Advocacy & Safety - Trial underway for driver that stopped short...

Yes, the system makes sure that any minorities that are relevant to the trial are under-represented on the jury.

Though while many motorists may think that cyclists don't belong on the road, most just keep it to themselves, knowing that society has decided otherwise. And most people who will yell at a cyclist would never think of actually causing them to strike their car and get hurt.

And while most people aren't cyclists, I imagine most know a cyclist, and wouldn't like the idea of somebody in a car attacking their cycling friend just for riding.

What he did is grossly over the top, even to most motorists. As long as the prosecutor can't convince people that it wasn't simply an accident, he should be convicted -- even if the jury doesn't like sharing the roads with cyclists. We shall see -- it could indeed go either way, like any trial could.

The 'system' does not 'make sure' minorities are under represented. In fact it is unethical and improper to exclude someone because of race. But race is one of the few examples where the system is on guard to prevent such exclusion. Minorities are less likely to be on a jury because... well... they are in the minority.

My guess is that most of the jurors have ridden a bicycle as an adult, but you can rest assured the defense would have used a peremptory challenge on any potential juror who admitted to riding regularly in the street.

So he casually said-more or less-that the cop lied-was incorrect? I wondered how he was going to handle that. Of course this was when he was being questioned by his attorney.I guess the DA might revisit that.Don't know how much the DA will make of it, since many jurors might think cops lie. Of course, in this case there isn't the usual motivation to lie,"get a bad guy off the streets etc."

It sounded like he has a competent lawyer-no surprise there-and he did well on the stand. My guess is he will stick with "cop was mistaken" when the DA brings it up. The entire reason for the memory expert to testify was to set up his "the cop was mistaken" testimony. The "teach them a lesson" statement was the whole case. The "bikes had room to stop" was just to dirty the water and make it look like the riders were somehow incompetent or even chasing him.
He is getting his money's worth.
Any of you lawyers out there care to guess what his defense has cost him so far? Maybe 150 hrsX($300)+ maybe $5000 per expert? He could get off for well under $100,000. What a bargain!!

Lets see how the DA does.Safe bet he isn't going to blubber "I did it." I like his chances now.Of course I'm not the jury- he might not sound as good in person as he does on "paper". Anyone out there have a picture of this guy? Looks matter.
Charlie

But speaking of which, when it comes to rear-end crashes, what exactly IS the law? Reason I ask is that in a typical rear-end crash, the cause is almost always the rear person's fault for following too closely and/or speeding. Of course, exceptions probably do exist, but are they spelled out by statute?

I've been wondering that myself. I do know that the overtaking (passing) vehicle must yield to the vehicle they are passing, but once they are in the lead then what? Common sense tells me that the person who pulls in front of another (closer than the "two second" rule) and then brakes, thus causing a collision is at fault, at least morally, but what does the law say? Isn't this analogous to the insurance fraud accidents where people without insurance cause an accident and then claim whiplash, etc? Perhaps there are some regulations that address that situation that could be applied here?

Well remember, you are supposed to be tried by a jury of your peers.

If they really were able to find 12 people who were such utter ba5tards and a55holes as to be called his "peers" to sit on that jury, he's probably going to get off easy.

Minorities are less likely to be on a jury because... well... they are in the minority.

Jurors are also selected from voting registrations, and minorities are even more underrepresented there, as they tend not to be registered to vote as often, unfortunately. That's changing but probably still true most places.

Jurors are also selected from voting registrations, and minorities are even more underrepresented there, as they tend not to be registered to vote as often, unfortunately. That's changing but probably still true most places.

Correct. That is why some jurisdictions have changed to motor vehicle operator's licenses. Then they weed out the non citizens. In jurisdictions where this has happened, defendants have faired better.

Correct. That is why some jurisdictions have changed to motor vehicle operator's licenses. Then they weed out the non citizens. In jurisdictions where this has happened, defendants have faired better.

I think dougmc's line;

"Yes, the system makes sure that any minorities that are relevant to the trial are under-represented on the jury."

was referring to minorities of interest (cyclists, doctors, drivers etc) not racial minorities.

