Advocacy & Safety - Lawyer arrested in Dublin [California] bicyclist's hit-run death

05-18) 12:58 PDT DUBLIN -- An attorney with a San Francisco law firm has been arrested on suspicion of felony hit-and-run and manslaughter in connection with the death of a bicyclist in Dublin who was struck by the lawyer's brand-new Mercedes-Benz, authorities said Friday.

Spencer Freeman Smith, 32, of San Ramon was arrested Thursday after police found a damaged black, 2012 Mercedes-Benz CLS550 in his garage on Baker Way, 3 miles north of the crash site, said Dublin police Lt. Herb Walters.

Smith, who was admitted to the State Bar in 2005, did not respond to requests for comment. His attorney, Dionne Choyce said, "This was a terrible accident. Other than that, I think once the facts come out, that's pretty much all it is."

MORE (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/18/BA1V1OK7SE.DTL#ixzz1vFyIgnCX)


Since he's a lawyer, the commenters hate him. Before they knew that, about half were blaming the victim.

Wow. What a punk. I think Folsom and Vacavill state prison aren't too far away.

His attorney, Dionne Choyce, said, "This was a terrible accident. Other than that,I think once the facts come out, that's pretty much all it is."



What a crock of ****.

Wow-that chinese guy has lots of nerve-getting in the way of a 2012 MB.

Riding at night is more dangerous of course- but it isn't usually a Capital offense.

On the other hand it is possible the accident wasn't the lawyer's fault
It is certainly his fault for leaving the guy to die on the side of the road. Hard to believe a lawyer would do that!

Say what ever happened to that MD who ran down those two riders-road rage style-a couple of years ago.
He was convicted-did he actually go to jail-or is he out on appeal -finished his sentence?
CA seems to have lots of bike cases that get national attention.

......On the other hand it is possible the accident wasn't the lawyer's fault......


If so, my question is....... why did the lawyer run?

If so, my question is....... why did the lawyer run?

Drugs/booze, transvestite hookers etc.

"Smith has two convictions in California for speeding within the past year, according to the Department of Motor Vehicles."

I suppose anyone can get a speeding ticket. But mine have all been separated by 10 years or more. If you're getting two a year you're either really unlucky or you probably speed a lot . . .

Wow, this is too close to home. I profile out a little too much like this guy Smith, (without the speeding tickets), and I ride through that area all the time, sometimes at night. Creepy.

He's a young guy, hustler, trying to be big time in California for a 32 year old guy who passed the Bar 6 years ago from Ohio he seems to be selling himself as a big time bad a$$ litigation attorney. My wild guess is he just panicked, maybe saw his career flash before his eyes. People panic, nothing novel about that.

It's just sad all around. My respects to Mr. Hu's family. Hard to see anything good coming out of this for anyone.

If so, my question is....... why did the lawyer run?

Probably what essex said: trying to avoid testing that would have established DUI, etc.

I doubt it will help him too much in this case, though. The penalties for DUI/manslaughter with gross negligence and felony hit & run/manslaughter aren't very different. The problem for the prosecution will be assembling evidence to support the manslaughter charge.

The lawyer's lawyer, Choyce, specializes in defending crappy drivers, so he'll have all the slick moves ready and waiting. OTOH, he (Choyce) was also the chair of a family-run "non-profit" in Berkeley that has been found guilty in federal court of diverting funds that were supposed to be used for services to homeless people into their own pockets. I doubt that he gets much respect from the other players when he appears in Alameda Superior Court.

Jail him for several years, and disbar him since he apparently doesnt even know basic law. After getting out of jail his big line needs to be----do you want fries with that burger?

My wild guess is he just panicked, maybe saw his career flash before his eyes. People panic, nothing novel about that.
But why do so many of those poor panicked drivers stop a couple miles down the road to check the damage to their precious car?

