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

http://velonews.com/article/99398/

Yeah..saw that..quite the bastard, isn't he?

I hope he goes away for a long time.

Sounds like he's got a peach of an attorney, too. :rolleyes:

http://velonews.com/article/99398/

Here's hoping that his comment to the 911 operator about their (Stoehr & Peterson) injuries not being as bad as they're going to claim comes back to bite him.

And here's hoping that he goes away for a long time, and loses his driver's license, permanently. As it is clear that he is a menace on the road. And I hate to tell him but he doesn't (no matter what he obviously thinks) owns the road that he lives on.

"Swarth, on cross examination, tried to suggest that the cyclists involved in the Fourth of July holiday ride “took over the road.” Stone objected to the characterization, and the judge sustained the objection."

I'm curious how fast the doctor normally drives on that road. You can easily reach the speed limit on a bike, and the cyclists were probably riding that fast or faster. What is lawyer really trying to accomplish? Is he talking about the whole ride or the two guys involved in the incident?

There is another thread about this.
But let us start fresh.
This doctor is cooked. The lawyer will do only a disservice. Thank you to him.
This doctor will get a bit of jail time. But he really deserves some real time. And to lose the medical license forever, and everywhere. Not just in this state.
Bicyclists have a right to use the road also. And they should be treated with courtesy. Not road rage.
dc

"Swarth, on cross examination, tried to suggest that the cyclists involved in the Fourth of July holiday ride “took over the road.” Stone objected to the characterization, and the judge sustained the objection."

I'm curious how fast the doctor normally drives on that road. You can easily reach the speed limit on a bike, and the cyclists were probably riding that fast or faster. What is lawyer really trying to accomplish? Is he talking about the whole ride or the two guys involved in the incident?

The lawyer doesn't have a real defense for his client, so he's trying to discredit the two main witnesses against him, that's all. Standard lawyer slime.

It isn't slime. It's just the lawyer doing his job. As it should be done. But it will mean nothing if the case is a good case.
And I think you know. The case is good and air tight. The lawyer still has to look for any leaky parts, but do you think he will find any? I know he won't.
The case is a clear 'slam dunk', as they say.
The only question will be the post conviction probation department report which will weigh and balance as to what the punishment should be. And the DA will make a tough recommendation.
Then the judge must decide.
dc

The lawyer isn't "slime" for doing his job. Everyone's very quick to condemn the "sleazy attorney," but, what's the alternative? The point of a court system is to try to discover the truth, then to deal justice appropriately (if the charges against the defendant are true, I feel he should be permanently stripped of his driver's license, never again allowed to practice medicine, and imprisoned for 5–10 years); would it really be preferable to hang people based on accounts of incidents as posted on the Internet, instead? Of course, it's fine for us to sit around an on-line forum, and "gossip" about cases as we're doing, but the legal system, I feel, does end up needing lawyers and judges and jurors and all that, and to attack one part of it when it's assigned to the side you sometimes assume to be guilty, isn't very reasonable.

Now, for my contribution to the "gossip," yes, from the link provided, it would appear the case will easily be won by the prosecution. The cyclists who was attacked earlier and waited this long to file a complaint, should have acted immediately after his experience.

"Swarth, on cross examination, tried to suggest that the cyclists involved in the Fourth of July holiday ride “took over the road.” Stone objected to the characterization, and the judge sustained the objection."

I'm curious how fast the doctor normally drives on that road. You can easily reach the speed limit on a bike, and the cyclists were probably riding that fast or faster. What is lawyer really trying to accomplish? Is he talking about the whole ride or the two guys involved in the incident?

It's a defense that could easily backfire if the cyclists were riding at the speed limit; this puts the doctor at the position of admitting he was also speeding.

Of course since the judge and jury are most likely motorists, the biases are built in to help the doctor and hang the cyclists.

