of "affluenza." On the other hand, the prosecution, led by Joe Shannon, was pursuing a maximum 20-year sentence as they tried to disprove the claims made by the defense. After jury deliberation, Couch was found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter. But, the court did accept the defense's argument, and it led to a significantly lower sentence than what the prosecution pursued. The judge sentenced Couch to 10 years of probation and time in a rehabilitation center at his parents' expense. It was initially reported that Couch would be sent for teen substance abuse and mental health rehabilitation to Newport Academy, an upscale residential treatment center in Newport Beach, California, with costs upwards of $450,000 annually.

Suraj Pangal

Suraj Pangal is currently a 12th grader who has had a passion for criminal law since a very young age. He has had 3 years of experience in criminal law. Most notably, Suraj assisted a former assistant district attorney of Santa Clara with the defense of a suspect charged with two counts of first-degree murder. Recently, Suraj has been involved with the defense of a suspected MS-13 member charged with racketeering under the RICO statute. His hobbies include researching old lawsuits, their history, and the reasoning behind the final rulings. He started this blog to share his most interesting findings with his readers and is proud to write these compelling pieces to his readers weekly.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post