Is it fair to prosecute the super-rich?

[Aimless]

Posting this because it's the first time I've ever heard of this defense:

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

Uninformative summary: dr. on bike gets hit hard by mega money manager in car and is basically "left for dead". Felony charges against manager promptly dropped, only misdemeanor charges remain.

Excerpt:

Milo wrote in a letter to District Attorney Mark Hurlbert that the case “has always been about responsibility, not money.”

“Mr. Erzinger struck me, fled and left me for dead on the highway,” Milo wrote. “Neither his financial prominence nor my financial situation should be factors in your prosecution of this case.”

Hurlbert said Thursday that, in part, this case is about the money.

“The money has never been a priority for them. It is for us,” Hurlbert said. “Justice in this case includes restitution and the ability to pay it.”

Hurlbert said Erzinger is willing to take responsibility and pay restitution.

“Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it,” Hurlbert said. “When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay.”

So, er. Don't felony charges have implications for less wealthy people too?

[Dreadnaught]

The logic for not prosecuting the alleged hitter doesn't seem to make sense. I mean, yeah, felony convictions are bad for anyone's job. Most employers require that you felony convictions and some will do a background check by default just to check.

But a felony is a felony. If this is a felony in Colorado, presumably there is something else they think justifies downgrading the charges (compelling evidence that it could have been an accident or that he didn't know he hit someone). This smells fishy, like that the biker wasn't a local but the driver is local. Or that the police think the plaintiff is faking injuries.

All in all, it doesn't add up. If you hit someone and run, that's usually a felony.

[oldmunchkin]

Having not read the whole story, I will say that, in Colorado, bicyclists ALWAYS have the right of way. They are one of those "greenie" states what are trying to promote exercise and less pollution! They even have "bicycle lanes" on the fucking interstates in some areas! If you hit a bicyclist, your ass is usually grass! Now, hit a dude on a REAL bike, like a Harley, and you can get away with that!

[Khendraja'aro]

Having not read the whole story, I will say that, in Colorado, bicyclists ALWAYS have the right of way. They are one of those "greenie" states what are trying to promote exercise and less pollution! They even have "bicycle lanes" on the fucking interstates in some areas! If you hit a bicyclist, your ass is usually grass! Now, hit a dude on a REAL bike, like a Harley, and you can get away with that!

Not to rain on your parade - but what you just ranted has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

It's a hit and run - in Germany, if you hit someone (be that with a bike or a car) and leave/flee the scene of the accident, you automatically are guilty. Regardless of whether the initial hit was indeed your fault or not.

[LittleFuzzy]

Not to rain on your parade - but what you just ranted has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

It's a hit and run - in Germany, if you hit someone (be that with a bike or a car) and leave/flee the scene of the accident, you automatically are guilty. Regardless of whether the initial hit was indeed your fault or not.

That's often the case over here as well. With 50 state legal codes I'm sure there are plenty of variations, but AFAIK the predominant rule is that leaving/fleeing is itself a crime.

[RandBlade]

The guy should be prosecuted just the same as any other common criminal.

Pro-tip: If a felony conviction is going to have serious implications on your career, don't commit felonies.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Erzinger drove all the way through Avon, the town's roundabouts, under I-70 and stopped in the Pizza Hut parking lot where he called the Mercedes auto assistance service to report damage to his vehicle, and asked that his car be towed, records show. He did not ask for law enforcement assistance, according to court records.

Christ what an asshole.

Court records say prosecutors expressed skepticism to Milo at a suggestion by Erzinger's defense attorneys that Erzinger might have unknowingly suffered from sleep apnea, and that might have made him caused him to fall asleep at the wheel and hit Milo.

Alright, take away his drivers license as well.

[Aimless]

There are more articles on this, including the final verdict. The defense later argued that Erzinger suffered from undiagnosed sleep apnea which, in combination with fumes from the upholstery of his new car, may have caused him to doze off and... anyway, he got one year's probation for two misdemeanors, and some other little details slapped on, but no felony charge. Before pronouncing the sentence the judge explained that he may personally not have come to the same conclusion as the DA but that he did not wish to formally second-guess the DA because that would set a dangerous precedent. What he was interested in was whether or not the defense, on its own and at face value, was totally crazy (which it wasn't, he felt, and I kinda sorta agree even though I think that in the context of other crimes it's crazy).

I get the rationale, but I find it terribly scary that a DA can have so much power this is a case that was initially going to be a criminal trial, then a civil one, then a criminal one, and then finally a civil one. Representatives of the DA's office initially agreed that Erzinger should be charged with a felony, remarking on the "egregious" nature of his actions (provided that the hit-and-run was deliberate). The same office then proceeded to make a deal about which they notified the victim one day before it was formally accepted

The only possible explanation I can think of is that they thought that the felony charge would not hold up before a jury, but I dunno man.

[Dreadnaught]

It didn't veer between criminal and civil, it's just that the severity of the criminal charges changed. The guy who got hit can still sue the guy in a civil case and get tons of money from him.

