Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Reho on November 21, 2017 at 8:14pm

But amazingly, the jury refused to convict him of actually doing anything wrong to the cyclist:  "He was convicted in July of leaving the scene of a fatal crash, driving with a suspended license and filing a false report. He was acquitted of a DUI manslaughter charge."  This will be an interesting appeal.  I wouldn't be surprised if the appellate court rules that the sentence was disproportionate to the charges.  I think the judge might have been trying to make up in sentencing for what the jury was too stupid to do.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike w. on November 22, 2017 at 2:54am

The prosecution probably couldn't prove to the jury beyond "reasonable doubt" that the driver was intoxicated. The testing necessary to provide the evidence might not have been done in a timely manner, so the driver skated on that charge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Reho on November 22, 2017 at 4:57pm

Maybe so.  If so, they should have charged him with regular manslaughter, reckless driving, or anything that would actually held him accountable for hitting the cyclist without them having to prove he was intoxicated.  I just hate to see him not convicted for what was actually the worst crime.

• ▶ Reply