[NOTE: Please scroll to end of story for an important note.]
“We made the best we could out of this situation.”
–Multnomah County DA Jim Hayden
The two women involved in the fatal hit-and-run that killed Jerry Hinatsu earlier this year will receive a fine, probation and two-months in jail.
After Hinatsu collided with their vehicle, both women then lied to authorities about what happened, did not attend to the victim, then one of them fled the scene in an unlicensed and uninsured car. However, neither of them were found guilty of hit-and-run.
That fact has some people wondering whether or not justice was served.
To try and understand how this could happen, I spoke with Multnomah County District Attorney Jim Hayden.
But first, some background on the case:
On May 4th, Sara Lance and Cynthia Amaya were leaving the Franz bakery on SE Foster Road. When their car (no one can determine who was driving) approached the exit to the parking lot, they claim that Hinatsu, who was riding the wrong way in the bike lane down a slight hill, collided with the vehicle. (According to Jim Hayden, this claim is backed up by other witnesses).
Immediately after the collision, Lance got out of the car and stayed at the scene, while Amaya fled. Lance then led police on what the Oregonian (in an article on the case published Friday) referred to as a “wild-goose chase”. Later, both women lied about what happened and neither of them admitted to being the driver.
Lance was the registered owner of the car and she did not have a valid license or insurance at the time of the collision.
will both get jail time, a fine, and
probation for being in the car that
ran over Jerry Hinatsu on May 4, 2006.
Hayden and the DA’s office believed Sara Lance was the driver. The car was registered in her name and witness testimony seemed to point in that direction. But in order to find her guilty of felony hit-and-run, a serious charge that would have brought up to 16-18 months in prison, the DA first had to convince the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Lance was the driver.
To do that, Hayden planned to have Cynthia Amaya — who he believed was the passenger — to plead guilty to hit-and-run and hindering prosecution (both are felonies). If she did that, and if she testified that her friend Sara Lance was the driver, the DA would drop the hit-and-run charge on Amaya.
When it came time for the trial, Hayden says it was clear to him that the jury had doubts about Amaya’s testimony. “They [the jury] kept asking questions and I could tell they didn’t believe her.”
The fate of justice for the death of Jerry Hinatsu hinged on the DA being able prove to a jury that Sara Lance was the driver.
As the jury deliberated, Hayden was very concerned that they would come back with a “not guilty” verdict for Sara Lance. If they did, Lance would have walked out of the courtroom without any charges against her at all.
“I couldn’t accept that”, said Hayden, “To me, I found it untenable that Lance could be found not guilty of everything, so rather than let the jury come back with a “not guilty” verdict and watch her walk out of the courtroom, I negotiated a formal probation and a two-month jail sentence.”
During our conversation last night, Hayden was clearly disturbed at how this case played out. As a cyclist, daily commuter, and racer himself, he said he took this case “very seriously”.
“I can’t change the laws or any of the facts in the case,” he said, “…but without negotiating these charges, she would have walked, without being held accountable for anything. We made the best we could out of this situation.”
For more on this case, read my original story back in May and the Oregonian article by Aimee Green that was published Friday (11/2).
[UPDATE: 12:07pm. I’ve edited the story to clarify the nature of the collision. My initial report made it seem like the drivers were negligent in the collision but I have since learned that the bicyclist was at fault and that he collided with the car.
According to testimony of the passenger, driver, and witnesses, the car was either at a complete stop or barely rolling when the collision occurred. I apologize for this error.]
I currently have a friend in Inverness (county jail) doing just under a year for drug posession. 60 days for this sounds crazy to say the least.
Such is the price for a justice system that sides with the accused by default. I\’ll still take it over the alternative.
Unfreakingbelievable-
We live in a really screwed up society.
To the family of the victim-I\’m ashamed that our system of justice has let you/us down.
To the suspects…Kharma\’s a bitch…hopefully someday you\’ll both realize the errors of your ways.
A dismal result whichever way you slice it. Where I come from (England) driving a car without a valid license or insurance is considered a very serious offense with a large fine and/or imprisonment. It seems as if driving is considered a right in America not a privilege and the lack of legal driver status is a mere technicality. What is galling is that responsible motorists pay enlarged premiums to cover for those knuckleheads who don\’t have insurance.
ohh i see you did such a fine job.
not one cyclist dies in vain..