[Khendraja'aro]

However, if he indeed suffers from an undiagnosed sleeping disorder, his driver's license should be revoked, as he has clearly shown to be incapable of driving a car safely.

You can't have it both ways in my opinion. Either use the "it's an illness!"-excuse and lose your license or admit to the hit and run and go to jail.

[RandBlade]

Also, in a criminal case should it not generally be up to the jury to determine the validity of the defence?

I can understand the logic of the DA saying "not enough evidence to prosecute" or "he has a valid defence so we won't be successful prosecuting" but to say "he's in a high-powered job so we won't prosecute" is just simply wrong.

If I lose my licence I'd have to lose my job, but I wouldn't expect any special favours as a result, I need to ensure I don't do anything to lose my licence.

[Lewkowski]

A jury never hears a trail if the DA doesn't decide to prosecute.

That being said. WTF? That punk needs to go to prison.

[GGT]

I get the rationale, but I find it terribly scary that a DA can have so much power [...]

The only possible explanation I can think of is that they thought that the felony charge would not hold up before a jury, but I dunno man.

DAs (and judges and sheriffs) are political positions, either elected or appointed.

[']['ear]

Hey, money in America corrupts just like anyplace else. DA is an elected position, and he can't have the opposition of one of the most powerful locals if he expects his political career to proceed. One of my biggest problems with our legal system is that DAs are elected, and they also exert enormous power over the communities that elect them. Look at the Duke lacrosse team case for a similar miscarriage of justice, but in that case an excess of prosecutorial zeal to pander to voters.

"Fumes from his new car" and "undiagnosed sleep apnea." What horse shit. Anybody ever heard of new car syndrome before? What about him going to the doctor for unexplained exhaustion, or not being able to do his job? I had chronic fatigue syndrome and kidney failure at the same time, and I never fell asleep at the wheel. And isn't driving when that exhausted automatically reckless driving? It's arguably equivalent to a DUI and should be treated the same.

[LittleFuzzy]

What we're all saying, Aimless is that yes, it definitely is fair to prosecute the super-rich. "All stand equal in the eyes of the law" etc. That DA is a gutless wonder. It may be that it's not strictly about the flow of campaign contributions but could also be "wealthy perp who can afford enough lawyers that I don't know if I can get a conviction, and who will make this a media spotlight and/or keep the damn trial going on forever" but it's still crap.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Not to rain on your parade - but what you just ranted has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

She was responding to Dread's claim that perhaps one is local the other is not yadda yadda yadda. If read in that context Munchkin's comment can be understood as saying it doesn't matter local or not, there are tight laws protectign ALL bicylist. You could get a local on a harley, that you can get away with, she says sarcastically, but you hit a monkey on a bicycle you're screwed for life. Her assertion is if you hit someone on a bike there is no getting off the hook you face the steepest penalty fitting to the context. (obviously there is some sarcasm in that).

Now, on this case, the defense is idiotic, if the man is a murderer he's a murderer, a thief a thief, if he committed a felony he committed a felony, i don't care how many connections he has with other wealthy people, or how many owe him favors or are his friends, he should not be above the law. I understand why they want to label a hit and run as felony, but i think many people lose their minds when they hit someone on accident, and jsut freak out, the thought of having killed someone, the though of being caught, all these fears conciously and subconsciously overwhelming you. I think it's wrong, you can kill somone by leaving. Anyway, this case is ridiculous, I would like as other have said to know more. Though it does seem some abuse is in the works.

[']['ear]

What we're all saying, Aimless is that yes, it definitely is fair to prosecute the super-rich. "All stand equal in the eyes of the law" etc. That DA is a gutless wonder. It may be that it's not strictly about the flow of campaign contributions but could also be "wealthy perp who can afford enough lawyers that I don't know if I can get a conviction, and who will make this a media spotlight and/or keep the damn trial going on forever" but it's still crap.

Sue, that's another possible illustration of "the wealthy don't get the same justice as everybody else" principle.

[RandBlade]

Sue, that's another possible illustration of "the wealthy don't get the same justice as everybody else" principle.

What would you do about that? Ban lawyers or ban wealth?

[Crowheart]

Ban wealthy lawyers.

[']['ear]

What would you do about that? Ban lawyers or ban wealth?

Not really sure, actually. But checks and balances never hurt. Two reasons why DAs have always bothered me are:

a) how subject their position is to political pressures given the extraordinary impact they can have on individual's lives. Consider Illinois, where at the time the DP was suspended, the number of exonerated Death Row inmates outnumbered those who had actually been put to death. I'll bet behind every one of those was an ambitious DA.
b) The lack of a check on them. This is a great example. DA decides not to file, there will be no criminal charges filed. It is arguably the biggest flaw in the US justice system (the beginning of Law & Order notwithstanding )

[GGT]

What would you do about that? Ban lawyers or ban wealth?