Jurors are also selected from voting registrations, and minorities are even more underrepresented there

My interpretation of the original post which mentioned minorities was not racial minorities, but rather any social minority - such as cyclists, quilters, vegetarians or ham radio operators. My guess is that these 'minorities' who have no legal protection are probably represented within the jury pool in the same minority proportions that they are in the general populace.

Jurors are also selected from voting registrations, and minorities are even more underrepresented there, as they tend not to be registered to vote as often, unfortunately. That's changing but probably still true most places.

It was my impression that potential jurors were selected from both voter registration logs, as well as driver licenses. Which would make a person who neither drives or vote under the radar and possibly never getting summoned for jury duty.

I think dougmc's line;

"Yes, the system makes sure that any minorities that are relevant to the trial are under-represented on the jury."

was referring to minorities of interest (cyclists, doctors, drivers etc) not racial minorities.

Bingo!

And cyclists are definitely a minority in the US.

Can we get his imaginary friend Bobby's surname? Oh, and how about the name of the cop that told the friend (I'd like his name also) to take photos?

It was my impression that potential jurors were selected from both voter registration logs, as well as driver licenses. Which would make a person who neither drives or vote under the radar and possibly never getting summoned for jury duty.

It probably varies by jurisdiction, I know here you have to be on both the voting and DMV lists before you are selected. (been on juries enough to have heard the blurb of how they select the jury pool.)

It probably varies by jurisdiction, I know here you have to be on both the voting and DMV lists before you are selected. (been on juries enough to have heard the blurb of how they select the jury pool.)

I'm sure that you're right in that it varies from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction. As I won't swear to it, but I think that I have heard that in some areas that they also use the database of deed holders, and other "non-standard" databases.

It is just noon in CA now. I wonder how quickly we'll get a posting of what actually happened today? In maybe 6 hours some outlet might post something??

The DA is asking the md questions today, so the case will be made today. His lawyer seems to have done a pretty good job. He-the md- is probably a confident and competent liar.

I think dougmc's line;

"Yes, the system makes sure that any minorities that are relevant to the trial are under-represented on the jury."

was referring to minorities of interest (cyclists, doctors, drivers etc) not racial minorities.Yes, in this case I was referring to cyclists and doctors (drivers aren't really a minority) but I certainly wasn't excluding racial minorities in general.

The 'system' does not 'make sure' minorities are under represented. In fact it is unethical and improper to exclude someone because of race.Sounds good, but I certainly imagine that it still happens.

Lawyers don't have to justify their peremptory challenges, and while courts have ruled that it's unconstitutional to reject jurors based simply on race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky), since you don't have to justify it, I don't doubt that it still happens -- they just make it more subtle.

And with no cyclists on the jury (and no educated people, thanks to our jury system's weak points), this doc has a great chance of walking....

I've seen it posted elsewhere that there are no cyclists on the jury. It seems logical that the defense attorney would make sure of that. But how do you know there are no educated people?

Speedo

Educated people-degrees advanced degrees- I wouldn't count on them favoring either side.Class wise they might favor the MD, but they might have more spare time, so maybe they ride for fun etc?
Probably would be a wash education wise.
The ill will toward riders that those mass red light running rides bring about won't help the riders.Isn't that a West Coast thing??All the jurors are drivers.
Charlie

Man, time to bust out the sandpaper knuckles...

The cross exam by the DA is over.I just read it in Velo news.
The best moment was when she asked him"did you tell the 911 operator,"I slammed on my brakes"
He-the md-denied it, but the DA replayed the tape and it clearly has him saying"I slammed on my brakes"

I guess she caught him in a lie.I'm surprised that happened.Why would he deny something that was on tape?? The report said the tape was clear-slammed on the brakes.

I'm guessing his lawyer will address that in some way when they make the ending arguments.Maybe say he slammed on his brakes to get the picture.It wasn't intentional, just a reflex sort of thing?

Not a great idea to lie when it is on tape.