Don't forget. The person doing the prosecution, the District Attorney is ... a lawyer. The judge, his qualification to become a judge ... he was a lawyer.
There are plenty of lawyers and judges who ride bicycles, and are sympathetic. But they also believe in justice and fairness, and hurting people with your car is not good stuff in their book. So. Let justice run it's course.
dc

I hope the cyclists do to that doctor with a civil suit what his 300lb cellmate is going to do to him after lights out. :mad:

He should be sentenced to thousands of miles of riding and logging it for court discovery. Put him right where he hates anyone else who is in the same place. Stuff it down his throat. His fellow bikers would be the death of his atitude.

The lawyer isn't "slime" for doing his job. Everyone's very quick to condemn the "sleazy attorney," but, what's the alternative? The point of a court system is to try to discover the truth, then to deal justice appropriately (if the charges against the defendant are true, I feel he should be permanently stripped of his driver's license, never again allowed to practice medicine, and imprisoned for 5–10 years); would it really be preferable to hang people based on accounts of incidents as posted on the Internet, instead? Of course, it's fine for us to sit around an on-line forum, and "gossip" about cases as we're doing, but the legal system, I feel, does end up needing lawyers and judges and jurors and all that, and to attack one part of it when it's assigned to the side you sometimes assume to be guilty, isn't very reasonable.

Now, for my contribution to the "gossip," yes, from the link provided, it would appear the case will easily be won by the prosecution. The cyclists who was attacked earlier and waited this long to file a complaint, should have acted immediately after his experience.

+1

Being on the wrong side in an adversarial system is always going to make you look like a jerk. Somebody has to defend this guy, or we can't try him!

He should be sentenced to thousands of miles of riding and logging it for court discovery. Put him right where he hates anyone else who is in the same place. Stuff it down his throat. His fellow bikers would be the death of his atitude.

Hah! I like this punishment.

+1

Being on the wrong side in an adversarial system is always going to make you look like a jerk. Somebody has to defend this guy, or we can't try him!

Exactly, which is why going back a few years I didn't agree with Mr. Goldman verbally assaulting Mr. Cochran for doing his job.

If the defense attorney isn't slime or a slime ball, then why did the judge have to admonish him to allow Stoehr to finish answering before he rushes into another question? It seems to me he is trying to confuse, trip up and rush the 2 cyclists to make it better for his client, the slime ball doctor.

It doesn't bode well with the judge or in the court when a defense attorney, slime ball or not, gets himslef in trouble right out of the gate where the judge has to admonish him when he is questioning a witness or victim.

If the defense attorney isn't slime or a slime ball, then why did the judge have to admonish him to allow Stoehr to finish answering before he rushes into another question? It seems to me he is trying to confuse, trip up and rush the 2 cyclists to make it better for his client, the slime ball doctor.

That's his JOB. He's legally and morally obligated to do everything he can to get his client off. The prosecutor does the same to get him convicted. That's how this system works. Do you really want a system where you have to convince your defense attorney that you're innocent before he'll work to try to convince a judge/jury?

If you're not cheating, you're not trying.

Sorry, peeps, I already know about the adversarial trial system; I'm not saying 'slime' out of ignorance.

I consider it 'slime' when underhanded tactics are the choice for defense. Fast-talking questions intended to trip/confuse, suggested characterizations that are stereotypical....

Defense by any means necessary just doesn't get it for me; I don't like cheats.

What happened to personal honor? (Rhetorical Q....)

Sorry, peeps, I already know about the adversarial trial system; I'm not saying 'slime' out of ignorance.

I consider it 'slime' when underhanded tactics are the choice for defense. Fast-talking questions intended to trip/confuse, suggested characterizations that are stereotypical....

Defense by any means necessary just doesn't get it for me; I don't like cheats.

What happened to personal honor? (Rhetorical Q....)
If the witnesses are lying (not saying they are in this case), fast-paced, challenging questions can unmask the deception. The prosecutor will do the same to any defence witnesses. "Personal honor" demands that lawyers act this way. To give a halfhearted effort is unethical, on either side.

Don't forget. The person doing the prosecution, the District Attorney is ... a lawyer. The judge, his qualification to become a judge ... he was a lawyer.

