Bobby Cann Updates: Ryne San Hamel Pleads Guilty, Receives 10 Days in Jail

Jason Jenkins at ActiveTrans is helping to coordinate community response.  If there is any chance you can attend proceedings, please reach out to him: 

jason@activetrans.org.

 

Views: 44157

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on August 7, 2015 at 6:32am

In the long series of pre-trial hearings before the criminal trail against Ryne Sanhamel, here is the most recent transcript, from July 24th.  As far as I can tell, this is the most recent transcript:

http://homepages.neiu.edu/~rkastig1/Hearing07-24-15.pdf

It's long, about 40 pages.  This is the hearing where the reckless homicide charge was dismissed.

At a hearing on a Friday, a judge dismissed reckless homicide charges against Ryne San Hamel, the driver who fatally struck cyclist Bobby Cann while allegedly drunk and speeding. While this decision represents a setback in the case against San Hamel, he is still charged with aggravated DUI resulting in a death, which carries a potentially heavier sentence.

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on August 7, 2015 at 6:26am

Hello all,

This is a reminder and special plea to attend next Tuesday's hearing on 8/11. We have received a strongly worded message that it will be a very important hearing and your presence will be extremely valuable in court. I don't know the exact content of the hearing, but I believe it may be dealing with the motion to quash the warrant to draw the blood of the driver for the Blood Alcohol Content test. If you have been meaning to attend but haven't been able to make it now would be a great opportunity to support and make an impact. So please come. You do not need to have received training as a courtroom advocate to attend, court is open to the public.

If you need a ride or are able to assist others in getting to court or are unsure about how to get to court please let me know and I will assist in any way possible.

The hearing is at:

Cook County Criminal Courts

2650 South California

Rm 301, 3rd floor

Tuesday, August, 11th

10am

Important Details:

Please arrive extra early, by 9:00-9:15 if possible to get through security and to get as many seats as possible. Seating is limited and there will be other attendees for other cases to contend with. 

If possible leave your cellphone at home or tucked out of site in your vehicle, you will not be allowed to bring it through security. (There are coin-op lockers available for storing cell phones but availability is limited).

If you are driving there is a parking garage directly across from the court building, it is free if you tell the attendant you are a courtroom advocate. Please let me know if you are driving and have room to give others a ride. There is a Pink Line stop at California and 21st and a DIVVY station as well as a DIVVY station right in front of court. The #94 California Bus also stops right in front of the court building and runs very regularly. So there are many ways to get to the location. 

Also please bring a bike helmet if possible to identify yourself as being in support of the victim.

If you have any questions or concerns please let me know and please shoot me a note if you think you can make it. Thank you for your support. 

Jason Jenkins
Education Specialist/Crash Support Programs
Active Transportation Alliance
9 W. Hubbard Suite 402
Chicago, IL. 60654
p. 312.216.0469
 
Request a bike/ped safety presentation: http://www.activetrans.org/education-specialist/request
Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on August 7, 2015 at 6:50am

Also please bring a bike helmet if possible to identify yourself as being in support of the victim.

I went to a hearing at the courthouse in Skokie some time ago, related to bike thefts.  At the time the helmets weren't permitted in the courtroom. They had to be check in when entering the building. Are they permitted to be worn in the 26th & California court?

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on August 7, 2015 at 6:52am

They have been allowed in the past.

Permalink Reply by Alex Z on August 7, 2015 at 6:55am

I and others had no problem with this at the hearing a couple months ago.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on August 7, 2015 at 6:56am

Thanks Jason, much appreciated. 

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on August 9, 2015 at 8:48am

I'd like to see the States Attorney re-submit the homicide charge that was dismissed.  I'd like to see this done at the Tuesday 8/11 hearing.

An excellent explanation of why this is so important was explained by Jim Reho at:

http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/some-charges-against-bobby...

If this isn't re-submitted on Tuesday, maybe we need to start another petition to encourage Anita Alverez to do this.

Permalink Reply by Jim Reho on August 10, 2015 at 6:50am

I read the transcript of the July 24th hearing.  It seems to me that the court indicated that it was going to dismiss the reckless homicide indictment in the prior hearing, for which I have not seen the transcript.  However, the issue did come up again on July 24th.  The state cited a case, People v. Camp, that appears to me to be right on point.  Here it is:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14356137309522338677&a...

The Camp case is factually similar to the Bobby Cann situation.  A drunk driver killed several people.  He was indicted for reckless homicide.  His attorney made exactly the same argument that was apparently made here, that the indictment should be dismissed because it failed to particularize the specific acts upon which the charge of reckless homicide was based.  That's the exact same argument being made by Ryne San Hamel's attorney, as far as I can tell.

