This case, which was described in Immortal Class, and has been delayed multiple times, has finally gone to court....
Driver deliberately hit cyclist, jury told
By Kirsten Scharnberg
Chicago Tribune staff reporter
November 28, 2001
During the opening day of a murder trial in which a
Chicago man is accused of running over a bike
messenger in a fit of road rage, prosecutors carried
the
mangled bicycle into the courtroom and painted a
horrific image of the defendant's vehicle speeding
away from the crash with the bike still underneath it,
metal grinding and sparks flying.
In her opening statement Tuesday, Assistant State's
Atty. Lynda Peters said Carnell Fitzpatrick, 31, had
been driving east in the 5300 block of Washington
Boulevard on the morning of April 26, 1999, when he
intentionally chased down and smashed into cyclist
Thomas McBride, 26, because the two had earlier
nearly collided at an intersection a few blocks away.
Peters alleged that Fitzpatrick fled the scene, pulled
into an alley and peeled the bike from under his
sports utility vehicle, then tossed it aside and "sped
off
as Tom McBride lay dying on the street."
"This was not an accident," the prosecutor told the
jury. "It was a deliberate and purposeful act."
Fitzpatrick sat quietly at the defense table
throughout the day, occasionally whispering to his
lawyers. In his opening statement, Fitzpatrick's
attorney
approached the jury and admitted that his client had
been driving the car that struck and killed McBride.
"There's no doubt that he drove the vehicle that
killed the deceased," veteran defense attorney Sam
Adam said. "This is not a whodunit. The question is
did
he intend to? This is a tragedy that occurs every day
in our country--it was an accident."
The prosecution called three witnesses Tuesday who had
been on Washington the morning Fitzpatrick's 1997
Chevy Tahoe collided with McBride's bike.
Tyrone Hibbler, an insurance agent from the western
suburbs, testified that he and his wife had seen a
dark green SUV "jumping from lane to lane" behind a
"kid on a bike."
Hibbler told the jury he had turned to his wife and
said, "Why's that guy messing around with that kid
like that? It looks like a dangerous game."
Hibbler said that after a few blocks of swerving
behind the bike, the Tahoe sped up and ran over the
biker. He said the vehicle then sped off, leaving
McBride's "lifeless" body sprawled along the curb.
A second man testified that when he saw the green
Tahoe leave the scene of the accident, he followed it
for several blocks. Linnell Dixon said the Tahoe
stopped in a nearby alley, and a man emerged to pull
the bike from under the vehicle. Before the Tahoe
drove away Dixon jotted its license plate number,
which prosecutors say matches the number on a second
license plate found at the scene.
The third eyewitness the prosecution called to the
stand turned out to be far less willing to talk about
what he had seen. Jerry Carter III, who had been
jogging along Washington that April morning, initially
refused to testify until a visibly annoyed Judge
Kenneth Wadas ordered him to do so.
Once on the stand, Carter recanted statements he made
to police, prosecutors and a grand jury.
He denied saying he had seen the first near-collision
between Fitzpatrick and McBride. He said he couldn't
recall telling the grand jury that he had heard
McBride curse at Fitzpatrick. And he said he didn't
remember telling the grand jury that Fitzpatrick had
seemed to speed up and deliberately hit McBride.
Carter, in a nearly inaudible voice, testified that he
had given "contrary" statements in the initial days
following the accident because he had been angry with
Fitzpatrick for leaving the scene of the accident.
Peters seemed incredulous as Carter revised his grand
jury description of the collision, changing it from a
deliberate hit to "an accidental bump."
"So you're calling when the car hit the man, crushed
the bike and left him unconscious by the side of the
road `a bump?'" the prosecutor asked.
"Yes," Carter said quietly.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Fitzpatrick is (unknown to the jury) a twice-convicted heroin dealer, and he has a pretty expensive criminal lawyer. From those I know that are attending the trial, there is speculation that the third witness was threatenend or bribed, but the first two witnesses provide solid testimony establishing the crime.
Joe Gardner
What a messed up world, please keep us posted on the goings of this trial.
John E
Yes, thank you for keeping us posted. All lawful road users have a stake in this case. I wish the guy's status as a heroin dealer were admissible evidence; it certainly speaks volumes about his moral fiber.
cyclezealot
We might all remember no less than Lance Armstrong had his brush-in with cyclist hating motorists. Lance and a peloton were chased by a pick up truck and Lance had to ditch his bike. Believe the driver got 10 years to think about his road rage. Attempted murder.
ViciousCycle
Here are notes from someone who was at the third day of the trial:
Before I go into my very lengthy report (which is even longer than
yesterday's), here is a summary of what happened today. The
prosecution
continued their case with seven witnesses, including the four of the
cops
and detectives on the case, the former prosecutor, the assistant
state's
attorney who took Jerry Carter/Howard's grand jury testimony, and one
of the
forensic investigators. Most of the testimony from the former
prosecutor
and the other state's attorney dealt with Mr. Carter/Howard's statement
to
the police, his grand jury testimony, and his subsequent recantations,
which
seem to be turning into the central focus of the case. Ms. Peters said
that
tomorrow we should expect to hear from an evidence technician at the
state
crime lab, and then the state will rest and the defense will begin
their
case, which is expected to include two or three witnesses and should
continue into Friday, when the closing arguments are expected, followed
by
the jury's deliberations. They are hoping for a verdict on Friday, but
it
may not be until next week.
Now here are the details of the day's proceedings. The day began at
10:30
with the fifth state's witness, Chicago Police Sgt. Henry Harris, a
black
man who appeared to be about 35 years old, being questioned by Ms.
Peters.
He testified that he was called to an "aggravated battery involving a
motor
vehicle" along with Officer Dan Jacobs and Detective Harry Collins. He
went
with Jacobs to the scene and Collins went to the hospital where the
victim
had been taken. At the scene, he saw some other uniformed officers,
and
interviewed a few people, none of whom were witnesses, for about an
hour and
fifteen minutes to an hour and a half. He then returned to the 15th
District police station. Ms. Peters showed the witness some photos of
the
scene, which he identified as the bike wheel lying in a "grassy area,"
a
"spot of blood" on the street, and crime scene cordoned off with yellow
tape. He stated that he also saw "unusual scarring" on the street,
like
"something had been dragged and gouged." He was then shown a diagram
of the
area and pointed out the location of the crime scene.