“We made the best we could out of this situation.”
–Multnomah County DA Jim Hayden
… I\’ll say it again. Democracy doesn\’t work.
2 Months? WOW!
Pathetic attorneys, pathetic system, pathetic society.
Todd
I don\’t understand this case, it seems like blatant lying is a dam good defense… Also lets not forget that the cyclist was biking the wrong way in the bike lane, which is dangerous and moronic to start with. And it seems the cyclist was clearly at fault.
But with that aside, to flee an accident (no matter who was at fault), and not be legal to drive… then to get off with 2 months in prison and a fine? just seems wrong.
With all respect due to Mr Hayden, I believe he mishandled these prosecutions.
We should all be disturbed at how this case played out, but DON\’T BLAME THE SYSTEM OR SOCIETY, BECAUSE YOU ARE THE SYSTEM AND THE SOCIETY. Please focus your outrage on changing the laws to better protect cyclists and on putting political pressure on prosecutors to better address these types of cases, rather than whining about it.
The murder of a cyclist or pedestrian is not a crime in Portland so long has a motor vehicle is the weapon.
I thought they\’d only get a $1000 fine, that seems to be the going rate around here for unlicensed / suspended drivers.
How reassuring this all is.
Of all the bicycle fatalities this year, this is the best the DA and law enforcement can do.
Right hook, illegal lane change, hit and run, failure to yield to cross-walk, impatience…whatever a driver does they get off with, at worse, a slap on the wrist.
Either the cyclist is presumed at fault or a jury of \”peers\” can\’t be counted on to deliver a just verdict.
It puts that rose-colored lenses NYT article to the test, doesn\’t it?
Bike friendly city my a**.
\”It puts that rose-colored lenses NYT article to the test, doesn\’t it?\”
No. I think that\’s silly. Portland is still a great place to bike, but we\’re not perfect. Like most places, Oregon badly needs better laws for the protection of cyclists. Please give some thought to how you can help us make the national news on that front, too.
Interesting that there is a such a cry to correct the Oregonian for the their wording of articles when they don\’t quite square up with pro-bike bias. It\’s pretty clear to me that the car did not run OVER the cyclist, but the cyclist ran under the car. If the \”victim\” had been riding along with traffic instead of being the typical anarchist cyclist, he would still be alive today. As despicable as the actions of those women were, just as despicable was the irresponsibility of that cyclist and he paid the ultimate price for it. Those women should suffer a heck of a lot more for their other actions but they sure didn\’t kill anybody.
Seriously, driving a car without a valid license needs to be more punitive.
Jonathan, \”riding the wrong way in the bike lane.\” implies that he was breaking the law. While it\’s a very bad idea to ride against the flow of traffic in a bike lane I don\’t think there\’s anything in the ORS saying that doing so is illegal. Really. Scary, huh?
I get the sense that his direction of travel has gone a long way to suggest that he was breaking the law and that this was really just an unfortunate accident with which these women dealt poorly…not an instance of negligent driving. Whether or not you believe my assertion that riding against traffic in a bike lane is legal, it is certainly legal to ride against traffic on a sidewalk…and if she didn\’t see him in a bike lane, she probably wouldn\’t have seen him on the sidewalk.
It\’s unfortunate that not wearing a helmet and riding against traffic, while not illegal, can bring such harsh judgment and dismissal of fault in a the legal arena…and I get the sense that that\’s what happened here.
What is revealing and a bit scary is that the DA determined that the jury would not convict. A bit like the days when a jury would not convict a white person for killing a black person.
Or I\’m reminded of the jury in San Francisco that convicted Dan White on just two counts of involuntary manslaughter for the double murder of Mayor Moscone and (Gay) Commissioner Harvey Milk in 1978.
Juries are a barometer of public attitudes…feels a bit like open season on bike riders.
JE
November 5th, 2007 11:54 10The murder of a cyclist or pedestrian is not a crime in Portland so long has a motor vehicle is the weapon.
well put, so many try to find fault with the cyclist.. no helmet, wrong way,, yada yada..
Lenny #17 – but the jury was assumed to not convict primarily because there was doubt as to which of two suspects was the driver, not due to the underlying hate by society of cyclists.
Is there some underlying hate? Yes, just like there is for many groups of people, usually as a result of misunderstanding and idiocy. But I don\’t think it was the deciding issue in this case.
