Josh Brent’s lawyer: He was “stupid” but not drunk


The trial of former Cowboys defensive lineman Josh Brent, who is charged with intoxication manslaughter in the crash that killed teammate Jerry Brown, began today. And Brent’s lawyer told jurors that while his client may have been driving dangerously, he wasn’t drunk.

“He is guilty of being stupid behind the wheel of a car,” attorney George Milner said, via the Associated Press. “He is guilty of driving too fast.”

Prosecutor Heath Harris said Brent failed a field sobriety test, and that receipts will show that Brent purchased a large amount of alcohol on the night of the crash.

“This is not a difficult case, ladies and gentlemen,” Harris said. “There will be no disputing the fact that he was drinking that night.”

Milner said the 320-pound Brent can drink more than most people without getting drunk

“Josh Brent is as big as a house,” Milner said.

If convicted, Brent could get up to 20 years in prison.

24 responses to “Josh Brent’s lawyer: He was “stupid” but not drunk

  1. Aha Lawyers tell the client what he wants to hear, nah he was tore up and killed his teammate as a result of negligence and disregard. Go even further a month later he was arrested again. There are big guys that are lightweight conversely there are small guys that can pound it with the rest of them. Dont drink and drive period and even when you do don’t freaking speed.

    Guilty of being stupid if that is your D good luck, then again who am i kidding Texas is also the same state of an affluenza defense.

  2. I don’t know about anyone else, but I would say that a BAC of .189 counts as drunk no matter how big you are.

  3. Let’s not bicker. He was BOTH, and it appears as though his lawyer is as well, if THIS is the defense he will argue!

  4. Suggesting that someone killed another human being for no other reason than reckless behavior is quite a defense.
    I think I might want to stick to he was “so drunk, he had no idea what day it was.” At least alcohol is a reason — not an excuse — but at least a reason…

  5. “my client is stupid.” what a brilliant defense strategy. Next best: ” the dead man was stupid for being in the car and getting killed. He should have known better.”

  6. I kind of stopped following the story, but do recall the family of Jerry Brown really reaching out to him and forgiving him for what he did. This must seem like a kick in the gut then for him to not come clean and ‘fess up to his actions which killed a man. No?

  7. Right. No attorney has ever challenged a breathalyzer or questioned the inferences made by a field sobriety test and won. Brent should rollover and go to prison, and his attorney should stop taking hard cases. /sarcasm

  8. Sooo… instead of Intoxicated Manslaughter… Its plain ol’ Manslaughter? Im no lawyer but how is that better? Can he not be charged with Manslaughter if found not guilty for Intoxicated Manslaughter?

  9. There is such a thing as “depraved heart” murder, where the person who kills another simply doesn’t give a damn whether that person dies and thereby commits murder by an extremely reckless act. That attorney might want to pump the brakes a little (no pun intended).

  10. So his attorney is admitting he engaged in reckless behavior which caused the death of his teammate ?

    Maybe he’s setting up the “my attorney didn’t competently represent me” defense so he can appeal and keep jail at arms length that much longer.

  11. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 13, 2014 2:21 PM

    So his attorney is admitting he engaged in reckless behavior which caused the death of his teammate ?

    I was thinking on similar lines: His attorney just convicted him by admitting he is criminally liable. It does not matter if you were drunk and killed someone, or speeding and killed someone. The result is a conviction on the manslaughter charge…only the other charges and penalties change.

  12. I don’t know why we have drunk driving laws. Anyone who has a lawyer with a pulse gets off (and in the meantime, often legally defames the arresting officer) so why bother? Just punish them for the damage they cause.

  13. Because there is no moral high ground to be claimed by defending alcohol and it’s use, I’m pretty sure that there are some injustices made by an overly zealous and easy to lead society of faux-heroes.

    I am also pretty sure that not 100% of accidents where alcohol can be detected are the fault or result of the alcohol, it is just that no one wants to admit it, there is no hero status to be claimed for standing this ground.

    The same can be said for the complete fallacy that is second hand smoke. There is no juice in defending the fact that not one person has ever died from second hand smoke. Everyone just lets the lawyers run rampant with stats that prove nothing, and get behind a cause that no one wants to defend.

  14. Big as a house?

    Josh Brent’s lawyer: Your honor, my client was fat drunk and stupid. He didn’t get the memo from Dean Wormer.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!