The F you that the riders admitted to won't help the case.The "I'm gonna' F you up" that the rider said post crash might help the driver.
Really curious how this will turn out.It looks like a cinch for the DA, but...
Charlie

The most recent Velonews story. (http://velonews.com/article/99655/la-road-rage-defendant-says-he-stopped-to-try-to-take-a)

The fact that the Dr actually got an expert, tells me that he's spending big $$$ in a (vain?) bid to save his hide.

But speaking of which, when it comes to rear-end crashes, what exactly IS the law? Reason I ask is that in a typical rear-end crash, the cause is almost always the rear person's fault for following too closely and/or speeding. Of course, exceptions probably do exist, but are they spelled out by statute?

There's a technique, I think they call it the "Swoop and Squat", that people use for insurance fraud. It involves passsing a vehicle and swerving over in front of it, while slamming on the brakes. The car should be filled with people that then make claims against the other driver, usually with the help of someone in the medical field. There's some statute against it here in California, and it should apply in this case.

The bike brake expert had animations and was 40,000 dollars don't want to find the source try bikinginla.com.


I hope the DA hits all the points on the closing including the ride to the right law which spells out narrow road and cyclist going the speed limit. Both nullify the three abreast agrument completely.

I hope they point out the doc was going 40mph when passing them.
Again I hope they go over every lie he commited on the stand.

If we don't get a guilty verdict I will be shocked.
Can they get him on Prejury? He denies slamming on the brakes.

You know, reading more and more about this, and cooling off a bit, I think it's possible that the guy didn't mean to actually harm them. He may have actually wanted to stop to get their info, and underestimated the amount of clearance he had, ending up stopping too soon. Not saying this is actually the case, but some of his statements (such as the one about their injuries not being that bad) are still horribly callous, but it is plausible that's just the way he talks and reacts. I would expect an experienced ER doc to assess the situation ("ok, probably not life-threatening) and handle it calmly. Some people just seem like jerks when they calmly handle what seem like crises.

I'm not so taken by this that I don't think some of it is spin, but some of it is probably true. The cyclist in me says to hang the guy, but the part of me who can see myself in such a situation says the guy deserves to be heard and judged fairly. I can see myself interweaving half-truths with the true events after accidentally doing something I could have prevented.

He may be a bad driver, and he may deserve to lose a civil case for his fault, but he may not be guilty of assault.

Nah, he "brake-checked" the cyclists... plain and simple.

He probably did not expect them to get hurt as much as they did, but he "wanted to teach a lesson" by his own admission.

That statement to the first responder, plus the recording of "I slammed on my brakes," should be enough to convict.

The rest is up to the jury.

It was intentional. He said so. You can't get more to the point than that.
dc

The most recent Velonews story. (http://velonews.com/article/99655/la-road-rage-defendant-says-he-stopped-to-try-to-take-a)

And how many people actually believe what the "good" doctor is saying?

The bike brake expert had animations and was 40,000 dollars don't want to find the source try bikinginla.com.


I hope the DA hits all the points on the closing including the ride to the right law which spells out narrow road and cyclist going the speed limit. Both nullify the three abreast argument completely.

I hope they point out the doc was going 40mph when passing them.
Again I hope they go over every lie he committed on the stand.

If we don't get a guilty verdict I will be shocked.
Can they get him on Perjury? He denies slamming on the brakes.

Given that it's on the 911 tape I would/should think so. As if I am not mistaken 911 recordings are admissible as evidence.

Nah, he "brake-checked" the cyclists... plain and simple.

He probably did not expect them to get hurt as much as they did, but he "wanted to teach a lesson" by his own admission.

That statement to the first responder, plus the recording of "I slammed on my brakes," should be enough to convict.

The rest is up to the jury.

I agree that what we see seems to say he did it on purpose. But isn't it possible that by "teach them a lesson" he meant that he was going to stop, get out, and report them? Is it not possible that the man's words were taken out of context by the officer who didn't even bother to write them down?

Mostly, I'm playing devil's advocate, and I think it's clear he's at fault. The question is one of whether he will be convicted in a criminal court.

I agree that what we see seems to say he did it on purpose. But isn't it possible that by "teach them a lesson" he meant that he was going to stop, get out, and report them? Is it not possible that the man's words were taken out of context by the officer who didn't even bother to write them down?