On cross-examination, he said that he did not see officer Secdonia
Terry at
the scene, and that although he interviewed 3 or four people, he did
not
take any witness statements, and made no notes of the conversations or
the
names of the people he talked to. Mr. Adam asked him about the
location of
the stop sign at the corner of Lorel and Washington, and he responded
that
it was about 10 to 15 feet from the curb, but he could not see it in
the
state's photograph. On redirect, he said that he does not usually take
notes about conversations with non-witnesses. Then Mr. Adam re-crossed
and
asked him if he could have taken statements from people who had been at
the
scene but had left before he arrived, and he said no. This brought a
groan
from the audience.
The sixth witness, Officer Dan Jacobs of the Chicago Police, a white
man who
appeared to be about 30 to 35 years old, was also called to an
aggravated
battery involving a vehicle and went to the scene with Mr. Harris. He
later
talked to Jerry Howard about the events. He asked Mr. Howard where he
was
at the time, and drew a diagram for him to mark. Ms. Peters showed Mr.
Jacobs the diagram, which he identified and noted the marks made by Mr.
Howard. On cross-examination, he said that he went to the scene with
Officer Harris, but could not remember if they went in the same car.
The next witness, Harry Collins, an investigator for the State's
Attorney's
office, was called to the stand by ASA Kelly. He is a white man, about
45
to 50 years old, who was a detective for the Chicago Police when he
responded to a homicide call on Washington. He went to the hospital,
but
Tom McBride had been pronounced dead at the scene. He examined the
body and
then went to the crime scene at around 10:00 or 10:15. Officers Jacobs
and
Harris were already there, and the forensic investigators arrived
during the
hour and a half that he was there. Then he went to the alley where the
bike
had been found, and saw the bike there, some other officers, and the
evidence technicians arrived shortly after. He then returned to the
15th
District station where he saw the green Chevy SUV and again waited for
the
investigators. After some investigation there, the vehicle was towed
to
another location to look at its undercarriage, and then taken to the
impound. Later, at about 7:45 that evening, he met with Assistant
State's
Attorney Trug Minneart to interview Jerry Howard. He stated that Mr.
Minneart identified himself as the state's attorney and interviewed Mr.
Howard for about 15 minutes. Mr. Minneart then asked Mr. Howard if he
would
sign the statement if it was reduced to writing and Mr. Howard said
yes.
Mr. Minneart then asked Mr. Howard a series of questions that Howard
answered. At this point, Minneart and Howard were sitting next to each
other at a desk and Collins was seated across the desk from them. This
questioning lasted another 15 minutes. Then Mr. Minneart asked Mr.
Howard
to read the first paragraph of the statement aloud to show that he
could
read English, which he did. Then Mr. Minneart read each word of the
statement to Mr. Howard and told him to make any corrections he wished
to,
which they would all initial. Mr. Howard made several corrections.
Another
paragraph was then added to the statement about Mr. Howard's treatment
during the questioning, and Mr. Howard signed the statement. Then Mr.
Minneart took a Polaroid picture of Mr. Howard. Mr. Kelly (the
prosecutor)
asked Mr. Collins to describe Mr. Howard's demeanor during the
interview,
and he replied that it was "relaxed and normal," that Mr. Howard's
memory
was fine, and that he answered the questions without hesitation.
After a short recess, Mr. Kelly distributed copies of the statement to
the
witness and the jury, and the witness read the statement aloud. The
remainder of this paragraph summarizes the statement. The Miranda
warnings
were stricken from the statement because they were not issued, as Mr.
Howard
was only a witness, not a suspect. The statement was taken at 8:40
p.m.
All the lines of the statement begin "Jerry states..." There is some
background information about Mr. Howard at the beginning. In the
statement,
Mr. Howard says that he was walking east on Washington on a bright,
sunny
day, when he saw a white man riding a bike with a backpack. He said
that
there was one lane of traffic going east on Washington and a parking
lane.
He saw a green SUV on Lorel. The SUV did not come to a complete stop
at the
stop sign on Washington and Lorel and almost hit the bike as it was
passing.
The bicyclist then hit the SUV with his hand and called the driver a
"stupid
mother ****er." The SUV turned onto Washington and followed the bike,
then
bumped its rear tire. The bike swerved, then sped up and tried to get
away.
The SUV also sped up and then ran over the bike. It first ran over the
bike
with its front axle and then dragged it from the rear. The SUV then
sped
away with sparks flying from the bike underneath it, and never slowed
down
or stopped to help. Mr. Howard then went to assist the bicyclist. In
the
statement, Mr. Howard stated that he was treated well during the
questioning, given popcorn and water, and allowed to use the bathroom,
and
that the statement was given freely. The last page of the statement
says
that the entire statement was read to Mr. Howard and that he was
allowed to
make corrections. This page was also signed by Mr. Howard. Mr. Kelly
asked
the witness to point out the corrections that were made by Mr. Howard,
which
he did.
On cross-examination, Mr. Collins said that he was retired from the
police
and was currently an investigator for the state attorney's office,
which is
the same office that employs the prosecutors in this case, Ms. Peters
and
Mr. Kelly. He said that he took the statement from Mr. Howard about
twelve
hours after the accident, and that nobody was present at that time
except
for himself, Mr. Howard, and Officer Jacobs. He reiterated that Mr.
Howard
was not hesitant during the questioning. He agreed that the statement
was
not a word-for-word account of Mr. Howard's testimony. He said that a
court
reporter was available at the time the statement was taken, but that
none
was present. Mr. Adam got Mr. Collins to admit that during the
questioning,
Mr. Howard said that he had had 12 years of formal education, but that
he
was never asked to write the statement himself. Mr. Howard asked no
questions, and he was not asked any questions that were not in the
statement. Mr. Howard read the statement before he signed it, and
after
reading it, no other questions were asked before it was signed. Mr.