I hope that wasn't meant to inspire confidence... ;)

Doctors are sometimes lawyers with knives. This doctor has desensitized himself to the fragility of life. Maybe he shouldn't be a doctor or a driver anymore...? :crash:

If the defense attorney isn't slime or a slime ball, then why did the judge have to admonish him to allow Stoehr to finish answering before he rushes into another question? It seems to me he is trying to confuse, trip up and rush the 2 cyclists to make it better for his client, the slime ball doctor.

It doesn't bode well with the judge or in the court when a defense attorney, slime ball or not, gets himslef in trouble right out of the gate where the judge has to admonish him when he is questioning a witness or victim.

The lawyer's job is to defend his client to the best of his ability, within the confines of the law. If he does something with which the judge disagrees, the latter has right to silence him. The sentiment against the attorney, here, in my view, comes from his defending a person by whom we easily feel repulsed — my argument is, the lawyer's fighting this defense is an integral part of our legal system. Attorneys often will have to discredit witnesses who harm their case, and it then is opposing council's job to make appropriate objections, and the judge's duty to keep things proper. None of us is watching this trial — we've all just read a few sentences about a handful of things that have occurred in it. From this position, I believe none of us can rightly condemn the defense lawyer as being a "slimeball."

Any word on the progress of the trial? ....conviction? ...sentence?

I think they took a break today

They took a break yesterday.

Here's the latest;

http://www.velonews.com/article/99513/

They took a break yesterday.

Here's the latest;

http://www.velonews.com/article/99513/

Here's a good question, in this article the riders who had a (no pun intended) run in with the "good" doctor in March. One of them testified that they were going 30MPH the speed limit on the road. Given that they were going the speed limit, then their riding two abreast wouldn't impede motor vehicle traffic. So in that instance would they be legal riding two abreast?

Here's a good question, in this article the riders who had a (no pun intended) run with the "good" doctor in March. One of them testified that they were going 30MPH the speed limit on the road. Given that they were going the speed limit, then their riding two abreast wouldn't impede motor vehicle traffic. So in that instance would they be legal riding two abreast?

CA law states:


21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.

The very first sentence states that one need only ride as close as practical to the right hand curb if "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time."

Now this is a bit of a catch 22 as the vehicle the doctor was driving was moving apparently faster that the posted speed, but also constitutes "the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time."

Of course there were two cyclists moving at or about the posted speed at the same time... so do two cyclists constitute more "traffic" than one motorist? What about other traffic on the road before and after the cyclists?

Certainly if one uses the speed limit as the de facto speed of traffic, then the cyclists had no requirement to ride along the right side.

Let the attorneys work it out, it could form precedence.

wonder if he has his Garmin 705 to pinpoint his speed and location, time at the specific point to further solidify his case... oh i hope!

CA law states:


The very first sentence states that one need only ride as close as practical to the right hand curb if "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time."

Now this is a bit of a catch 22 as the vehicle the doctor was driving was moving apparently faster that the posted speed, but also constitutes "the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time."

Of course there were two cyclists moving at or about the posted speed at the same time... so do two cyclists constitute more "traffic" than one motorist? What about other traffic on the road before and after the cyclists?

Certainly if one uses the speed limit as the de facto speed of traffic, then the cyclists had no requirement to ride along the right side.

Let the attorneys work it out, it could form precedence.

I think you mean 'precedents.'

The predominant issue in this case is whether or not the defendant sped ahead and then stopped or slowed his vehicle because he had the intent to injure by stopping so abruptly he didn't give the cyclists enough time to swerve or brake. Once he has passed them, assuming no traffic behind the cyclists, I don't think it would matter whether they were as far to the right as was practicable.

I'm really curious how this will tern out. MDs aren't particularly sympathetic figures when displaying arrogance, but I suspect bike riders aren't really sympathetic to the majority of car drivers either.

I can't picture the DA losing this case, not with the police officer quoting the "teach them a lesson."

What is his lawyer going to have him claim? Cop misunderstood him?? He meant teach as in stop and talk/teach the lesson.