Pay public defenders better, so they can compete with the private sector on principle and not money. Try to make it so DAs are on a more level paying field with private law firms. Then justice can't be bought....

That would mean more public tax dollars during a time of tight budgets and anti-tax sentiment, though. People would probably agree to pay more for public snow removal than their public defense/prosecutor legal team.

[']['ear]

Pay public defenders better, so they can compete with the private sector on principle and not money. Try to make it so DAs are on a more level paying field with private law firms. Then justice can't be bought....

I'm not convinced that this is possible. With enough wealth, you can always hire teams of fancy Ivy League-trained lawyers. There is always a point at which publicly appointed lawyers can not compete. Unfortunately, it is currently at the lowest level.

And that still doesn't do crap about the inherent abuses in the DA system, which is incentivized all wrong.

That would mean more public tax dollars during a time of tight budgets and anti-tax sentiment, though.

Then make it so that all criminal defense lawyers are paid the same hourly fee. Then all defendants would be choosing from the same pool. That's pretty much the only way to level the playing field. It would also, coincidentally, ensure that good defense attorneys are available for all, since the wealthy would refuse to short a system they may need at some point.

You think too small.

People would probably agree to pay more for public snow removal than their public defense/prosecutor legal team.

And that would be a mistake. It's acceptable that a couple times a decade a northeast city is sort of shut down by snow. To avoid that, you'd need to maintain levels of equipment and staffing that are unacceptable. In the South they just assume that's going to happen once a year or so. Because to plan otherwise would to have huge expenses that that are way underutilized. People whining about this issue are just not thinking it through.

granted it's off topic, but kudos to Bloomberg for accepting responsibility for unplowed streets. How often does one encounter a politician who does that? Though granted as a lame duck mayor, there are no political consequences (unless he decides to go unconstitutional again).

[RandBlade]

State-mandated equal pay for all? Make it a criminal offence to pay someone more? I'm glad you've dropped all pretences at being anything but a communist now Tear.

[LittleFuzzy]

Then make it so that all criminal defense lawyers are paid the same hourly fee. Then all defendants would be choosing from the same pool. That's pretty much the only way to level the playing field. It would also, coincidentally, ensure that good defense attorneys are available for all, since the wealthy would refuse to short a system they may need at some point.

They'll just find some other way to incenitive their defense teams. You'd come closer by explicitly nationalizing all criminal defense, but then you're creating a conflict of interest *which we mostly ignore since right now, only the poor have to rely on public defenders* because you have the government fielding both the prosecution and the defense teams. One of the weaknesses of our public defender systems are that they're way too easy for the prosecutorial side *DAs, police, etc* to pressure. What will change if criminal defense is nationalized is that only the wealthy will be able to get a fair trial because they can pay for watchdogs to keep that from happening. If I have to choose between a system where most of the non-wealthy get a fair trial, the wealthy get off unfairly, and the really poor kinda get screwed, and one where the wealthy get a free trial an all the rest of us get screwed, I choose the former.

[']['ear]

They'll just find some other way to incenitive their defense teams. You'd come closer by explicitly nationalizing all criminal defense, but then you're creating a conflict of interest *which we mostly ignore since right now, only the poor have to rely on public defenders* because you have the government fielding both the prosecution and the defense teams. One of the weaknesses of our public defender systems are that they're way too easy for the prosecutorial side *DAs, police, etc* to pressure. What will change if criminal defense is nationalized is that only the wealthy will be able to get a fair trial because they can pay for watchdogs to keep that from happening. If I have to choose between a system where most of the non-wealthy get a fair trial, the wealthy get off unfairly, and the really poor kinda get screwed, and one where the wealthy get a free trial an all the rest of us get screwed, I choose the former.

1) Mind you, I'm not seriously proposing this. Just a gedanken experiment.
2) Why must there be a conflict of interest? Keep them in totally separate bureacracies, and then mandate pay incentivization based on performance.
3) What do you mean by "pressure?" I thought the public defender's offices were mostly cursed by being the bottom of the barrel wrt experience, skill and motivation, i.e. the lawyers in them generally just aren't that good. How does a defender get pressured by the DA and/or police?


PS my bigger concern on topic is still the DA position and the lack of checks on it.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I don't like that equal pay for defense attorneys, they should get paid more on some level the better they are. We should reward people are who are creative and compelling, and make good arguments. What would level the playing field is lack of raw bribery which is what a lot o fthis comes down to. The fact these people are wealthy and wealthy friends, and of them they're will be a connection with the influence to help them out. The society is rich can do whatever the hell you want, and poor you can't. That's life.

[']['ear]

I don't like that equal pay for defense attorneys, they should get paid more on some level the better they are. We should reward people are who are creative and compelling, and make good arguments. What would level the playing field is lack of raw bribery which is what a lot o fthis comes down to. The fact these people are wealthy and wealthy friends, and of them they're will be a connection with the influence to help them out. The society is rich can do whatever the hell you want, and poor you can't. That's life.

Dude, read before you reply.

mandate pay incentivization based on performance.