Collins
stated that he knew that Mr. Howard had seen the events himself, but he
did
not ask him, "Where were you when you saw this?" He said that it did
not
occur to him to ask that. The statement does say that Mr. Howard was
walking east on Washington, but not exactly where. (Mr. Adam really
harped
on this point.) Mr. Collins said that he does not know Assistant
State's
attorney Mike Rogers, and that he has not seen Mr. Howard since the
incident. (Mr. Adam attempted to ask him if he knew that Mr. Howard
had
later recanted his statement, but the state objected, and the objection
was
sustained.)
On redirect by the state, Mr. Collins reiterated that at the time he
took
the statement he was working for the Chicago Police, not the state's
attorney's office. He stated that he wrote down a routine GPR, or
general
progress report, as notes before taking the statement. He said that
Officer
Jacobs had already made the diagram showing where Mr. Howard was
standing at
the time of the accident and that he had seen it before taking the
statement. Mr. Howard was told that the statement was only a summary
and
that he would be able to make corrections to it, and he in fact did
make
corrections and signed every page. The defense then re-cross-examined
and
Mr. Collins admitted that he was not present when the diagram was made.
He
said that he was a friend of Officer Jacobs. He also said that there
was no
signature on the diagram. He stated that although he looked at the
diagram
beforehand, he did not have it in front of him during the interview.
He
said that he didn't know if the state's attorney had seen it, and that
he
did not tell him about it. He did not ask Mr. Howard to draw a
diagram. On
re-redirect by the state, he said that all diagrams and statements are
made
part of the case file, and that the state's attorney would have seen
the
file.
The eighth witness for the state was ASA Karen Dooley, formerly Karen
Worley, a white woman who appeared to be about 35 years old. She was
assigned to the homicide unit of the grand jury. On May 6, 1999, she
directed Jerry Howard's testimony before the grand jury that ultimately
indicted Carnell Fitzpatrick. Before the grand jury testimony, she met
separately with witnesses Lionel Dixon and Mr. Howard alone in her
office.
Before meeting with Mr. Howard, she read the statement he had given the
police. She talked to him for about 10 or 15 minutes, not referring to
the
statement. She explained how the grand jury works, that only the grand
jurors, the state's attorney, the witness, and the court reporter are
in the
room during testimony. She said that Mr. Howard was sworn in by the
jury
foreperson and that he testified for about 10 or 15 minutes to her
questions. The grand jury then asked several questions. Afterward,
she
read over the transcript of the testimony for accuracy.
Mr. Kelly then distributed copies of the transcript of Mr. Howard's
grand
jury testimony to the witness and the jury. The transcript is
summarized in
the remainder of this paragraph. Mr. Howard was sworn in. The
testimony
was regarding the homicide of Thomas McBride. Mr. Howard testified
that he
was in the area of 1553 West Washington, coming home from a friend's
house,
walking east on Washington. He saw the truck come to a stop sign at
Lorel
and Washington, "in front of him," but it didn't stop. The truck
almost hit
the bike, then the bike rider hit the truck with his hand and called
the
driver a "stupid mother ****er." The bike left and the truck sped
after it.
The truck got behind the bike, and Mr. Howard said that he thought the
truck
would stop and the driver would exchange words with the bicyclist, but
instead it bumped the bicycle. At this point Mr. Howard testified that
he
was 40 to 50 feet away from the truck and bike. He approximated it
relative
to the length of the room he was testifying in, and Ms. Worley noted
the
distance for the record. The bike wobbled, then the truck hit it again
and
ran it over. The bike had been swerving, but the truck was not. Mr.
Howard
testified that the entire incident took about three or four minutes.
(Yes,
that's what the transcript says. I wonder if this was a mistake by the
court reporter and really should have read "seconds" instead of
"minutes.")
He then ran towards the scene, the truck ran over the bicyclist, and
then
left. He saw the bicyclist gasping and noticed the bike under the
truck,
causing sparks to fly. The truck continued east on Washington and
turned
north onto Lockwood. He said that the truck was going 20 mph before
the
collision and 45 mph afterward. Mr. Howard stayed with the victim. He
said
that it seemed like the bike was "trying to get away" when the truck
ran it
over. He could not see if there was a passenger in the truck. He
testified
that he had met with the state's attorney and had said the same things,
and
reviewed and signed the statement on every page, that he was not under
the
influence of drugs or alcohol, that no threats or promises had been
made to
him, and that Ms. Worley had identified herself as the state's
attorney.
All the questions after this point in the transcript are asked by the
grand
jury. One juror estimated the length of the room that Mr. Howard had
compared to the distance between himself and the truck as only 15 feet
rather than 40 or 50 as had been previously noted. Mr. Howard agreed
with
this. A juror asked him to elaborate about the bicyclist touching the
truck, and he reiterated that the bicyclist hit the bike with his hand
and
the curse word. A juror asked about the direction that the bike and
the
truck were traveling, and Mr. Howard responded that the bike was
traveling
east and the truck turned to pursue it. Ms. Dooley stated that the
transcript she was shown was the same as the one she had seen before,
and
that Mr. Howard was cordial, cooperative, pleasant, calm, and not
hesitant
during his testimony.
Ms. Dooley was cross-examined by Mr. Adam and said that she had been a
state's attorney since 1994, and worked for the same office as the
prosecutors. She stated that she had not seen the crime scene herself,
and
that although she may have driven by that area at some point, she was
not
familiar with it. She did not remember seeing any other documents or
pictures besides the police statement and the transcript. She said
that
there was no one else in the grand jury room, and that she was free to
ask
any questions she wanted. The defendant or his lawyers were not
present
during the grand jury testimony. (Mr. Adam really harped on this point
as
well, I suppose to insinuate that the questioning was one-sided, but
Dooley
wouldn't go along, since that's how grand juries work.) From the
transcript, she read that Mr. Howard had testified that he was "in
front" of
the events, but when she asked him exactly where he was, he had
answered "I
was like running towards" them. He had said that he was walking down
Washington. Ms. Dooley said that Mr. Howard told her the same story
before
he testified to the grand jury, but had not specifically mentioned the
three
to four minute time frame. (Mr. Adam tried to ask her if she thought
that
three to four minutes made sense, but the state objected on the grounds
that
her opinion was irrelevant.) She did not have Mr. Howard draw a
diagram.