I can hardly wait.
Charlie

From a link on the page the OP linked to:

according to a policeman who responded to the call the driver said: “I just live up the road. I was driving to go to work. The bikers were in front of me, three across. I honked my horn and yelled ‘ride single file.’ The bicyclists flipped me off and yelled back. I passed them up and stopped in front to teach them a lesson. I’m tired of them. I’ve lived here for years and they always ride like this.”

Uh...guilty.

I think you mean 'precedents.'
No, he didn't. It's the precedents that create precedence.

From a link on the page the OP linked to:

according to a policeman who responded to the call the driver said: “I just live up the road. I was driving to go to work. The bikers were in front of me, three across. I honked my horn and yelled ‘ride single file.’ The bicyclists flipped me off and yelled back. I passed them up and stopped in front to teach them a lesson. I’m tired of them. I’ve lived here for years and they always ride like this.”

How could the officer be so sure he accurately remembered the "teach them a lesson" line? After all he didn't immediately take notes, distracted, perhaps, by bleeding people.

In the officer's words, “That statement was so shocking his words burned into my brain.”

Since the trial is not over, I still presume the driver to be innocent, but sure do hope that changes, he is never allowed behind the wheel again, and meets many fine new friends in the Graybar Hotel.

How could the officer be so sure he accurately remembered the "teach them a lesson" line? After all he didn't immediately take notes, distracted, perhaps, by bleeding people.

In the officer's words, “That statement was so shocking his words burned into my brain.”

Since the trial is not over, I still presume the driver to be innocent, but sure do hope that changes, he is never allowed behind the wheel again, and meets many fine new friends in the Graybar Hotel.

You're right, or course. But since i'm not a juror, don't know why the cop would falsify that information, and all signs point to this guy intentionally committing the act (and also just not being a very good guy), I can assume his guilt.

I also had a particularly bad day with drivers today, so that may be making me a little angry.

You guys are dreaming if you expect jail time. A fine, a slap on the wrist, maybe some community service. That'll be the extent of it.

I gotta laugh at all the lawyer-hate going on in this thread. Yeah, everybody hates those sleazy, no-good, scumball lawyers -- until you need one. And when you do, you'll want the smartest, fastest, meanest mongoose around.

You guys are dreaming if you expect jail time. A fine, a slap on the wrist, maybe some community service. That'll be the extent of it.

I gotta laugh at all the lawyer-hate going on in this thread. Yeah, everybody hates those sleazy, no-good, scumball lawyers -- until you need one. And when you do, you'll want the smartest, fastest, meanest mongoose around.

Gotta agree with you on both counts... but especially the first. I too doubt any jail time. A hefty fine at best... and probably pocket change for this guy anyway.

But this case does bring cycling into the news... and the rights of cyclists. Too bad it isn't covered better by the mainstream press.

This case may also set some legal precedent with regard to the precedence of cyclists riding at the speed of traffic and taking the lane.

Gotta agree with you on both counts... but especially the first. I too doubt any jail time. A hefty fine at best... and probably pocket change for this guy anyway.

Well, even if all he has to pony up for is equipment and medical costs, it sounds like that could easily run into the range of $100K, as badly injured as the two guys were.

Well, even if all he has to pony up for is equipment and medical costs, it sounds like that could easily run into the range of $100K, as badly injured as the two guys were.

You know the civil side of this case could run into pain and suffering as well... it could be quite a bit of "pocket change."

BTW as a matter of full disclosure, I once used a "sleazy lawyer" for a bicycle-car collision case, and in the end, I was quite glad that I did.

If he loses this, he'll probably lose the lawsuit also. I would bet this would end up being a $500,000 lesson for him-and several months in jail(maybe).
I kinda doubt that his car insurance will be interested in paying for a criminal act, so it might actually be out of pocket(of course maybe the insurance company will just pay??).

Charlie

If he loses this, he'll probably lose the lawsuit also. I would bet this would end up being a $500,000 lesson for him-and several months in jail(maybe).
I kinda doubt that his car insurance will be interested in paying for a criminal act, so it might actually be out of pocket(of course maybe the insurance company will just pay??).