Mostly, I'm playing devil's advocate, and I think it's clear he's at fault. The question is one of whether he will be convicted in a criminal court.

I get that you're playing the devil's advocate, but NO. He knew what he was doing, and that was that he wanted to "teach them a lesson." That was plainly recorded on the 911 recording. Just as it was when he said that they weren't "seriously injured."

And I don't blame the cyclists for not wanting him to treat or access their injuries.

I can see tadawdy's point-devil's advocate wise-.I can see a jury buying that this was just carelessness mixed with anger, but not an intentional attack.They would have seen him nearly blubbering on the stand when he told the story of his run over friend.Yeah,I can see this being not guilty.

They have his
1)Prior run ins with riders
2) Teach them a lesson
3) I slammed on my brakes

A jury might plausibly think he intended to just cause them to brake hard, and have to swerve around him, vs what actually happened.His experts have testified they had enough time/room to stop-ignoring reaction time -which could easily be another 20-40 feet.
This might be a near thing.I'm betting the md spent his money well,and he gets off the hook.

We should get a result next week ,right?

Lawyers out there-if you don't intend to cause injury-like some idiot who is playing with his gun and accidentally shoots his kid- is it still assault with a deadly weapon? Stupidity vs malice ?? Same crime? Can this jury find him guilty of some lessor offense? Hope the DA hasn't put all their eggs in one basket. This guy might have bought himself some justice.

Charlie

Ok devil advocates,

What the heck was he teaching to the cyclists? That it's illegal to ride 3 abreast when they are going the speed limit, which we've been told is legal? Was this doctor deputized to make a citizen's arrest? Did the police officer who told him to take a picture tell him to stop the cyclists and tell them they are wrong?

They did nothing wrong. This doctor passed the bicycles at a dangerous speed and then stopped in traffic in the road, right in front of the cyclists. He's quoted as saying he wanted to teach them a lesson.

Bottom line--this doctor convinced himself that cycling was dangerous. He didn't want them on the road. He complained to the police before, with trumped up thoughts that the cyclists were in the wrong. The cop told him to take their picture. The doctor got angry and slammed his brakes.

thdave,

Oh,I think he was pissed and intentionally slammed on the brakes.However, he has a more than competent lawyer, a rider wanting to"f him up", several f yous,an expert saying-in effect, that the riders weren't competent,and should have been able to stop in time.Him nearly blubbering on the stand when remembering his dead boyhood friend killed on a bike.
"Teach them a lesson" is his main problem.

His lawyer will emphasize that he left them enough space to stop-according to the $40,000 bike expert-therefore he didn't intend to injure them. Yes, money well spent.Best $40,000 he ever spent!!

Amazing how a slam dunk can be sooo close.
Charlie

I still think it's a slam dunk.

The guy stops in front of the cyclists, giving them 2 seconds time to stop--according to their "expert." He's got no business stopping in front of them. He's got no business confronting. The taking their picture excuse is a joke, since he could have done that from behind. He's got no business passing them--which I'm sure was an illegal pass. He's admitted he doesn't feel "safe" following them on the road. He admitted to yelling that they must ride single file, when he's not the law and he's flat out wrong.

This guy took the law into his own hands and was a vigilante.

I still think it's a slam dunk.

The guy stops in front of the cyclists, giving them 2 seconds time to stop--according to their "expert." He's got no business stopping in front of them. He's got no business confronting. The taking their picture excuse is a joke, since he could have done that from behind. He's got no business passing them--which I'm sure was an illegal pass. He's admitted he doesn't feel "safe" following them on the road. He admitted to yelling that they must ride single file, when he's not the law and he's flat out wrong.

This guy took the law into his own hands and was a vigilante.

Yeah I think the picture thing falls apart unless the driver can show a camera with lots of photos of the scene afterward. If I had a camera in hand, I would have taken loads of pics. Com'on "Doc," where's the pics?

A jury might plausibly think he intended to just cause them to brake hard, and have to swerve around himEven intentionally causing them to have to brake hard merely to `teach them a lesson' would be assault, possibly with a deadly weapon.