She said that there is not usually an easel or blackboard in the grand
jury
room. She stated that she has not spoken to Mike Rogers about the
case, but
that she does know him. On redirect, Mr. Kelly had Ms. Dooley re-read
a
question from the transcript where she had asked Mr. Howard, "Was the
distance you were from where the events took place 15 to 20 feet?" and
Mr.
Howard had responded yes. She also said that she would have known the
distance from the case file. At this point it was 12:45 and the trial
was
recessed for lunch.
[CONTINUED IN NEXT POST]
ViciousCycle
[CONTINUED FROM LAST POST]
After lunch, at about 2:10, the lights were turned off in the courtroom
and
a TV was set up. Some legal arguments were made to the judge before
the
jury was brought in. The defense was arguing that some of the pictures
that
the state was planning to show the jury were prejudicial, as they were
bloody and disturbing. Both sides agreed to defer this argument until
the
next day when the medical examiner was scheduled to testify and they
knew
exactly which pictures would be shown. The state then asked the judge
for
leeway in questioning the next witness about Jerry Howard's alleged
admission to the witness that he had been threatened into recanting his
testimony. The defense said that this would be hearsay, that they
would not
get to cross-examine Mr. Howard about it, and that the state should
have
asked Mr. Howard (Carter) this during his testimony if they wanted to
bring
up the issue. The state noted that they had been barred from asking
Mr.
Howard about it by a previous motion that the judge had granted the
defense
(due to the alleged threats being prejudicial to the defendant), and
that
the witness cannot explain Mr. Howard's sudden change of heart to the
jury
without bringing this up. After about fifteen minutes of wrangling,
Judge
Wadas decided that the witness can be led about Mr. Howard's
truthfulness,
but cannot be asked about the alleged threats. Ms. Peters then went to
brief the witness.
At 2:30, the state's ninth witness, Assistant State's Attorney Michael
Rogers, a white man who looked about 40 years old, took the stand. He
was
the original prosecutor assigned to this case. He met with Karen
Worley and
Jerry Howard. He talked to Mr. Howard alone and gave him his business
card
and told him to call him if he had any problems. They had about three
conversations on the phone and Mr. Howard never said that he had made
inaccurate statements or made a mistake in his testimony, and he never
said
that he had talked to his pastor. Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Howard if
everything
he said had been true, and he said yes.
On cross-examination, Mr. Rogers said that he talked with Mr. Howard
several
more times between May 1999 and January 2000, when he was taken off of
the
case. Mr. Howard had initiated the conversations by calling or paging
him.
In January 2000, Jerry Howard told Mr. Rogers that his statements in
May of
1999 were not true.
At this point the lawyers and the judge recessed to the judge's
chambers for
about 10 minutes, after which the jury was excused and the lawyers from
both
sides interviewed Mr. Rogers in the conference room for another 20
minutes,
which I could not hear.
Then Mr. Rogers was re-directed by the state and said that Jerry Carter
(Howard) said that he had told the truth. It was not until eight
months
later that he said anything about making a mistake. Jerry called him
and
said that he no longer wanted to cooperate in the case, and that
although
his previous statements were true, he would deny them if he were called
to
testify.
The tenth witness called was Officer Secdonia Terry of the Chicago
Police, a
black woman who appeared to be about 40 to 45 years old. She works in
the
15th District as a patrol cop. She received a call about a traffic
accident, and was told that someone at the scene wanted to talk to her.
Upon arriving, she saw her son and some other beat officers there. Her
son's name is Demetrius Terry and he is now 29 years old. She is a
long-time friend of Corky's (Carnell Fitzpatrick) family, and she is
Carnell's godmother. Her son grew up with Carnell, and he used to
spend
time at her home. Her son called Corky (Carnell) on his phone from the
scene, and Officer Terry talked to him for two or three minutes. She
asked
Mr. Fitzpatrick if he knew what he had done, and he admitted hitting a
guy
on a bike. She asked him why he had left the scene, and he said that
he was
scared and had "soiled his pants," so he went home. She agreed to meet
him
at the Amoco station. She first talked to some other cops and then
went to
the Amoco station with Officers O'Grady and Alexander at about 9:05.
Carnell arrived there about 15 minutes later in the SUV, with his
girlfriend
Tinada and his two young children. She arrested and handcuffed Carnell
and
took him back to the 15th District. Officer Alexander drove the SUV
there.
That afternoon, she spoke to Jacobs, Harris, and Collins at the Grand
and
Central station. She did not see her son at either police station.
She
wrote no reports.
On cross-examination, she guessed that there had been about four
uniformed
police officers at the scene. She was there for about five or ten
minutes.
Officers O'Grady and Alexander were there, but she didn't notice any
detectives. Her son was standing on Washington west of Lockwood. He
owns a
navy blue Crown Victoria. She was shown a photo of the scene by Mr.
Adam
and recognized the car in it. She said that she spent a lot of time
with
Corky when he was young, but that she hasn't seen him much lately since
her
son doesn't live with her anymore. She said that Demetrius called
Corky on
his own phone. She reiterated that she had asked Corky why he left the
scene, and that he said he was scared. He wanted to turn himself in,
but
did not want to return to the scene, and he wanted her to be there. On
redirect, she said that at the time of the incident she didn't know
what car
her son owned and did not recognize any cars at the scene.
The eleventh state's witness was Chicago Police Officer Victor Rivera,
a
Hispanic man who appeared to be about 45 years old. He was called to
the
scene with his partner Dan Principato. When they got there at 10:18,
the
entire block had been blocked off with yellow crime scene tape.
Several
other officers were there, including Jacobs. He photographed the scene
from
various angles and recovered evidence, including two blood swabs from
the
street, a bicycle tire, a piece of inner tube that was tied in a knot,
and a
license plate. He used cotton swabs to collect the blood and
inventoried
the evidence. The inner tube and wheel were found in the street near
the
blood. He then went to the secondary scene in the alley off of the
5200
block of Lake Street and saw more officers and crime scene tape there.
