valencia

https://velonews.com/article/99398/

go4gr8

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

I hope he goes away for a long time.

kabersch

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

Digital_Cowboy

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.

hairnet

"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?

David13

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

DX-MAN

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.

David13

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

Commando303

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.

genec

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.

David13

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

Cyclaholic

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.

thompsonpost

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.

crhilton

+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!

crhilton

Hah! I like this punishment.

Digital_Cowboy

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

Square & Compas

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.

ItsJustMe

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?

cydisc

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

DX-MAN

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....)

marmot

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.

illdoittomorrow

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

longpatterned

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...?

Commando303

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."

Cyclaholic

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