Digital_Cowboy

I've wondered about that as well. It doesn't make sense as it seems to violate the double jeopardy provision in the US legal system.

longbeachgary

They are two separate issues - maybe they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a criminal conviction but they can prove by a preponderance (sp) of the evidence (that is more likely than not).

Buddha4

Remember the Gov is the "victim" and bringing the charge in a Criminal case one reason your entitled to an attorney. Jail time/fines/ loss of professional certification

A Civil case is brought by a party other than the Gov. The max penalty would be financial in nature

Keith99

Also a civil case depends entirely on the damage dont to the other party. No damage no award, no matter how evil the action was. Culpable action that does major damage, major award, even if the action was not even close to being criminal.

CB HI

Unlikely precedent will be set in the criminal jury trial. Juries do not establish precedent, just guilty or not guilty and maybe sentence recommendation. Slim chance it could happen if the guilty Dr appeals his conviction.

Might happen in the civil case. Something like the Dr claims he cannot be held liable because the cyclist were breaking the law, especially if done in a "motion for summary judgement" or similar action. Then the specifics of the law get looked at and ruled upon by a judge and not a jury.

genec

Wow, I thought it worked the other way around... really. I had no idea a civil case would effect criminal law in that manner. (but I guess you are right... come to think of it... IE Roe v Wade)

Most specifically I am thinking of the right for cyclists to ride anywhere, and in multiples, (2-3 abreast) in the traveled way when they are moving at the speed of traffic.

So this does have to go to a civil trial to really get "judged" so to speak. Eye opening.

danarnold

precedents are set in criminal cases all the time. Generally in the area of evidentiary rulings and other areas involving the Constitution. In this case, it is interesting the State was allowed to bring in the prior misconduct allegation. That is a ruling of law that could be appealed if he is convicted.

The reasons there could be both a criminal trial and a later, separate civil trial are multiple. 1, there is a different burden of proof in the two trials. 2, There are different parties. In the criminal it is the government vs the defendant. In the civil, it is the person allegedly wronged vs. the defendant. 3, the criminal trial seeks punishment (including loss of liberty), the civil trial is looking to set monetary damages.

Cassave

The latest from Friday's testimony.

https://www.velonews.com/article/99537

Garmin files at the time of the attack showed both cyclists riding at the speed limit.

Should be interesting what the defense comes up with next week.......

phoebeisis

I'm enjoying this way too much. From reading the synopsis of Fridays testimony,I'm guessing the attorney is trying to imply that the MD was in fear for his safety.The lawyer asked one of the riders in the earlier episode what he planned to do after asking the md to get out of his car.The rider said something to the effect that he wanted to get his info, and wait for the cops. The lawyer wants the jury to think-probably correctly-that he wanted to beat him-the md-to a pulp.

Of course in this casewhy would you brake if you were in fear-wrong pedal!? I think the lawyer just wants to plant the idea in jurors heads that bike riders are a confrontational bunch looking for a fight.

The md's lawyer really doesn't have much to work with.The "teach them a lesson" will be impossible to overcome.
Keep us posted-thanks to all who are posting the trial info
Charlie

genec

Wow, recorded proof of moving at the speed limit... It indeed should be interesting to see what the defense comes up with.

danarnold

I agree with this analysis. The defense lawyer has little to work with, so he's doing what he can, trying to make the cyclists look bad, threatening. Hard to do.

Given what I presume to be a typical jury's identification with a motorist, vs a cyclist (jury selection is a key to this case) I'm guessing the defendant's only chance is to take the stand and be a compelling witness, someone the jury likes. Good luck, pal.

There's an old story about a criminal defense lawyer justifying his high fees. He answers,
"Well, I charge $5000 to try the case, and the other $45,000 to make the decision about whether to put my client on the stand."

Digital_Cowboy

From what's been said about the "good" doctor's attitude, I don't think that he'd make a very good witness.

CB HI

Here is hoping that his true nature shows through.

Digital_Cowboy

Here, here, I think that it is safe to say that if he is put on the stand that that is safe to say. And it's probably a good thing that he apparently is no longer a practicing doctor.

mandovoodoo

I was surprised the evidence of prior bad acts was allowed in. I imagine some conversations between the two parties and the judge revolved around that! Anyone following this closely know why this witness was allowed in?

The GPS data - remarkable.