He
retrieved the bicycle missing its front wheel, and took more
photographs.
He spent 30 minutes to an hour there and returned to the 15th District
station. There he finds the SUV, which is photographed and dusted for
prints. The undercarriage was not examined there; instead it was towed
to
the auto pound and put on a lift, at which point it was photographed
from
underneath. Blood and silver metal scrapings were found on various
parts of
the undercarriage on the driver's side, along with red fibers, like
strands
of thread, and the impression of an emblem that appeared to be some
kind of
designer logo. Hair and more blood were found under the passenger
side.
The evidence was sent to a state crime lab. At this point, the photos
that
Officer Rivera had taken were shown on a TV to the jury. These
included
general pictures of both scenes and the SUV, pictures of the marks on
the
road, various shots of the bike, and close-ups of the evidence on the
underside of the SUV.
On cross-examination, Officer Rivera said that he saw only a single
police
car parked on the south side of Washington, and no other cars parked
there,
and that no tow trucks had been called. He was shown a photo of the
scene
again and could not identify the stop sign on Lorel at Washington going
north. He was shown a wider view photo and still could not see it. He
said
that he could not recall any pictures of the stop sign or the sign
itself.
At 4:05, he was excused and court was recessed for the day.
a2psyklnut
Lenghty, but well worth reading! Makes you really think of your own mortality. Evidence so far appears that this guy is going away for a loooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg time. I hope so! It would be a friggin shame if he gets off on some stupid technicality!
mike
Originally posted by Pete Clark
This guy's toast.
Toast? As in "O.J. and Toast".
Remember, this is a private lawyer against a public prosecuter.
In the end, I think we will be shocked with the verdict.
wabbit
I really hope that schmuck gets put away. In some Euro countries, I think Belgium and the Netherlands, when a car and cyclist get in an accident the car is always legally at fault. OF course, this is the US where cars rule, but a person has died and I am sure that will be taken into account.
As for the Lance armstrong story, where did that happen and when? If he was already famous, it makes sense the driver got ten years. Unfortunately, this was some poor bike messenger who was not famous at all- I wonder if there will be justice for him, poor guy. Also, I wonder how this road rage guy even managed to catch up to Lance Armstrong!
Oscar
It's a shame that it takes over two years for this to go to trial. During that time, the witness lost his nerve and decided not to testify.
So Carnell soiled himself, he was so scared after killing the cyclist. Such a scared lamb, eh?
Oscar
Monday noon, I saw some cops and an ambulance cleaning up after a bike accident on Sheridan Road in Rogers Park. I hope it wasn't car related. The cop put the bike in the trunk with the front wheel hanging out. She drove back to the station with the trunk lid banging against the fork. I hope me and my bike don't wind up like that.
LittleBigMan
Originally posted by ViciousCycle
The bicyclist then hit the SUV with his hand and called the driver a [expletive deleted].
Word.
Chris L
I think the guy deserves at least 50 years to cool his heals and think about this. That's what he'd get if he used a gun. Murder is still murder, regardless of the weapon used.
mike
I think an appropriate punishment would be to have the SUV murderer run over by BICYCLES until dead.
wabbit
One thing I've discovered is that a lot of motorists have no regard for cyclists. Right near my house are several intersections with stop signs; since none of them are terribly busy, drivers frequently ignore the stop signs or barely slow down. Several times, even as a pedestrian, I've yelled at moronic drivers who nearly run me over; as a cyclist, it's the same. They'll stop of course if you're a kid, or a woman pushing a stroller- if you're a cyclist they are perfectly willing to run you down like a squished squirrel.
This also reminds me of the time when I was out cycling with a friend and we saw an injured rollerblader. It happened on a bike path which goes under a rail bridge- I have no idea how it happened but it looked like the blader slammed right into the wall. There were ambulance technicians there with a stretcher and everything. I thought of all the times I'd cursesd roller bladers,whom I regard as the scourge of bike path, saying "Die rollerbladers die" and I kind of felt bad. I don't think the guy died, just got smashed up a bit. I still hate them though.
Chris L
Originally posted by wabbit
I thought of all the times I'd cursesd roller bladers,whom I regard as the scourge of bike path, saying "Die rollerbladers die" and I kind of felt bad. I don't think the guy died, just got smashed up a bit. I still hate them though.
I'm going to play 'devil's advocate' here. Can someone actually define a "bikepath"? Around here, all we actually have are "shared paths". Hence I don't use them. Is there actually such thing as an offroad path that is for bikes only anywhere in the world?
ViciousCycle
"It could have happened to any of us. You're driving along, and all of a sudden there is a bicyclist in front of you."
--Sam Adam, Sr., defense attorney, People vs. Fitzpatrick
They're expecting the jury to start deliberating on Monday.
ViciousCycle
Rather than trying to continue to cut and paste the lengthy trial reports, I'm just going to provide a link:
Originally posted by ViciousCycle
"It could have happened to any of us. You're driving along, and all of a sudden there is a bicyclist in front of you."
--Sam Adam, Sr., defense attorney, People vs. Fitzpatrick
I have to admit he's good. However, a good prosecutor would reply, "Yup. Sometimes you're just driving along, and suddenly there is a slow-moving truck or bus, a traffic jam, or a road crew in front of you."
What bothers me most is the voir dire jury selection process, under which any bicyclists were undoubtedly "excused" from this trial, to make it "fair." Seven years ago, I and another bicyclist were excused from a jury panel for a vehicular manslaughter trial, because we were dumb/honest enough to admit that we practiced the black art of cycling. I got assigned to a $4 (!) Wal-Mart shoplifting case, instead, although if the judge knew what I thought about Magna bicycles, he probably would have thrown me off that jury, as well.
ViciousCycle
Even as Fitzpatrick tries to claim it was an accident, he makes himself sound really dangerous....
