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 Eli on August 11, 2015 at 6:57am

I've just returned from the hearing. Yasmeen asked that no one post about the substance of the hearing on the Chainlink, so I won't. But I wanted to make sure that people are aware: the next hearing will be this Thursday, August 13, and though court will open at 10:00 AM, the judge made it clear that this case will not be heard until 11:30 AM.

I suspect many of the people who were there today (I didn't count, but the turnout was very strong, maybe 20-30?) will have a hard time taking additional time off work this week (I know I won't be able to), so if you couldn't make it today I hope you'll consider attending on Thursday.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on August 11, 2015 at 7:13am

Thanks for posting the update about Thursday's hearing. To clarify, I just reiterated what we were told today (and that it also pertains to The Chainlink) with regards to posting about the case. I was at the courtroom as well. As soon as I receive the full information about the Thursday court date, I'll go ahead and post it. I do recommend getting there with enough time to find a place to lock your bike/park your car. I can take a couple of people with me (I'm in Uptown) if people want a ride on Thursday. 

Today they did not let us bring our helmets past security so a number of us had to run back to the car. They also did not allow water bottles in through security.

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on August 11, 2015 at 7:16am

> Today they did not let us bring our helmets past security so a number of us had to run back to the car. They also did not allow water bottles in through security.

Hmmm... Just to make things challenging, they change their policy on a whim?

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on August 11, 2015 at 7:35am

Probably just one random security guard who decided helmets couldn't go through. From what I understand, that wasn't a problem before today. 

Permalink Reply by Eli on August 11, 2015 at 7:44am

It's probably something made up on the spot by the guard. I believe it is the Cook County Sheriff's Courtroom Services Division which runs security, so I sent an e-mail to the sheriff's office asking them to reconsider this policy.

For what it's worth, I don't think there was any confusion as to why we were there on the part of the judge or anyone else, helmets or no helmets.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on August 11, 2015 at 11:42am

Here's an update from Streetsblog about today's hearing:

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2015/08/11/prosecutor-is-appealing-the-d...

Permalink Reply by Maurice on August 11, 2015 at 12:54pm

Appeals can take a year or longer.  Obviously much longer than an amended charging instrument specifically alleging recklessness.  This should end any talk about the defense dragging out the case.  The prosecution obviously is in no hurry to take this to trial.  

 

Last time, the judge also criticized the prosecutors for producing a photocopy instead of the original signed warrant.  Anybody know whether they addressed that today?

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on August 11, 2015 at 2:16pm

I was there today and I'd really hesitate to try to speculate on the strategy of the defense or the prosecution. We had 33 advocates there to show our support. 

Permalink Reply by Bill Nedza on August 21, 2015 at 6:02am

"We had 33 advocates there to show our support."

I think that as long as a good number of advocates stay involved, the judge really "gets' it", the media doesn't let this die, and this tragedy is kept "out front", maybe, just maybe,

we'll see justice done.   

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on August 21, 2015 at 8:35am

"the media doesn't let this die"

What media?  Other than here, John Greenfield's posts, and a few other bike-related place I really don't see much about this in the mainstream media.

Permalink Reply by ad on August 13, 2015 at 8:03am

If I had to speculate, and that's all we can really do, I'd say the appeal is driven by two things: (1) the prosecution wants to set a standard that this type of indictment is sufficient to help both here and in future cases, and they feel this is a good case to take the issue up on; and/or (2) they probably feel there is no way to amend the indictment that won't get thrown out. The wheels of justice move slowly, unfortunately.  I don't mean that to be flippant, but it is the reality, and it's why the cases often fall off peoples' radar unless they have a personal attachment to the victim.   

And generally I agree that it's best to just let the prosecution do its job and not speculate too much, and they don't simply do things to just drag things out, but I do think it's healthy to a degree to discuss decisions made.  They're not fool proof.

Permalink Reply by Maurice on August 13, 2015 at 10:27am

Prosecutors (and other lawyers) absolutely do things just to drag things out, if they feel that dragging it out is in their best interests.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service