about this hit-and-run where the charges were "dropped"...
 

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/201...ntProfile=1062

i thought i might share my view as a former prosecutor.
i shouldn't have to say this, but obviously i don't mean to minimize or condone what this guy did.
apologies if i have any of the facts wrong.

My impression of this story is that it has been overhyped by the media.
News outlets know that stories about MONSTERS and OUTRAGEOUS INJUSTICE sell papers...and that the truth is often too complex and not interesting enough for a headline.
The problem is that we have been conditioned to lust for blood any time a story comes out.

(1) "felony charges will be dropped."
this is a little misleading. from my reading, it sounds like he was charged with a felony, but will be offered a misdemeanor plea. this is very different from "dropping" charges, since he will still have a criminal record. so it's not like he's getting off scott-free. regardless of what the press might have you believe, the VAST majority of criminal cases are pled down to lower charges.

(2) the issue of punishment
The media usually tells us that the defendants "are facing X years in jail."
Before reporting, they ask prosecutors what the MAXIMUM sentence would be, and then report on that. Obviously, higher jail numbers draw more attention. This has conditioned the public to believe that ARREST = GUILTY = JAIL.
In reality, the vast majority of criminal defendants don't get the maximum, or go to jail at all. especially not on a first offense.

(3) the job thing.
as a prosecutor, your job is to do justice. you have the power to choose not to prosecute someone if you want. that gives you the power to consider greater good:

first - the smaller point - when possible, prosecutors should at least CONSIDER the effect that a criminal disposition will have on a defendant beyond the sentence. if a felony charge will take a highly educated person who is employed and contributing to society and paying taxes (who committed a serious crime) and make them FOREVER unable to continue that work, that might be too harsh a charge.

we are not a society of executioners. criminal punishment (short of the death penalty) is aimed at deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation. It is meant to be FINITE - even life sentences. it is not meant to destroy a person FOREVER if they can be rehabilitated.

second - the bigger point - i'm sure we can all agree that money will help the VICTIM more than a felony charge. if this guy pleads guilty, even to a lesser criminal charge, the issue of his guilt will be an AUTO-WIN when the victim sues him in civil court. if he keeps working (keeps making millions) then he'll have the income to pay in the lawsuit. this is a way for the criminal and civil justice systems to work together.

If i were the prosecutor, this is how i would think about it. Go for a disposition that brands him a criminal while maximizing the ability for the victim to be made whole in the future.

CAVEAT - I would probably make sure it was okay with the victim before i did it.
CAVEAT TO THE CAVEAT- my office once did something similar to this, got the victim's approval, and then she STILL went on the news complaining about it. why? she and her attorney had booked appearances on news shows in the coming weeks. it's not interesting to hear her say "everything's fine."

I completely understand your point, but in the particular case mentioned, I have to disagree.

There was no reason for a plea-bargain in this case. Once he left the scene, the doubt is over. Why did he leave the scene? Was he drunk? Have drugs in the car? I don't know. In any case, leaving the scene after an accident with injuries isn't even debatable anymore. That should be enough to convict him.

Also, somewhat unrelated, any felony (and some misdemeanor) driving related sentence should be an automatic lifetime ban from driving. This guy could have afforded to not drive. He wouldn't even need to become a cyclist. He could have afforded an alternative.

Your secnd paragraph illustrates where "discussions" about things like this so often go off the deep end. Your first paragraph is merely a result of your feelings expressed in the second - to me.

Get out of the emotional argument/emotional side of your brain and deal with the objective reality of the situation and you really might "understand" what the OP has said. Reality is nothing can bring a dead person back to life or even completely restore any injured person to a pre-injured state - memory of the accident itself prevents that. So one is left with "appropriateness".

"leaving the scene after an accident with injuries isn't even debatable anymore. That should be enough to convict him." No allowance for exigent circumstances not reported by the media?
"automatic lifetime ban from driving"? Really? !
"He could have afforded an alternative." Really?!
These are rational arguments? I think not.

But to each his own. I prefer rational argument and thought.