Driver testifies in cyclist's death
Published December 1, 2001, Chicago Tribune
CHICAGO -- A Chicago man accused of running down a bicycle messenger in
a fit of anger told a jury Friday that he couldn't brake his
sport-utility vehicle fast enough when Thomas McBride suddenly appeared in front
of him and that he panicked after realizing he had hit the cyclist.
Carnell Fitzpatrick, 31, is accused of intentionally running down
McBride, 26, and leaving him to die in the 5300 block of West Washington
Boulevard on April 26, 1999.
In a Cook County courtroom, Fitzpatrick testified that on the day of
the crash he was driving his 1997 Chevrolet Tahoe when, suddenly, a bike
was "directly in front of me." He added, "I was pumping [the brakes],
and the truck didn't stop."
He acknowledged leaving the scene, going to an alley and untangling the
bike from under his truck, and then driving home. "I panicked," he
said.
cyclezealot
Wabbit. The road rage story of a pick up truck chasing down Lance Armstrong was probably like 1997 outside of Austin, Texas before Armstrong had won the Tour De France. Recall reading about it in Bicycling Magazine at the time. The guy just hated cyclists.
wabbit
I can see that happening in texas- it's car country! IN spite of the nice weather there, it sounds like an anti-bike place- one wonders how any cyclists emerge from there at all!
I don't believe that crap story about the brakes. Bull! Tell me the guy doesn't get his brakes checked on a regular basis if he drives in the city. Those SUVers are so obsessed with their precious vehicles, especially if they use them to transport their chhhiiilllldren! It is possible he panicked- that's pretty likely, but I think he panicked more about getting caught and going to jail, since he'd already been in trouble before.
Chris L
Originally posted by wabbit
I don't believe that crap story about the brakes. Bull! Tell me the guy doesn't get his brakes checked on a regular basis if he drives in the city.
I don't believe it either. In any case, a failure to maintain the brakes would be an offence in itself in this country. At the very least he is negligent, however I'm not convinced by his story. Very few things p*ss me off more than people using "I didn't see him" as an excuse. As Martin Bryant cools his heals in jail forever, he must be ruing the fact that he used a gun rather than a car to kill 35 people.
John E
In another forum, Chris wrote: " 'I didn't see him' is a confession, not a valid excuse." I like that ...
wabbit
Regarding the brakes story- if the prosecution has evidence that his car was checked for signs of brake failure, it won't stand up as a a valid excuse. They may have found that his brakes were perfectly fine and there was no reason for them not to work- if that happens, he's toast.
ViciousCycle
I'm not sure what made Fitzpatrick decide to testify, but the prosecutors were REALLY prepared for the cross-examination. Here's the report from Dan Korn on the 5th day of the trial:
McBride Trial -- Day 5, 11/30/01
The defense called four witnesses, including the defendant, whose
cross-examination by the prosecution was quite dramatic.
A videotape of an interview of the infamous Jerry Howard/Carter by the former
defense attorney on the case was shown. Fitzpatrick's friend Demetrius Terry was
called and gave his version of the events. He said he was following right behind
Fitzpatrick, but he admitted that he didn't see the events leading up the the crash
and didn't see the bike until it was under the SUV. Fitzpatrick himself said that he
didn't see the bike until it was right in front of him, although he said it was sunny and
that there were no other moving or parked cars in front of him on the street at the
time. He said he tried to stop but his anti-lock brakes "locked up" on him and he
couldn't stop in time, then he fled becuase he panicked.
Prosecutor Lynda Peters was very tough on him in cross-ex and made him admit
that even though he made several calls after the accident, none of them were to
911. She also did a good job of going after his story that he tried to stop, since he
said he never did actually come to a stop after running over Tom McBride, and she
got him to admit that he couldn't have been going that fast since he had just turned a
corner.
Fitzpatrick didn't exactly crack, but I thought Peters did a good job of challenging
him and casting doubt on his story. He seemed to act a little choked up when he
was describing running over McBride, but I didn't buy it. Also, because Fitpatrick
testified, the jury was allowed to hear about his two felony drug convictions, since
his credibility as a witness can be challenged.
Overall, I think his testimony probably hurt him more than it helped him. Closing
arguments are scheduled for Monday at 9:15, and then it's all up to the jury.
mike
Wow, ViciousCycle, what a fascinatingly horrible account.
Please keep us posted.
wabbit
Originally posted by John E
What bothers me most is the voir dire jury selection process, under which any bicyclists were undoubtedly "excused" from this trial, to make it "fair." Seven years ago, I and another bicyclist were excused from a jury panel for a vehicular manslaughter trial, because we were dumb/honest enough to admit that we practiced the black art of cycling.
ANd yet, when they have trials involving vehicular manslaughter or drunken driving, do they excuse from the juries anyone who drives a car or who has ever taken a drink? I doubt it- after all, everyone drives a car! But cyclists, for some reason are seen as a bizarre life form who live by an arcane code which only they can understand. ANd of course, if you ride a bike, you can't really be trusted because you're a drunken loser bum since you don't have a car!
velocipedio
Originally posted by wabbit
But cyclists, for some reason are seen as a bizarre life form who live by an arcane code which only they can understand.
You mean we're not?
ViciousCycle
Carnell Fitzpatrick has been found guilty of murder in in the first degree
Chris L
Originally posted by ViciousCycle
Carnell Fitzpatrick has been found guilty of murder in in the first degree
A big :thumbup: for the jury who have been smart enough to see through the "I didn't see him" bullsh*t that the defence went on with. I don't know much about the US legal system, what sort of sentence could he be looking at?
LittleBigMan
Originally posted by John E
I have to admit he's good. However, a good prosecutor would reply, "Yup. Sometimes you're just driving along, and suddenly there is a slow-moving truck or bus, a traffic jam, or a road crew in front of you."
What if a pedestrian suddenly appeared in the crosswalk?
Steele-Bike
Justice is a dish best served ice cold.
LittleBigMan
Originally posted by ViciousCycle
Carnell Fitzpatrick has been found guilty of murder in in the first degree
I was thinking about this incident today. This man was a murderer in his heart before he did this.
wabbit
Originally posted by Pete Clark
What if a pedestrian suddenly appeared in the crosswalk?