Any idea on progress with the civil side? That looks pretty strong.

merlinextraligh

1) prior bad acts generally aren't admissable to show actions in conformity therewith unless they rise to the level of habit. However, they can be admissable for impeachment. Haven't followed the trial carefully, but its likely the position the defense has taken has opened the door for prior actions that are inconsistnet with statements of the defense. The trial judge has a lot of discretion here on what to admit or not, but it could give the Doctor a possible appeal point.

2) As to the civil side, I have no knowledge what's been done, but I can tell you how it usually works. The injured parties will wait to file the civil action until after the criminal trial for several reasons:

a) they don't get impeached along the lines of their pecuniary interest (is'n it true you've filed a civil action where you stand to get money if the Doctor is convicted....)

b) you can't complete the discovery in the civil action before the criminal trial because the defendant will tak e the 5th.

c) the outcome of the criminal trial will greatly affect the course of the civil action. An adjudication of guilty is usually admissable agianst the defendant in a subsequent civil action, and may even be collateral estoppel on the issue of guilt. And the criminal verdict at any rate, whether guilty or innocent will drive the settlement negotiations of the civil action.

Thus, the civil action usually is not filed before the criminal is concluded (and even if it is filed, for reasons such as Statutes of limitations its typically stayed pending the outcome of the criminal trial.)

thdave

Don't understand why that is interesting.

Would it matter if they were going 15 mph? Seems to me they were obeying traffic laws and doing fine. Sure, if there was a line of cars behind them, then they could have been violating the law. But they didn't get ticketed.

Just curious as to why it matters.

ItsJustMe

Because they were passed first. If this guy got so cranked that he passed them on a windy road, clearly he wanted to go (probably habitually goes) significantly over the speed limit there. It makes it hard for him to argue that they were obstructing traffic. Had he been going the speed limit as well, he never would have even come across them since he could not have gained on them.

It doesn't make what the cyclists were doing any more or less right, but it makes what he did more wrong, because he had to be exceeding the speed limit to get in front of them in the first place, and it kind of disarms his arguments if he's saying that they were obstructing traffic or anything of the sort.

genec

First and foremost, they have proof that they were causing no more delay than any other traffic on the road... The doctor's primary "complaint" with cyclists.

Second, according to CA law, a cyclist should ride as close to the curb side as is practicable, unless they are at the speed of traffic... so in this case riding in the middle of the lane and riding side by side is fully supported by the law.

Third, for the doctor to complain about the cyclists speed means that he was attempting to exceed the speed... a minor infraction at this point, but it does show that the driver has a problem with obeying traffic law.

Oh, and fourth, the mere fact that technology happened to provide this bit of evidence... that someone in the motorist's position, would otherwise flat out lie and deny. This is sort of like "having the video camera running when the bribe takes place with some public official." "Hand in the cookie jar" stuff.

Digital_Cowboy

That GPS evidence coupled with his "I wanted to teach them a lesson" is going to be pretty hard for his lawyer to spin away and make look good.

CB HI

Plus, the jury would likely believe that the cyclist were obstructing the Dr without the hard evidence. The jury consist of motorist who generally believe cyclist are slow and could never be traveling at the 30 mph limit. Having GPS proof of the cyclist speed claim, shows the jury that the cyclist told the truth about something they find hard to believe. That can only add credibility to the cyclist in other areas that the jury might find hard to believe.

It also reduces the Dr’s credibility.

X-LinkedRider

Is the doctor not legally and morally obligated by medical code to HELP people not HURT.

thdave

Your second point is important, if defense were to argue that the cyclists lawlessness were to such an extent that this guy decided to deputize himself into action. This proves otherwise.

But keep in mind that this cager is a nutcase. He's not the law--far from it--and he cannot "punish" cyclists from doing wrong. I don't think this info means squat.

Commando303

I wonder if the 9-1-1 call ("They'll tell you they're seriously injured, but they're not") will (or has) come up. Did I read correctly? None of the bikers sustained injuries?

genec

What it means is that they have full support of the law to ride right where they were riding, and "documentation" to prove it.

It gets rid of the "he said, she said" factor. Plus it shows that the driver had no patience for even full law abiding cyclists.

The key to the second point is that if they were riding at less than the speed of traffic, it could be argued that they were "delaying" traffic, or that they should be single file along the right hand curb, under CA law.

Indeed he is a nutcase... and this trial will hopefully legally prove it. I also hope this case also becomes an example for all the other nutcases that want to "teach cyclists a lesson."