And if I punch at your face, and force you to duck ... it's still assault, even if I miss.

But if you fail to duck, it's assault and battery.

And if you slip backwards, fall, hit your head, crack it open and die, it's manslaughter or murder or something similar, depending on my motives. Even if it wasn't a hard punch, even if I expected you to duck, even if I meant to miss but accidentally hit you.

In this case, as long as his slamming on the brakes was intended to make the cyclists react to avoid injury, even if this reaction was supposed to be simple and minor, it's assault. And since they were hurt, it's assault and battery. Since collisions with cars can kill, it should be assault and battery with a deadly weapon, and perhaps other charges as well.

Even intentionally causing them to have to brake hard merely to `teach them a lesson' would be assault, possibly with a deadly weapon.

And if I punch at your face, and force you to duck ... it's still assault, even if I miss.

But if you fail to duck, it's assault and battery.

And if you slip backwards, fall, hit your head, crack it open and die, it's manslaughter or murder or something similar, depending on my motives. Even if it wasn't a hard punch, even if I expected you to duck, even if I meant to miss but accidentally hit you.

In this case, as long as his slamming on the brakes was intended to make the cyclists react to avoid injury, even if this reaction was supposed to be simple and minor, it's assault. And since they were hurt, it's assault and battery. Since collisions with cars can kill, it should be assault and battery with a deadly weapon, and perhaps other charges as well.

Good post.

Lawyers out there-if you don't intend to cause injury-like some idiot who is playing with his gun and accidentally shoots his kid- is it still assault with a deadly weapon? Stupidity vs malice ?? Same crime? Can this jury find him guilty of some lessor offense? Hope the DA hasn't put all their eggs in one basket. This guy might have bought himself some justice.

Charlie

The laws are differnet in different states. If in fact he did not intend to cause the cyclist to run into him (or the state could not prove beyond a reasoanble doubt that he so intend), in Florida he would not be guilty of a felony but would be guilty of reckless driving or possibly a few other misdemeanors.

That result might, actually, be better financially for the cyclists. This guy's insurance is not going to pay for injuries he caused intentionally. If he caused the injuries negligently, his auto insurance will pay up on the civil claim. For intentional torts, the injured person must collect damages from the tortfeasor personally, which is notoriously hard to do, even when the bad guy is not indigent (see, for example, the efforts made by the Brown family to collect from OJ Simpson). I don't know whether the civil claims have been settled (my guess is that they have not), and if he is convicted of a crime showing that he intentionally caused the injuries, the insuance companies will be out of the civil cases.

Ok devil advocates,

<Snip>

Bottom line--this doctor convinced himself that cycling was dangerous. He didn't want them on the road. He complained to the police before, with trumped up thoughts that the cyclists were in the wrong. The cop told him to take their picture. The doctor got angry and slammed his brakes.

I'm pretty sure that the LEO who told him to take pictures/get personal information about the cyclists would have advised him to do so SAFELY.

Agreed, given his past "run ins" with cyclists. I think I asked this before, but has he said/done when injured cyclists came into "his" ER?

Yeah I think the picture thing falls apart unless the driver can show a camera with lots of photos of the scene afterward. If I had a camera in hand, I would have taken loads of pics. Com'on "Doc," where's the pics?

Very good question, did the police list a camera in the evidence list? If not what happened to it? Where are the pictures? Why hasn't his lawyer submitted them as evidence?

Very good question, did the police list a camera in the evidence list? If not what happened to it? Where are the pictures? Why hasn't his lawyer submitted them as evidence?

Pretty obvious the camera comment is a ruse. Why take pictures? To incriminate the cyclists, who aren't doing anything wrong? It's just to establish doubt with the jurors.

I wonder if he had a camera. Is that one of the pieces of evidence? :)

This doctor's lying through his teeth. He cried on trial, relaying the story of a boyhood friend who died while riding a bike? Why wouldn't he be extra careful around cyclists then, if his friend's death meant something to him? This liar cried 'cause he's going to jail! That "friend" has been dead for 40+ years.