From what I've seen, motorists generally tend to regard pedestrians as HUMAN BEINGS. I am sure that the same morons who casually disregard stop signs when they see cyclists are somewhat more attentive if they see a pedestrian at the crosswalk. I've come to the conclusion that they have no problem with running down cyclists as if they were squished squirrels.
Anyways, even if he didn't SEE The poor guy, will anyone believe that he didn't hear the bike and his body being driven over, or hear his screams? Sheaah. I hope he gets life in prison.
willic
Found guilty! Phew!
Thank goodness , I have been watching every word of this case and I must admit I was begining to think this guy might just get off , there seemed to be several technical points the defense were highlighting that must have raised a few doubts in the jury`s minds.
How long were the jury out deliberating before reaching the verdict ?
Does the state carry capital punishment ?
ljbike
It will be interesting to see what kind of sentence the Judge imposes. The maximum?
For me, that wouldn't be too much.
VisciousCycle, I hope you'll post his ruling.
chewa
Until September 11, the man in the street didn't think of an airliner as a weapon. Maybe this case will help people realise that any vehicle is a weapon in the hands of someone who doesn't pay attention or has a bad attitude.
In passing, I note the fact that the murderer drove an SUV was commented on. I occasionally drive a Jeep Cherokee, to transport our dog, carry bikes, and in the winter to take us up north to go skiing. SUV's are perhaps more dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians than other cars because they fail compared to others in active safety, because they don't handle as well, and because they carry a lot of weight high up. But any car, whether it be a mini or a humvee can kill, as can a bike witha 150 pound rider blatting down a hill.
It's incumbent on all vehicle drivers/riders to wach out for others and drive /ride defensively. Maybe that's something that should become a source of pride.
John E
Naturally, I am delighted with the verdict. I hope it sets a precedent.
ViciousCycle
Even though I had received news of the verdict almost immediately from a fellow member of the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, here's the story that appeared in the Chicago Tribune today....
Cyclist's death was murder, jury decides
By Kirsten Scharnberg
Tribune staff reporter
December 5, 2001
In an emotional end to a complicated trial, Carnell Fitzpatrick was
found guilty of first-degree murder
Tuesday in a case Cook County prosecutors have called the first local
incident of road rage in which a
bicyclist was killed by an angry driver intent on seeking revenge for a
minor traffic dispute.
"When you have a three-ton vehicle and maybe a 20-pound bicycle, that
is no even match," Assistant
State's Atty. Lynda Peters said moments after the verdict. "It's very
skewed."
The verdict came after a Cook County jury had deliberated for more than
16 hours over two days.
During that time, they had sent the judge a note asking for legal
clarification about the definition of
reckless homicide. The jury had been given the option of convicting
Fitzpatrick on the lesser charge. They
also were allowed to view for a second time a videotaped statement
given by an eyewitness to the April
26, 1999, accident that left bike messenger Tom McBride, 26, dead.
Fitzpatrick, 31, faces 20 to 60 years in prison. He had been out of
jail on bond throughout the five-day
trial but was taken into custody after the ruling. He sobbed as
sheriff's deputies led him from the
courtroom.
In the courtroom gallery, emotions were high on both sides of the
aisle. Before the verdict was
announced, a half dozen courthouse deputies came into the room,
standing in the center of the room,
between those who were there in support of Fitzpatrick and those who
were family, friends and former
colleagues of McBride.
When the verdict came, Fitzpatrick's wife screamed and ran from the
room. Her sobs could still be heard
inside the courtroom as Judge Kenneth J. Wadas polled the jury.
In the front row, Robert McBride, the victim's father, quietly shook
and cried. His wife, Mary Ellen,
leaned against a son, tears running down her cheeks.
"We're grateful for them," Mary Ellen McBride said of the state's
attorney's office as she left the
courtroom. "They put on an outstanding case."
One of the primary elements of the trial had been the eyewitness
testimony of Jerry Carter III, a Chicago
man who had been jogging near the scene of the accident in the 5300
block of West Washington
Boulevard.
During pretrial motions, Carter had refused to testify about what he
had told police and later a grand jury:
that he had seen Fitzpatrick deliberately run down McBride after the
cyclist shouted curse words during a
near-collision. He had also refused to testify during the trial and had
done so under orders of the judge,
recanting what he had earlier told authorities.
Carter had claimed he had been threatened to not testify and had warned
prosecutors that he would lie on
the stand. Peters, one of the two prosecutors, said after the trial
that the state's attorney's office has no
plans to pursue perjury charges against Carter.
Throughout much of the trial, the courtroom was packed with
Chicago-area bike messengers and sport
cyclists. After the verdict, George Christensen broke down as he talked
about McBride, a Chicago bike
messenger for seven years with whom Christensen had worked for many
years.
"My toughest day of messengering--through extreme cold, extreme heat,
whatever--was the day after he
was killed," Christensen said in the hallway outside Courtroom 301. "I
could really feel his presence that
day."
Christensen said he hoped the verdict would send a signal to drivers
that "vehicles are murder weapons."
He added that he thought the trial's outcome would give "bicyclists a
little insurance that the law is on
their side."
"It could have happened to any of us," he said. "We've all had these
confrontations."
Fitzpatrick's lawyer, veteran defense attorney Sam Adam, declined to
comment on the verdict.
Fitzpatrick, who was transported to the Cook County Jail, is due back
in court on Jan. 15 for post-trial
motions and possibly sentencing.
[Note: The only inaccuracy in the above article is that the journalist referred to "sports cyclists" who were present at the verdict, but they were actually commuter cyclists who use the road for transportation for their bikes just like McBride.]
wabbit
Originally posted by chewa
U
In passing, I note the fact that the murderer drove an SUV was commented on. I occasionally drive a Jeep Cherokee, to transport our dog, carry bikes, and in the winter to take us up north to go skiing. SUV's are perhaps more dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians than other cars because they fail compared to others in active safety, because they don't handle as well, and because they carry a lot of weight high up. But any car, whether it be a mini or a humvee can kill, as can a bike witha 150 pound rider blatting down a hill.
