Review: Brazos' Phosphorescent Blues
Interview with Bobby Hackney of Death
I Am So Popular: Love Me Doo-Doo
Fun Fun Fun Fest Previews: Street Dogs and Betaplayer
Wine: Austin Cellar Classic Is Tomorrow
According to the D.P.S., Bradley Danz was speeding and driving his pickup on the wrong side of the road when he hit and killed Adam Raymond, who was biking in the other direction on Mount Gainor Road in Dripping Springs. 
Ghost Bike- the beginning, velo city on flickr
Hays County District Attorney Sherri Tibbe brought a charge of "criminally negligent homicide" before a Hays County grand jury, but the grand jury decided not to indict Danz. Tibbe tried again, charging Danz with reckless driving. He was convicted last Friday. His punishment will be two-years probation. Criminally negligent homicide would carry a sentence of 180 days to 2 years in prison.
**Post edited to reflect detail regarding initial charge.**
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Because you live in Texas and we have elected judges. The supreme court has basically said the same thing, "Hey don't come crying to us because you can't get justice with this stupid ass setup. Although, it is your right as a state to have it."
The judge has to get reelected. Why exactly would he sentence anyone to prison who could vote for him? See number of Republican judges in Texas vs. number of minorities in prison. See also historical party voting patterns in Texas.
What a useless response.
State's rights? Are you kidding me? It's up to the States and the voters to decide if killing innocent cyclists should be illegal? Because the judge has to get re-elected? Besides, since when is it politically dangerous to put someone away for recklessly killing another human being? Aren't Republican judges supposed to be all tough on crime?
This isn't about elections and State's rights. Some jackass kid murdered an innocent person on the side of the road with his huge RAM 3500 truck, and he gets away with a slap on the wrist. Think about how you would react if someone in your family was hit head on by a huge truck because some redneck kid was screwing around on the road. What if that was a group of kids riding their bikes down the street? I guess you would just start thinking about whether or not you are going to vote for that judge again.
This goes much deeper than elected judges. There is a zeitgeist in this state that pedestrians & cyclists are nuisances, to be merely tolerated by those with cars but not enjoy the same rights & privileges under the law.
So someone can go to jail for DWI (because they're endangering other drivers), but get probation for murdering a cyclist. What's ironic is, if this kid had been caught with beer or weed in the cab, he'd be doing serious jail time.
Quick civics/criminal justice lesson. The judge didn't decide not to prosecute the driver. A grand jury considered some unspecified charges and decided not to indict him. Blame the grand jury, or the prosecutor who didn't present enough evidence to support a grand jury indictment on whatever charges he/she sought. But a judge wasn't involved yet at that point.
From the article, it sounds like the grand jury completely let him off - and a judge immediately filed a new charge to make sure that he got punished at least a little bit.
So I'd say direct your ire at the friendly citizens of Dripping Springs, or whomever ended up on this jury.
whoops, that should read: the DA filed a new charge, and the second jury actually convicted.
My understanding is that the initial charge was criminally negligent homicide, which is a lesser charge than manslaughter, with a sentence of 6 months to 2 years. The difference is state of mind, "reckless" vs "criminal negligence."
To determine that Danz was not guilty of criminally negligent homicide, I think the Hays County grand jury had to find that speeding and driving on the wrong side of the road was not a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise.
Shilli, the grand jury didn't find him not guilty. Grand juries decide whether to indict someone, ie charge them with a crime that they will then go on trial for before a jury. Grand juries consider whether the prosecutor has shown them enough evidence such that it's likely a jury could convict the defendant, ie, prove they committed all the elements of the charged crime beyond any reasonable doubt. The grand jury evidently felt there wasn't enough evidence to indict on criminally negligent homicide, but they didn't find him not guilty - that's a jury's job.
Fair point, but my understanding is that the threshold to get an indictment is lower than the threshold to get a not guilty verdict. That is, the grand jury had to say "not only would we not find this person guilty, we don't even think there is enough evidence to send it to a trial." Basically, a grand jury refusing to indict is better evidence than a not guilty verdict that jurors in Hays county (or at least the ones on that grand jury) have no problem with drivers killing bikers.
Grand juries will indict a defendant if a majority of at least 12 jurors (out of usually 15-18) find that there was "probable cause" to believe that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed it. If fewer than 12 vote to true-bill on either element, it's a no-bill (but jeopardy doesn't attach, so the defendant can still be indicted by a second grand jury, which is what happened here).
So the threshold to indict is very low, much lower than a criminal "petit" jury has to convict. So Shilli is correct that Hays County residents (at least those who serve on grand juries) appear not to consider vehicular homicide as serious a crime as, say, marijuana possession.