This would make a good episode of Law and Order. My bet is the doctor is not going to get off scot-free.

This would make a good episode of Law and Order. My bet is the doctor is not going to get off scot-free.

I hope for 3 years minimum in prison, but I'd be happy with 10 years. Don't see that happening, but I can see 3 years.

This would make a good episode of Law and Order. My bet is the doctor is not going to get off scot-free.

Just give it a couple of months, it'll be there.

Pretty obvious the camera comment is a ruse. Why take pictures? To incriminate the cyclists, who aren't doing anything wrong? It's just to establish doubt with the jurors.

I wonder if he had a camera. Is that one of the pieces of evidence? :)

This doctor's lying through his teeth. He cried on trial, relaying the story of a boyhood friend who died while riding a bike? Why wouldn't he be extra careful around cyclists then, if his friend's death meant something to him? This liar cried 'cause he's going to jail! That "friend" has been dead for 40+ years.

Exactly, which is why I asked if it was listed in the investigating officer's evidence inventory list. If the "good" doctor's intention was to take photos where's the camera? Where are the photos?

Again, exactly, he's trying to CYA (cover your 'his' ass) with the camera and story of his dead friend.

Very good question, given the story of his boyhood friend who died while riding a bike one would think that he would give cyclists more room and leeway instead of crowding them or trying to "teach them a lesson."

Then he compounds his follies by calling 911 and telling the officer that he slammed his brakes, as well as telling the operator that their injuries weren't as serious as they were going to claim. And even though he is a doctor (whether he's still practicing medicine is besides the point) his visual assessment only goes so far. And as I've said before I do not blame the cyclists one bit for not wanting the man who just caused them serious injury to exam or treat them.

This would make a good episode of Law and Order. My bet is the doctor is not going to get off scot-free.

Or for CSI, or Numb3rs. Actually with all the analyzing that they do on Numb3rs maybe it would be better there.

I don't think that he is either. The statements he made to the cop about wanting to "teach them a lesson" as well as the statements that he made to the 911 operator are pretty damning.

And speaking of the 911 recordings, how can he or his lawyer really expect the jury to believe that he said everything accept one of the more damning statements?

Let's hope that part of his sentence is that he permanently loses his drivers license. And it would be poetic justice if he was sentenced to having to ride a bicycle for x miles per week to see what life is like from the other side of his car.

I hope for 3 years minimum in prison, but I'd be happy with 10 years. Don't see that happening, but I can see 3 years.

If he got 3 years how much time would he actually serve? Would he get any allowance for "time served" or "time off for good behavior?" Although I think he has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that good behavior isn't his strong point.

Latest from Velonews;

http://www.velonews.com/article/99685/la-road-rage-trial-closing-arguments-wrap-up

Closing arguments are in.

If he got 3 years how much time would he actually serve? Would he get any allowance for "time served" or "time off for good behavior?" Although I think he has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that good behavior isn't his strong point.

Has he served any time?

Latest from Velonews;

http://www.velonews.com/article/99685/la-road-rage-trial-closing-arguments-wrap-up

Closing arguments are in.

I've done a lot of closing arguments, and I've seen a lot of closings. The closings in this case were bizarre. Under the rules here, you sure can't get away with swinging around a baseball bat, not in evidence, or putting on a doctor's coat to mock the defendant.

Also, we have court five days a week here. California is a strange place.

I've done a lot of closing arguments, and I've seen a lot of closings. The closings in this case were bizarre. Under the rules here, you sure can't get away with swinging around a baseball bat, not in evidence, or putting on a doctor's coat to mock the defendant.

Also, we have court five days a week here. California is a strange place.

We have court 5 days a week here too... but not all Judges are available all the time... Do you have "personal time" at work? So do Judges. Or the Judge may be hearing some other legal situation such as a parole.

And then again, we are having funding problems in the state... perhaps the department is on furlough. For a while, state offices were closed one day a week. http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1676881.html

Or perhaps a lawyer has need to be off today, and asked for a recess. Who knows.

One thing for sure... it ain't like TV court. ;)