In New York, former state trooper Brian Beardsley is now clear of any criminal charges following the announcement yesterday of Hamilton County District Attorney James Curry that the grand jury had dismissed an earlier felony charge. Beardsley was charged after he ran over Chad Finch, 20, (left) who had fallen in the road. Beardsley, who was returning from a party with this girlfriend, pulled over briefly and she called police. However, they then left the scene and returned home.
The felony was for leaving the scene of an accident. However, Curry concluded that the purpose of the law was not really to keep people from leaving the scene of an accident but to call the police and identify themselves. That is not the view in many states, but Curry said that his review of the legislative history led him to conclude that Beardsley could not be charged. Curry wrote that “The statute does not specify the period of time within which the operator must report the incident should there be no one to whom he or she can make the report at the scene of the accident.”
Beardsley admitted to having “three or four beers” at the party before driving his truck.
Finch himself had also been drinking. Indeed, he ironically had a history of DUI. He had just completed a two-year sentence in 2004 after his third driving-while-intoxicated offense in four years. In 2000, he struck a 14-year-old girl riding her bike while driving drunk. In 2004, he injured an 11-year-old child that resulted in Chad Finch’s prison term.
Testing showed that Finch’s Blood Alcohol Content level at .20. It also showed that he was alive before being hit by Beardsley.
Police say that they performed a “prescreening” for alcohol on Beardsley but there is no indication of a BAL test or level determination. They insisted that they had no reason to believe that he had been drinking, but he had in fact been drinking. The question is whether he lied or they failed to ask their fellow officer that relevant question.
Last year, Beardsley agreed to pay $75,000 to lawyers and the victim’s family in damages. He will pay about $43,000 to Finch’s children and about $30,000 to lawyers. The remaining $2,000 will be used to reimburse funeral expenses.
Beardsley was criticized at the time by the sheriff for leaving the scene of an accident. He later insisted in court that Finch “was obviously deceased . . . It (sic) wasn’t really much that could be done except get struck myself or her. …I indicated to her that we should stay until police arrived. She said she wasn’t really comfortable with that. There really wasn’t much we could do, and I agreed with her.”
Source: Times Union
Annie:
I guess it’s a small percentage. I see it from some small time guys not the big agencies. If they are solo I only use ex cops. I never get it slanted with ex cops.
I seriously doubt that Mr. Beardsley relies on his girl friend for advice on proper police procedure. I believe the most reasonable explanation for his departure was concern that he was impaired from his drinking at the time of the incident and feared the possibility of a charge of negligent homicide.
Mespo, I’m glad you found an ethical invesitgator, I was under the impression that ethics in that field was a very rare thing. Maybe I got the wrong impression, I can’t quite put my finger on the reason why thought that way. I know many attorneys that are wonderful ethical folks, my daughter included. Attorneys always get a bad rap, lol.
Successful attorneys are very busy this time of year.
Well counselor, I swear, on the souls of my children and dead parents, I NEVER did buried evidence. NEVER. Whenever I would testify ALL of the raw footage would be presented and marked as evidence. The boilerplate cross examination question from plaintiff’s attorneys would always be if there was anything exculpatory. I would INCLUDE anything that was even close to exculpatory, a wince, a limp, any pain behavior. So, after years of being shown to have character above reproach, even plaintiff’s attorneys who despised the work I did, would tell you I am honest. But, thanks for throwing that out there. I’ll give you names and phone #’s of plaintiff’s attorneys I’ve worked adverse to. Some I worked for as well. The plaintiff’s attorneys who would NOT hire me were the slimy ones. Worked both sides of the aisle, barrister. Just more money for a PI’s working the defense, I could also tell you the slimy insurance companies and defense attorneys as well, wouldn’t work for them either. I had this discussion here previously. In a venue like Madison, the slimy PI’s don’t last long. You SHOULD know that. I have been working in this venue for 30 years. Nice slimy insinuation though. It is the way you roll.
Amen Mespo. Investigators need to adhere to the highest levels of ethics, or else we get PI’s who sit in courtrooms under oath and fill in the blanks of the investigation from their imagination instead of facts, or use ‘doctored’ film footage. I wonder how common that is in the field? I hope it’s a rare thing.
The ethical investigator I use told me he quit doing work for some defendants because his clients ditched all the “bad” tape showing injuries and preserved the relatively small amount of “good” footage showing normal activities post-injury. Defendants routinely stonewall requests for the raw footage and provide only the part that supports their versions of the case (if they provide it at all) arguing it’s mere rebuttal evidence and free from the rules of discovery. Unethical investigation corrupts the system as do it’s adherents.
Pogo, Dr. House would scream @ his students that patients lie all the time. A client of mine, insurance company, hired a female doc to do an IME. She was new to the biz. A lying plaintiff conned her, which was evident when the client got her report. They hired me and I obtained lots of videotape of this “permanently and totally disabled” plaintiff, chain sawing, both on the ground and in a tree. I then shot him splitting wood. This was over several days. No pain behaviors, laughing and smiling w/ a buddy who was helping him. My client sent the video to the doc, asking her to view it and make an addendum to her report. The client told her what was in it. But, she refused to view it because she considered it “Orwellian.” No, she just didn’t want to admit she had been conned. “Pride comes before the fall.” I don’t think she did many IME’s after that. Never saw any of her reports or in court after that.
Unless you’re a LEO or gubmint official then:
BAC = (dismissed)
Nick’s more accurate guide to BAC:
BAC = (([Standard Drinks*2]+1) * 0.06 * 100 * 1.055 / Weight * Gender Constant) – (0.015 * Hours)
“I like flying over the jungle…”
Ah, the superior liberal, above it all. Noted.
For those truly interested in how to derive an accurate BAC estimate rather than the “method” as postulated by some misguided here, the accepted method is the Widmark Formula that will give you an approximation. It is:
BAC = (Standard Drinks * 0.06 * 100 * 1.055 / Weight * Gender Constant) – (0.015 * Hours)
of course, you need to know all the variables I discussed like time, size, weight, metabolism, etc.
@Nick,
Doctors get conned all the time in medical practice because they think people wouldn’t lie to them. When you suggest someone might be lying they get rather upset with you.
I think that helps account for why MDs tend to make bad financial decisions.
Paul, the real question to you would be why aren’t you? You aren’t an oligarch.
Paul:
No just a break. I like flying over the jungle sometimes and seeing the herd run to and fro in perfect unison. Interestingly, I was just looking at an alcohol related case involving similar facts. Their problems are also my problems, hence I sympathize with the prosecutor’s dilemma.
Wise doctors, cops, anyone w/ street smarts knows you multiply the professed consumption of alcohol X 2 plus 1 = actual consumption.
That was no layup, but you were dribbling.
Pogo, I was thrown into the fire @ a young age. A 23 year old put into a job @ Leavenworth dealing w/ the toughest con artists in the country, probably the world. It was sink or swim. I had good mentors to show me the ropes. In the 40 years since then, I have built on those lessons under fire. Nobody is con proof, but I’m pretty close. I’m also pretty shock proof, having seen just about everything. So, when I see folks, who fashion themselves urbane and worldly getting hoodwinked, I just shake my head. It happens on the macro level w/ Obama, and on all levels. I always remember the great Malcolm X speech telling his black brothers and sisters that the liberal white man is not their friend, “You been had, hoodwinked, bamboozled.” There was a man w/ people and street smarts who made himself book smart as well. But, it’s the first 2 types of intelligence that mean the most. Some just don’t get it.
“…hardly enough to charge criminally”
Yes, I am sure that argument will work for all the non-LEOs out there.