In Camp, though, the trial court refused to dismiss the reckless homicide charges and the defendant was convicted of them.  The appellate court upheld the finding of the trial court that the charges were sufficient.  Here's the pertinent part of the Camp opinion: 

"Under Illinois law, the elements of the offense of reckless homicide are (a) that the defendant caused death while driving a motor vehicle recklessly, and (b) that he drove the motor vehicle in such a manner that he was likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 9-3(a);People v. Boyle (1979), 78 Ill. App.3d 791, 797, 396 N.E.2d 1347.) If the indictment is otherwise sufficient, then, in reckless homicide cases, it is not necessary to allege the precise acts of recklessness or the particular acts upon which the prosecution will rely. People v. Boyle (1979), 78 Ill. App.3d 791, 797, 396 N.E.2d 1347; People v. Clark (1977), 55 Ill. App.3d 496, 499, 371 N.E.2d 33;People v. Jones (1971), 2 Ill. App.3d 575, 577, 277 N.E.2d 144; People v. Mowen(1969), 109 Ill. App.2d 62, 68-69, 248 N.E.2d 685.

• 3 The defendant's citation to People v. Hayes (1979), 75 Ill. App.3d 822, 394 N.E.2d 80, and People v. Griffin (1967), 36 Ill.2d 430, 223 N.E.2d 158, is unpersuasive in that Hayes was a reckless conduct case and Griffin was a reckless driving case. The Illinois courts have repeatedly distinguished simple recklessness cases from reckless homicide cases in terms of the necessity for particularized indictments. (People v. Boyle (1979), 78 Ill. App.3d 791, 396 N.E.2d 1347; People v. Clark (1977), 55 Ill. App.3d 496, 371 N.E.2d 33; People v. Jones(1971), 2 Ill. App.3d 575, 277 N.E.2d 144; People v. Mowen (1969), 109 Ill. App.2d 62, 248 N.E.2d 685. Cf. People v. Farris (1980), 82 Ill. App.3d 147, 402 N.E.2d 629.) The central concern of 228*228 particularized indictments is the safeguarding of the defendant's right against double jeopardy. In reckless homicide cases, naming the victim of the homicide in the indictment eliminates any vagueness in the charge, thereby securing the defendant's rights. People v. Clark(1977), 55 Ill. App.3d 496, 371 N.E.2d 33; People v. Jones (1971), 2 Ill. App.3d 575, 277 N.E.2d 144; People v. Mowen (1969), 109 Ill. App.2d 62, 248 N.E.2d 685.

• 4 In this reckless homicide case, the defendant could unquestionably have caused the death of Victor Rubini and Karen Musaus only once, and both were named in the indictments. It was not necessary therefore to allege specific acts of recklessness."

At the July 24th hearing, the state cited this case and correctly set forth its holdings.  As a general rule, trial court judges are, of course, bound by the precedents set in appellate court opinions.  The Camp case is from our own Chicago-area appellate court district (the First District).  The appellate court makes the rules.  The trial court is supposed to abide by them.  When the appellate court rules on an issue, it is supposed to be followed by trial courts when they make their own rulings.   

Unless there is some other legal authority that was cited previously and supersedes the Camp case, I agree with the state's position on this issue.  The indictment should have stood as it was.  Perhaps reasonable minds can differ, but that is my opinion.  

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on August 10, 2015 at 7:56am

So what prevents the state's re-submitting the charge of reckless homicide?  What needs to be done to satisfy Judge Hooks and meet the criteria of People v.Camp?

 

Judge Hooks did leave it open to the state to do that?  Should we encourage Anita Alarez's office to do that?

I'm starting to become concerned that that state and the defendant are going to use the dismissal of this charge as a way to work out a plea bargain and results with a "slap on the wrist" as an outcome for San Hamel.

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on August 10, 2015 at 7:58am

> Judge Hooks did leave it open to the state to do that?  Should we encourage Anita Alarez's office to do that?

Couldn't hurt. I sent an email yesterday.

> I'm starting to become concerned that that state and the defendant are going to use the dismissal of this charge as a way to work out a plea bargain and results with a "slap on the wrist" as an outcome for San Hamel.

This would be a huge shame. Recall from the Chicago Reader story that San Hamel has already gotten off scott free on two previous cases involving alcohol and cars. In fact, they were both while he was underage.

If you do write to Ms. Alvarez, be sure to remind her that San Hamel has avoided consequences twice already.

Permalink Reply by Jim Reho on August 10, 2015 at 9:45am

From what I read, the judge wants the state to provide more specific allegations about the nature of the defendant's reckless conduct and replead the reckless homicide count or counts.  (Whether it is really necessary under the law or not.)  That door seems open.  Given what we know of the facts of the case, an amended indictment or complaint would certainly seem feasible.  Whether the state will follow through is the issue.  If they don't, that could be an indication as to how hard the will push for a meaningful sentence at plea or trial.   

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on August 10, 2015 at 2:12pm

Two important questions about what happens at the Tuesday 8/11 hearing:

1. The attempt to quash warrant about the blood-alcohol test

2. Will the reckless homicide warrant be re-submitted

I hope someone who isn't obligated to remain silent about the proceedings is able to give us a report of what went on at the Tuesday hearing.  Typically the wait for the transcripts can be about 30 days, or even longer.  Getting the transcript from the 7/24 hearing so quickly was a surprise, and I'm not expecting the transcript from the 8/11 hearing to be obtained so quickly. 

So if anyone can talk tomorrow, please do so.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service