I, for one, hope if I\’m being tried for something that the prosecutor, judge, and jury all take the phrase \’beyond a reasonable doubt\’ to heart.
It sounds like they did in this case… and I don\’t think that two months in jail is exactly a picnic.
Lenny, it appears that it may be against the law to ride against traffic in the bike lane:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/01reg/measures/sb0001.dir/sb0025.intro.html
It alludes to it but I can\’t find where it says that its explicitly against the law.
Please note:
I’ve edited the story to clarify the nature of the collision.
My initial report made it seem like the drivers were negligent in the collision but I have since learned that the bicyclist was at fault and that he collided with the car.
According to testimony of the passenger, driver, and witnesses, the car was either at a complete stop or barely rolling when the collision occurred.
Comparing this crash involving a cyclist and even some of the others to the treatment of black people throughout American history is beyond insulting to both blacks and cyclists who exercise their choice to behave responsibly on the road. If the \”two\” drivers of that car forced him to ride his bike the wrong way down a busy street for entertainment, ran him over for breaking the law and then hung him and his family for complaining about it, then it might be a relevant metaphor. It\’s almost as tired a comparison as calling the US a police state because one or two Portland officers screwed up.
And Carl, what exactly is your point? There\’s no law saying that I have to be courteous to other people but things sure do work out better in the long run when I am. Would you rather not wearing a helmet be deemed straight out illegal for every single person or allow adult people to control their own destinies and therefore, be human and free?
Tough case for the DA. Our justice system is heavily weighted toward defendants (\”beyond a reasonable doubt\”) for a good reason; we feel strongly about not convicting innocent people. If I had been on the jury where the only evidence that the person on trial was driving was testimony from the other person in the car, who was getting a plea deal for testifying, I would probably consider that reasonable doubt.
What would you have the DA do in this case. Fabricate some evidence? Bribe some witnesses? Take the (large) chance that the jury would find reasonable doubt? Sounds to me like he made the best of a bad situation.
Maybe the laws should be changed, but you can\’t blame that on the DA.
Let\’s also remember that the driver (whoever she was) did NOT cause the collision.
I just don\’t see any \”anti bicyclist\” sentiment here.
Jonathan thanks for updating the article. It\’s good to understand the whole situation when evaluating the outcome. It really seems odd that it is legal to bike the wrong way in the bike lane.
Logan 5 said:
\”Comparing this crash involving a cyclist and even some of the others to the treatment of black people throughout American history is beyond insulting…\”
I don\’t think there is a comparison between the historical treatement of black people and this crash. However, your use of terms such as \”typical anarchist cyclist\” indicates that you let misleading group stereotypes affect your judgments of individuals. This is the same reasoning process used by racists, sexists, and every other type of bigot. Do you ever use the term \”typical ____ Hispanic\”? How about \”typical _____ woman\”? \”Typical ____ driver\”?
Logan 5, your reasoning is inadequate for dealing with the complexities of the social problems present in modern society. I know you need to simplify things in order to understand them, but you\’re really just making it worse by systematically misleading yourself. And, despite all your whining about a \”pro-bike bias,\” you\’re also revealing your own bias.
Carl (#16) – he was breaking the law:
ORS 811.295 Failure to drive on right; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to drive on the right if the person is operating a vehicle on a roadway of sufficient width and the person does not drive on the right half of the roadway.
Given the facts listed in the story, it sounds like the DA did the best he could. Unfortunately, his most pertinent witness wasn\’t credible enough in the eyes of the jury.
I agree with the comments made above – the US and Oregon need tougher laws to punish unlicensed drivers. It doesn\’t sound like it would have helped much in this particular case, since no one could place the driver at the wheel, but vehicle owners should be responsible for misuse of their potential deadly tool the same way gun owners are.
Portland is a wonderful city, I very much enjoy visiting a couple times a year. I\’m a little concerned that Porland may not indeed be \”The best cycling city.\” With the recent deaths of bicyclist it seems as though there may be a pattern developing where the death of a cyclist may not be such a big deal to the city.
Someone may want to have a sit down talk with the Mayor and explain to him that the DA and the police chief are failing at their assigned duties. As a result of their failure the Mayor is failing as well.
At this point my 2 year plan to transfer to Portland will be on hold. I may not live in a \”bicycle friendly city\” but at least my police chief and DA are on the job and have demonstrated that they take bicycle collisions seriously.