Charlie

A good point. Auto insurance covers you for negligent acts, like if you rear-end someone accidently. It does not cover you for intentional acts, like running over someone intentionally. The cyclists could be out of luck insurance-wise in a civil claim.

The doc would be personally liable for an intentional tort, but collecting is always a problem.

A good point. Auto insurance covers you for negligent acts, like if you rear-end someone accidently. It does not cover you for intentional acts, like running over someone intentionally. The cyclists could be out of luck insurance-wise in a civil claim.

The doc would be personally liable for an intentional tort, but collecting is always a problem.

Not if he has provable assets.

He supposedly has a medical records company. He drives an expensive car and lives in an upscale neighborhood.

Just how much is $500,000 for someone who lives in a gated house on that road?
$500,000 would be the end of me, but aren't houses in fancy sections of LA expensive-like $2,000,000 or so? $500,000 might be less than 5% of his net worth-a mildly bad day in the stock market.

I just can't see getting so angry over a few seconds-even if they flipped him off-so what? 60 yo and so angry-usually folks make peace with the world by that age.
Charlie

The Defense arugued that the LEO didn't "take" notes. Some Depts are telling LEO's to conduct their questions in front of the vehicle so the dashcam can pick up the the "interview" and more depts are providing voice mikes so converstations can be placed on record.

Wow, no same time notes.Sure memory is tricky, but like the leo said, "teach them a lesson" was memorable.
I wonder if the md is going to testify?? If he does, he will have to lie "I didn't say that" and imply that the leo was lying since the whole reason the investigation became a crime investigation instead of an accident investigation was because of the "teach them a lesson" statement.

He'll HAVE to testify, since no matter what the law says, if someone doesn't testify, it means they have some skeleton in their closet( I get this from watching crime shows, so this is what we all think, since we all watch TV)

No same time notes is pretty weak stuff.He better come up with something better than that.If the defense attorney had any dirt on the riders, it would have come out already, right?By dirt I mean participating in mass(video of) red light running, or flipping drivers off on camera, beating on cars, arrest records, beat their wives etc? Maybe the lawyers out there can tell us when that sort of info would have been brought out?
Charlie

How could the officer be so sure he accurately remembered the "teach them a lesson" line? After all he didn't immediately take notes, distracted, perhaps, by bleeding people.

In the officer's words, “That statement was so shocking his words burned into my brain.”

Since the trial is not over, I still presume the driver to be innocent, but sure do hope that changes, he is never allowed behind the wheel again, and meets many fine new friends in the Graybar Hotel.

I can see the "good" doctor's words being so shocking as to "burn" themselves into the officer in question mind. Any chance that their dialog was recorded on the dash cam?

If he loses this, he'll probably lose the lawsuit also. I would bet this would end up being a $500,000 lesson for him-and several months in jail(maybe).
I kinda doubt that his car insurance will be interested in paying for a criminal act, so it might actually be out of pocket(of course maybe the insurance company will just pay??).

Charlie

Not necessarily true, look at O.J. He won the criminal case, but lost the civil case. Just because one wins or loses on one level doesn't mean that they are going to win or lose on the next level.

I've never understood the principle behind having both legal and civil suits. Isn't that tantamount to being tried for the same crime twice? If, like OJ, you are acquitted in a criminal case, how does it make sense that you can be held liable in a civil court?

"Oh, that court said you didn't do it, but we think you're at fault."

I've never understood the principle behind having both legal and civil suits. Isn't that tantamount to being tried for the same crime twice? If, like OJ, you are acquitted in a criminal case, how does it make sense that you can be held liable in a civil court?

"Oh, that court said you didn't do it, but we think you're at fault."

AFAIK, there are two separate ideas here.
Criminal court - We simply find that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did it. Therefore, you won't be sentenced to prison or otherwise be criminally punished by the state.
Civil court - You're liable, because the plantiffs showed by a preponderance of the evidence that you did it. As such, you owe the plantiffs money. That court cannot criminally punish anyone.

The latter burden of proof is much less. I've heard it said that it's roughly akin to 50%+some tiny amount likely that you did it or more.