Harsh and insulting as that may sound, I really do not mean to be insulting - only direct and concise in responding to your post.
Then again, I am called a curmudgeon by "friends" and family alike.

one of the things i was trying to convey is that plea bargains aren't ONLY about whether there is enough EVIDENCE. there are many other factors which might motivate the prosecutor to plea the case down.

regarding a lifetime ban: that's very easy to say as someone who hasn't been convicted of such a crime. in practice, however, it doesn't work. maybe this guy could afford car service. but for most people in this country, a car is a necessity for basic living and for employment and a huge part of personal freedom. even for repeat offenders, licenses are revoked for YEARS, not LIFE. that's law, not policy. this is not because legislators want to give people a 2nd chance to drive drunk, obviously. it's so people have the chance to be productive someday.

if you screwed up, hit a guy on a bike, panicked, ran from the scene, got arrested, paid $10k to an attorney, had your story posted all over the internet, became hated by millions, pled guilty, paid your debt to society, went to whatever therapy was requested, served your sentence...you'd be saying something very different.

you'd be saying "i screwed up, i paid my debt to society, i want to go back to work, must i be punished forever?"

I didn't see anything about a plea agreement, just that they weren't going to charge him with that. I suppose that could be euphemism for he's going to plead to the lesser charge, or it could mean they didn't want to charge him with it for whatever reason. If it is a plea thing, they better not let him plead no contest because if my understanding is correct that doesn't include an admission of guilt and might make the lawsuit less of a slam dunk. The way the prosecutor was talking about restitution, that almost made it sound like if there was going to be a plea, that would be included.

a few things:

whether its a plea or a charging decision isn't clear, but either way the reasoning behind it isn't clear.

"no contest" is called a nolo contendre plea, and i wouldn't allow it if i were the prosecutor. that is a sign of an office bending over backwards to let someone try to avoid criminal liability. i would want the civil case to be a slam dunk for the victim.

there may be restitution, but that is only for OUT OF POCKET expenses. in a civil case, you can get punitive damages, pain and suffering, etc. so he might have only had $5,000 in medical bills, but he could get millions from a civil case. this is why i think that it's reasonable for a prosecutor to consider ALL the possible benefits to the victim, not just what the max sentence is.

The other claim was that the driver got "preferential treatment" to avoid jail time due to his profession. Let me tell ya: There was a similar case here in Texas last year, only the cylcist was killed. He was a VP at a large corporation, was riding on the shoulder of a freeway access road. A ~20 year old driver came off the freeway and wandered a bit, going off onto the shoulder and taking the guy out. There were conflicting storeis about whether cell phone texting was involved. This driver was not charged at all. The driver was not a prominent person making millions, just a young driver. Not sure if that somehow makes this situation better or worse, just pointing out that the defendant's prominence and income were not THE reason charges were reduced; as Inertianinja said, this happens frequently.

yea, to be clear, i never made a decision as a prosecutor to favor someone because they had money or because of their race or any of that crap. that's all hollywood stuff.

if i'm understanding the facts of this case properly, i can see how a prosecutor might not want to act in a way (charging a felony) that might actually serve to hurt the victim further (depriving him of a civil recovery). but generally, the rules are applied equally.

the media loves a villain, so they'll make sure a story sounds outrageous. outrage sells newspapers, understanding doesn't.

This would be fine *if* it were based on the wishes of the victim. But in this case the victim and his attorney have clearly gone on record as opposed to the dropping of the felony charge yet the prosecutor still went ahead. If this were based purely on the available evidence and likelihood of conviction I could understand the plea bargain. But the quoted statement of the prosecutor indicates that he based it on the ability of the defendant to pay restitution even though he already knew that this was not of concern to the victim.

I probably am letting my emotions get in the way.

So, to clear the air:
What charges are being pursued at this point?
If it is a plea, and I don't know that it is, What punishment will occur?

Now for more of my opinion.
I think plea-bargaining should be illegal. (If you don't have the evidence to convict, you shouldn't prosecute.)
I do believe in lifetime ban from driving. I do drive too, so I'm not anti-car.
I believe in 35mph (or lower) speed limits everywhere except freeways.
Leaving the scene of an injury accident should be a major offence (it often hides other major offenses)

Sure, much of what I posted is opinion. Our car-dominated culture usually lets drivers off easy after an accident.