One look at the two female defendants pretty much sums it all up for me. \”Got away with another one, big deal!\”
No intent to insult, merely to point out that social prejudices of all kinds are typically reflected in juries…a very democratic institution…, and according to this report we had a jury that was not likely to convict even for \”hit & run\” when clearly that was what happened.
The law just ain\’t on our side.
Lenny, even though this was clearly a hit and run, the prosecutor needed to *prove* which individual was driving the car at the time of the collision, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unfortunately, there was not enough evidence to do this (witnesses, etc).
Trust me, you want the system to work this way…
bottom line hit and run is breaking the law? regardless of the complete fault.
come on..
Mike, the DA is a county position. The [irrelevant] mayor is a city position and doesn\’t have anything to do with him. It would be like yelling at your neighbor because your dog was peeing on the carpet, it just doesn\’t make any sense.
The problem really is that running from an injury accident can many times be a really good idea. Especially if you believe you are at fault, or if you know that you are intoxicated. This isn\’t the DA\’s fault, the problem is that the consequeces of hit and run are substantially less than those of being caught, and it is very difficult to convict someone if there were no witnesses impartial witnesses.
In corvallis Amy Stack ran down and killed a girl who was commuting home from work. If someone driving the opposite direction hadn\’t seen the accident in his rear view mirror no one would have had any idea what had happened. Evidence later found at stack\’s house pointed to a likelyhood that she could have been drunk at the time of the accident. If that were the case had she stopped she would have gotten 10 years in jail, by running her sentence was more along the lines of 18 months.
We were all sickened that this Stack woman having left someone to die in a ditch could only be charged with hit and run, but realistically it was the best the DA could do with the laws we have.
If I recall back correctly, they were caught trying to clean the blood off the car, instead of helping the cyclist.
Mike #28 – Portland it still a great cycling city. Don\’t decide on the cycling climate here based soley on:
1 – Sensationalized media websites (pretty much every local news source)
2 – The slant of stories on BikePortland.org; I\’m not saying this website is biased. I\’m saying a larger percentage of stories will naturally be negative, compared to real life experience, because people are interested in crashes & incidents – what went wrong and why, and \”how can I be safer and avoid this same thing?\” In other words, 1/3 (for example) of the stories here may convey negative incidents or experiences, but the average cyclist on the street rarely has negative experiences, definitely nothing like a 1/3 bad/good ratio.
To me it is outrageous that someone that does nothing to try to help someone gets away with it like this. I don\’t care if the cyclist was at fault. It makes me wonder. At the very least they are both accessories to a crime if they cannot prove who actually drove when it comes to the hit and run, and both are responsible for not attending to the rider. Then there is the problem of not being licensed or insured. These are the kind of drivers I worry about, on my bike or in the car.
Re: a.O. #9
With all respect due to Mr Hayden, I believe he mishandled these prosecutions.
How?
Given the circumstances I think he did what he could, which is, hold Thelma and Louise accountable for something. Keep in mind they were charged with hit and run, not for causing the cyclists death.
Make driving without a valid license and permanently incapacitating or killing someone a \”Measure 11\” offense with stiff mandatory minimums of 5-10 years. Then the plea bargain with the defendant would be two years instead of 2 months. Add to that being permanently disbarred from ever driving for anything but work.
Problem solved.
In reference to Schrauf (36): I agree.
I know the last few weeks have been rough and there has been a lot of media attention (which has sort of given a soapbox for the anti bike people to stand on), but I still feel pretty comfortable riding around.
Statistically is riding really that dangerous (or rather, that much more dangerous than driving)? I know there have been a few deaths this year, and I am sure countless injuries…but if you were to look at driving deaths/injuries (numbers corrected of course) are your odds any better in car?
Maybe they are, I don\’t really have any idea (which is why I\’m asking, I am sure someone on here does).
Antonio (#39) said: \”problem solved\”.
Sadly, no.
Currently, county jails are full. All the time. Measure 11 offenses ensure that more severe \”non-Measure 11\” inmates end up released early. Making more Measure 11 crimes is only going to work if we increase taxes on everyone and use that money to build and staff additional jails.
Maybe that should be a Measure 11 crime, but we\’re at the point where we can\’t keep putting people in jail unless we\’re willing to pay to keep them there.
I agree that *something* needs to be done.