Judge warns spectators may be removed as Bohm wins ruling on evidence
A judge overseeing Fraser Bohm’s case has threatened to remove spectators if clashes between the accused man’s supporters and the victims’ families continue. The warning came as the court granted Bohm’s defence a pre-trial victory, barring prosecutors from using three studies about pedestrian survival in high-speed collisions.
Bohm, 24, has pleaded not guilty to four counts of second-degree murder and four counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence over the deaths of four Pepperdine University students in Malibu in October 2023. Prosecutors say his car’s data recorder showed he accelerated from 93mph to 104mph in the seconds before it struck the women; the judge said the studies risked confusing jurors. A previous ruling allowed prosecutors to use Bohm’s answers to police questions after the crash.
- Judge warns spectators to stop clashes or face removal.
- Defence wins exclusion of three pedestrian survival studies.
- Prosecutors cite car data showing speeds of up to 104mph.
New here? Start with this
In October 2023, four female Pepperdine University students died in a car crash near Malibu, California. Fraser Bohm, 24, was driving the vehicle that struck theirs. He survived the collision and was subsequently charged with four counts of second-degree murder and four counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence.
Bohm has pleaded not guilty to all charges. According to prosecutors, data from his vehicle shows he accelerated from 93 miles per hour to 104 miles per hour in the seconds before the impact. His defence team maintains his innocence and contests the prosecution's interpretation of the evidence. The case is proceeding through the courts to determine what happened and whether the charges can be proven.
The case raises questions about criminal responsibility in fatal car crashes and has drawn considerable public attention. As a case involving young victims and serious criminal charges, it has generated strong feelings among family members of those who died and supporters of the accused. How the courts resolve it may help establish legal standards for prosecuting drivers involved in fatal collisions.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
These peer-reviewed studies about pedestrian survival in high-speed collisions constitute relevant, probative scientific evidence directly bearing on the causal relationship between Bohm's acceleration and the deaths. Jurors need this empirical data to understand whether the increase from 93 to 104 mph was the determining factor in these outcomes. Excluding such evidence deprives the jury of crucial context necessary to evaluate the full facts and reach a properly informed verdict based on complete scientific information.
The case against
Whilst these studies contain factual data, they risk confusing jurors by introducing speculative expert testimony about survival rates that may not apply to this specific incident and distract from the straightforward factual issue at hand. The core evidence of acceleration combined with the resulting fatalities establishes sufficient causal connection without tangential scientific disputes about counterfactual scenarios. Excluding such evidence ensures jurors focus on the actual facts rather than being sidetracked by collateral scientific debates.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Judge in Fraser Bohm quadruple murder case threatens to BAN spectators over ugly courtroom clashes between families…as accused Malibu killer scores pre-trial victory”.