Just so you know, I'm not angry at anyone in this thread, even those that disagree. I'm a curmudgeon too. :)

Leaving the scene of an accident where there was an injury says a lot about the person leaving. One, that they have sociopathic tendencies. To leave a person on the side of the road suffering, in pain, possibly even dead while you drive away in an attempt to avoid prosecution is just plain evil. It isn't an accident. It isn't an oops. It is evil and needs to be treated like the crime that it is.

well that's what i said in the Caveats, and note that sometimes people complain in the press for other reasons.

but also understand - as a prosecutor, the victim is not your client. so you can do what you believe is appropriate regardless of what the complainant "wants"

for example, before i got into computer crimes i used to work Drunk Driving cases and Domestic Violence.
in DV, almost every victim would tell you that they want the charges dropped. i rarely, if ever, followed that demand.

if it were that simple, we wouldn't need a justice system. it's simply not true that everyone who commits a crime is "sociopathic" and "evil." that's a hollywood/media thing.

I can totally see the panic and run response. Sure it's not what should be done, but I can see how it would happen in a non-malicious scared sh!+less way

The number of premises in this quote boggles the mind.

the part of the original article thatgt me upset was, " 'Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it,' Hurlbert said."

HELLO!! Felony convictions have pretty serious job implications for anybody regardless of job field.

I believe all you guys are mature enough to realize that the wealthy and well-connected always have special privilege. No matter what state or city, if you're rich enough or know the right people, you WILL get away with anything. Ted Kennedy. O.J. Simpson. You name it. It's perfectly clear: America has the best system of justice that money can buy.

In your 'caveats' you said that, apparently unlike this prosecutor, you would first consult with the victim. And you also indicated that sometimes the victim might agree to drop the more serious charge but still complain in the press. I agree - but not in this particular case. Here the prosecutor is quoted as saying he knew that the victim did not want the felony charges dropped - so clearly there was no such agreement. And I really see no rationale for the prosecutor to be so concerned about the ability to pay restitution in a case where he says that he knows the victim isn't interested in that.

I also agree with you that the prosecutor has to make the decision taking other factors into account besides the wishes of the victim - especially in cases like domestic violence. I once served on the jury in an attempted murder case where the victim sent a written marriage proposal to the defendant while he was in jail prior to the trial. I'm sure the victim in that case would have wanted all charges dropped but the prosecutor felt there was a still a clear need to go to trial.

But I still don't see why a prosecutor would base his decision on the defendant's ability to pay restitution in a case where the victim has stated a clear preference for pursuing the higher charge and that restitution is not of concern to him.

Being rich and knowing the right people certainly helps, but not always.

OJ Simpson won his criminal case but lost his civil case. As for jail ...
Martha Stewart
Bernie Madoff
Jim Bakker

Hell, here's a whole list of [white] rich people who went to jail ...

It helps, but it's certainly not proof. (I guess you're going to say they're not rich enough or don't know the right people ... right? :) )

What if Erzinger commit the same "demeanor" a second time--hit someone and run (even if not run, but, say hit someone fatally)? Whoever becomes his second victim will also be a victim of this plea bargain.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. That's why we make people take tests before saying they can drive.

I accept what the OP says about taking ability to maintain payments to the victim into account, that really makes sense.

However, this man, by driving away and then attempting to conceal the crime (trying to get his car repaired before the cops showed up), IMO, has demonstrated a lack of responsibility. He is therefore unfit to hold a driving licence until he has proven his reasonable competence and reasonable attitude (towards the responsibilities that part of driving).

He is wealthy enough to afford to use a taxi or limo service, so removal of his licence will not unduly inconvenience him.

I think we are missing the deterrent factor. While Hit-and-runs are relatively low over all, they are something like 20% of all bike/ped crashes. I really would like to send a message that hit-and-runs are not acceptable especially in high profile cases like this. I will also note I would be more comfortable with the guy getting off in court then by the DA. Affording the best lawyers is one thing, having a DA in your back pocket is quite another. Everyone who does a hit-and-run should at least face the possibility of jail and a felony.

You're right. But in the case of these people, they made the mistake of pissing off other rich people. Bernie Madoff being the prime example there...

all you guys throwing rocks at the money manager for the wealthy must have overlooked the detail about the victim being a physician. this is not a case of favoring the wealthy over the middle class or poor guy.

I have a less than favorable view of journalism, it's always spinning, it's always about selling papers, and there is never enough space on the page for all of the details.

now that being said, the defendant pulled the same "i didnt know i had hit somebody..." bs that they all seem to pull in hit & run accidents. sure buddy, I'll bet you didnt hear anything that would alarm you enough to stop and check your car, even if you had no concern about WHAT you hit.

so no, I am not defending anybody here but if it were about money, who's to say that the Dr. isn't richer? It sucks, but there is always more than meets the eye.