It's incumbent on all vehicle drivers/riders to wach out for others and drive /ride defensively. Maybe that's something that should become a source of pride.
I'm with you on that Chewa. SUV drivers seem to think that because THEY'RE invulnerable, so is everyone else. The worst, I find, are the moms with their SUV's going to pick up kids at school. They are the most impatient. They freak out if they have to let a scummy cyclist cross, and they frequently disregard stop signs as if they were on some sort of top government mission to stop an assassination and can't wait 3 seconds.
Incidentally, I made a mistake in my last message- I ment to post that cyclists are regarded as LESS than human beings. Duh....
By the way Chewa, I love your dog!
ViciousCycle
And here is the Chicago Sun-Times article. The journalist of this article seemed to understand the bicyclists better than the Trib article.
Driver guilty of mowing down
cyclist
December 5, 2001
BY CARLOS SADOVI CRIMINAL COURTS REPORTER
A jury on Tuesday found a Bellwood man guilty of using his Chevy
Tahoe SUV to intentionally run down a bicyclist in 1999 in a fit of
road rage.
As the verdict was read to a packed courtroom after two days of
deliberations, the family of Carnell Fitzpatrick wailed and cried out.
Fitzpatrick, 31, could face up to 60 years in prison after the jury
found him guilty of first-degree murder.
Tom McBride, 26, was killed on April 26, 1999, as he rode his
bicycle from his Oak Park home to his job in the Loop as a bicycle
messenger.
Prosecutors argued that Fitzpatrick intentionally mowed down
McBride, while defense lawyers argued the death was an accident.
''When you have a 3-ton vehicle and maybe a 20-pound bicycle
there is no even match, it's very skewed,'' Assistant Cook County
State's Attorney Lynda Peters said. ''The message that is sent by this
verdict is that bicycles have the right to be out there. Tom McBride
had the right to be on that road.'' She said it was the first
vehicle-bike road rage case to be tried in Cook County.
Prosecutors said Fitzpatrick ran into McBride after the cyclist
slapped his hand on the hood of the SUV and swore at Fitzpatrick
who had nearly hit him as they traveled along the 5300 block of
West Washington.
A key witness told police and a grand jury that he saw Fitzpatrick
nearly hit McBride with his truck and then drive after him. Jerry
Carter III, however, recanted his testimony during the trial when it
was revealed that he had been threatened for speaking out.
Prosecutors then presented Carter's grand jury testimony and
statements he made to police on the day McBride died.
Jurors said that during their deliberations they compared Fitzpatrick's
truck to a weapon.
''We didn't believe Carnell wanted to murder him but he made a
decision to go after him by his actions,'' said a juror, who asked that
his name not be used.
During the nearly 16 hours of deliberations, jurors grappled with
possibly convicting Fitzpatrick of reckless homicide, a lesser offense.
They also said Carter's first statements to police and the grand jury
were more believable than his recantation and that witness testimony
by two other men backed up Carter's initial claims.
''We felt something was up,'' a juror said.
Fitzpatrick's family and friends were too upset to discuss the verdict.
''This is the wrong time to ask someone when their son has been
convicted of murder,'' a family member said.
But McBride's family applauded assistant state's attorneys Patrick
Kelly and Peters, who tried the case.
''The prosecutors did a great job, we are grateful to them,''
McBride's mother Mary Ellen said.
Nearly a half dozen of McBride's fellow bike messengers and other
bicyclists rode to the courthouse every day of the weeklong trial.
The verdict should send a message that cars must be more careful of
bicyclists' rights on the road, said George Christensen, a bike
messenger. He and McBride worked for the same company for
nearly seven years.
''It's nice to have this on the record, it's assurance that the law is
on
our side,'' Christensen said. ''Vehicles are murder weapons. Had he
used a gun it would have been more clear cut.''
While McBride may have exacerbated the confrontation when he
swore at Fitzpatrick and hit his truck, it's something that bicycle
messengers grapple with every day. Along with bags and helmets
many carry repellent for protection against drivers, he said.
''When you're nearly killed out there, it's hard to let that pass,'' he
said as he broke down in tears. ''The toughest day was the day after
he was killed. He really liked being a messenger, I could feel his
presence that day.''
LittleBigMan
Vicious Cycle (Tim,)
Your coverage of this atrocity has been top-notch. Thank you.
It's high time not only cyclists, but all road users wake up to the stark reality that motorized vehicles are capable of deady force.
So quit playing with weapons out there.
Chris L
Originally posted by wabbit
They are the most impatient. They freak out if they have to let a scummy cyclist cross, and they frequently disregard stop signs as if they were on some sort of top government mission to stop an assassination and can't wait 3 seconds.
This is something about motoring primate behaviour that has long bemused me (and it's not just SUV's either, around here ute/pick-up drivers are the worst offenders by far). How is it that waiting three seconds for a cyclist is going to ruin their day, but spending 3 hours in a traffic jam caused by cars is not?
:confused:
LittleBigMan
Car driving is a drug.
chewa
Originally posted by Chris L
How is it that waiting three seconds for a cyclist is going to ruin their day, but spending 3 hours in a traffic jam caused by cars is not?
:confused:
Spot on Chris. If I'm driving and stuck in traffic and a bike goes past (either motorcycle or pushbike) my only thought is "Wish I was on my bike", but for some drivers it's an insult to them. God knows why.
Advertising aims at speed, power, importance etc. Maybe we should aim at ecology and high standards of observation, but it's not sexy is it?
willic
Many thanks Tim!
wabbit
Chewa and Chris, you are BOTH spot on! I've often wondered why cyclists seem to bother motorists so much more than OTHER annoyances, like traffic jams, potholes etc. I think perhaps it's because as a driver you expect there to be certain annoyances- it's part of driving. You know you have to be aware of potholes, traffic, kids crossing, deer crossing, etc. However, for some reason, cyclists are not seen as part of a typical day's driving, something to be on the lookout for. They're seen as some sort of competition for driver's territory, and I think Chewa is right- they resent cyclists being able to get through those tie-ups that they have to sit through.