Yeah he panicked-hoped he could get away.
They probably stop to see if they "lost" any pieces-or blood on car.
Hoping they will see zero damage-then they convince themselves that the cyclist is "just bruised" maybe?
Yeah this is all bad all the way around-
Except his lawyer will make some $$-so it isn't all bad-"rare wind that blows all bad" or something like that!

My wild guess is he just panicked,.........

My wild ass guess is that he realized that there was no witnesses, and thought he could get away with it.

But why do so many of those poor panicked drivers stop a couple miles down the road to check the damage to their precious car?

Very good question, or call the police later and "report" that they thought they "just" hit an animal? Aren't people suppose to pull over anytime they hit anything to make sure that it wasn't a person that they hit?

If so, my question is....... why did the lawyer run?
I was thinking the same thing.

But why do so many of those poor panicked drivers stop a couple miles down the road to check the damage to their precious car?

I'm guessing it's more to make sure they don't have damage/blood they need to cover up than worrying too much about the car.

All he has to say is "I thought it was a deer" and it's instantly not an H&R and he's free to go...

I suppose anyone can get a speeding ticket. But mine have all been separated by 10 years or more. If you're getting two a year you're either really unlucky or you probably speed a lot . . .

Sure. If they speed. There's a very simple way to not get speeding tickets though. I've been driving for 35 years and haven't gotten one yet.

I speed a lot, but I just drive sensibly. A lot of these people think they are smarter and better looking than the rest of us an drive with no regard to the fact that something unexpected might happen. Works most of the time, but the times it doesn't things can get bad

Received one speeding ticket back in my youth, I swore that I would never get another one, I've kept my promise ever since.

Probably what essex said: trying to avoid testing that would have established DUI, etc.

I doubt it will help him too much in this case, though. The penalties for DUI/manslaughter with gross negligence and felony hit & run/manslaughter aren't very different. The problem for the prosecution will be assembling evidence to support the manslaughter charge.Being a lawyer, he knows the value of shutting the hell up.

In general, DUI convictions don't happen unless the police stop you while driving and while drunk. And a lawyer would probably know how difficult it is to prosecute a case for "failure to stop and render aid" and "vehicular manslaughter" (or whatever the local equivalents are) when there are no witnesses. Sure, the police can probably tie the car to the collision based on the damage, but they can't show that the owner of the car was the driver "beyond a reasonable doubt". Not when the owner of the car knows to keep his mouth shut -- and if anybody does, a lawyer probably does.

Right or wrong, if you're drunk and strike a cyclist or pedestrian a winning (i.e. likely to give you the smallest possible penalties) strategy is to run if you have a good chance of getting away without being stopped. Then sober up, and see what happens -- as long as you don't accidentally confess to the crime or witnesses don't appear that can place you as the driver when the collision happened, the odds of any criminal penalties at all are pretty small. And if anybody can pull this off, it's probably a lawyer.

dougmc is pretty much on-target, here. It's going to be rather difficult for the prosecution to prove the top charge (vehicular manslaughter). It will be easier, but not even close to a slam-dunk, to prove felony hit and run (in California, it's somewhat easier to prove the elements of the felony version than the misdemeanor flavor, bizarrely). It probably won't be too difficult to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver because, absent a defense case establishing otherwise, the jury just isn't going to believe anyone else was driving, no matter what the judge's instructions say.

Whatever happens to this guy, it is extremely unlikely that he will serve anything like the maximum penalties on the top counts. Unless the DA has evidence we don't know about, yet. In the end, he may not even be tried on the top counts -- prosecutors usually plea-bargain these things. Also, of course, jurors identify with motorists, not cyclists or pedestrians.

In a recent case in Santa Clara the driver of a hit and run got 3 years and the cyclist was not killed. But the guy did this: hit and run, tried to cover up damage, tried to ship car out of state, had a history of dui, and had a suspended license. But what got him was an employee going to the police and the cyclist was a sympathetic witness with permanent damagae and pregnant during trial. It will be interesting to see what the civil suit gets.