Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Intersection Accident Nightmare in Arizona
In criminal cases, it is not uncommon for courts to order restitution along with the criminal sentencing. My Arizona bar newsletter contained a story about a lawyer who got the statutory law changed so he could represent his daughter in seeking criminal restitution for the death of his son-in-law. The case began with a 7 AM traffic accident at an intersection. The decedent, Jeffrey Roof, turned left across several lanes of traffic. The accused, Jeffrey Meyn, sped up to get through the intersection on, he claims, a yellow light. Meyn t-boned Roof’s automobile. There were no drugs or alcohol involved. Meyn stayed at the scene and was released by the officers who told him that he was not at fault.
The police continued to investigate. Meyn cooperated with the investigation even testifying before a grand jury. Meyn’s lawyer notified the prosecutor in writing that if he were going to be charged, Meyn would voluntarily turn himself in. Instead, the police used Meyn’s six-year-old son to lie to Meyn to get Meyn outside where the police swarmed him with weapons drawn, ordered him to his knees and handcuffed him, all apparently in front of the six year old.
The grand jury indicted Meyn on a manslaughter charge, which carries a sentence of seven to 15 years in prison. He took a plea bargain. He pleaded guilty to negligent homicide to avoid the possibility of a long prison sentence. The plea-bargain contained a provision stating that he could be held responsible for restitution to the victims in an amount not to exceed $1 million. Because of the plea-bargain, he served 13 months in prison.
Roof’s father-in-law is a lawyer. The father-in-law got the statute changed to permit him, instead of the prosecutor, to present the case for restitution. Restitution was preferable to a civil damages judgment, because restitution cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. A civil judgment can be discharged. The court awarded $960,000 in restitution.
Meyn lost a $200,000 a year job as a result of the incarceration. According to him, he has no prospects of making enough money to pay the judgment after feeding his family.
Here is a newspaper account of the situation.
It looks to me that Jeffrey Meyn is living a nightmare as a result of a simple intersection accident that had tragic consequences.
What are the lessons here? Never accept the plea-bargain if you believe you are innocent? Don’t drive to work in the morning? Never try to make the yellow?
Is what happened to Jeffrey Meyn a just result?
What about the behavior of the police after the prosecutor had been notified in writing that Meyn would turn himself in voluntarily? How can forcing a six-year-old to lie, resulting in the violent arrest of his father, ever be justified?
To me this is a horror story.
Published in Law
Were TV cameras present at the arrest? It would not surprise me if some grandstanding was done for the bright lights.
Never talk to the police in such a situation. They are not always your friend and can destroy you.
The way you phrase that sentence, the answer is obvious.
But what actually happened in this case? Having a violent arrest would serve nobody’s interests, so to assume that it was done intentionally, with full knowledge of his offer to turn himself in, and while using a child to “lie” in order to facilitate the nonsense, automatically falls to the bottom of my list of “charitable interpretations.” What do the police claim happened?
As for everything else, you’re right that it does seem to be a miscarriage of justice… especially where the civil restitution is concerned. But at the same time, do we hold drivers accountable for accidents that cost lives? Should we? Where is the balance.
Here’s another anecdote: A kid from my hometown was goofing off with some friend in another car; passing each other on the highway, varying speeds, etc… Not paying attention, this resulted in a head-on collision that killed the driver of another car. My in-laws knew this kid and felt that the prosecutor was going to far in charging him. But what if the driver of that other car was your wife or husband or child? It’s a sad situation, but who is ultimately responsible?
I have only the newspaper report to which I linked in the OP:
Of course, newspapers never get it wrong.
I can’t fault Meyn for telling his side of the story at the scene. If believed and there were no other witnesses, charges would be unlikely. The consequence of failure to assert that he had the yellow light would pretty much guarantee that he would be charged. Of course, the talking to the police should be minimal. (“I had the yellow light. I am so shaken that before I say anything else, I want to consult my attorney.” Then keep silent.)
I would just need a lot more information on this case. The timeline of the negotiation between his attorney and the state, for example was there a specified date that the subject would turn himself in? Was that date missed by the subject? Did his attorney not inform his client of the progress of the negotiations?
As far as the claim of a police officer telling him that he was not at fault, was it possible that the subject misinterpreted the fact that he was not cited immediately lead him to believe that the officer meant he was not at fault?
In most fatal traffic accidents if drugs and alcohol are not involved there is a very good chance that a cite might not be issued until an accident investigation is completed, there might be an exception if the driver is uninsured.
My best advice would be ask for an attorney immediately, especially in an incident that involves the death, or serious physical injury to another person. Do not make any statements, especially after a traumatic incident like the one in the story.
I would also be interested to know how much the liability payout was to the victim’s family from the auto insurance company and the victim’s life insurance company. Perhaps we are talking about retribution here rather than restitution.
What is the difference between restitution and debt slavery?
My brother was involved in a similar accident 26 years ago where a young man on a motorcycle was killed. It was heart breaking
The family recognized it was just an accident and accepted a small settlement from my brother’s insurance company.
A prosecutor, however, felt different and went after my brother. My brother had a top security clearance and would lose his job if he pleaded guilty to a felony or spent any time in jail. The prosecutor knew this and was determined it was going to be one or the other
After a year my brother was so frustrated he wanted to refuse the plea offer and go to trial. His lawyer and every lawyer we knew advised against it – that he was rolling the dice with too much to lose. One lawyer of my acquaintance said: you only go to trial if you are guilty
After another year they finally settled on a misdemeanor charge that included huge fines, no jail and the loss of his license for a year
I never knew what the attorney fees were but I’m sure they were massive.
One is constitutionally ok and one is not.
Dont ask ask silly questions like why. The only real answer is because I (I being Uncle Sam) said so.
Good questions. The only information I have is the newspaper account. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/01/12/lawyer-quest-to-change-arizonas-restitution-law/96454936/
I think the case is like Annefy’s brother but it was a powerful father in law instead of a rogue prosecutor.
Plea bargains are efficient and provide certainty, but not justice if really innocent.
I’d be more suspicious if this was a classic arrest warrant in lieu of search warrant situation. Imagine they did not lure him outside but instead did a no-knock 3 am raid and conveniently immediately went to search the bedroom of a 17 year old son (hoping to find drugs to use to gain leverage over the father).
With prosecutors having all the power and judges just rubber stamping the deals they create way more injustice than justice. When it becomes rational self interest to take a plea that is a lie rather than to be tried on whatever the prosecutor can make fit and add to the actual crime then the system has become unjust.
Agreed. There is no good solution. Plea bargains are the most efficient was to punish the guilty, minimizing court time. Our only protection is a reasonable prosecutor is who is not judged by the conviction rate.
Warrants are issued by the court. It is possible that whoever the subject’s attorney was dealing with in the DA’s office was not aware that the warrant had been issued, and had been issued to the Sheriff’s Department for immediate service. Deputies or police officers would have no way of knowing about negotiations between the attorney’s concerning the terms of voluntary surrender.
As far as the method of serving the warrant it is preferable to get the subject outside the house if it all possible. Officers have no way of knowing how many people are inside the home, or if there are weapons inside the home. Their subject comes outside and if his hands are empty of a weapon it is safer for the officers, the subject, family members, and whoever else might be inside the house.
State statutes are different from state to state concerning yellow lights. In many states a yellow light is no different than a red light. For instance an admission that you sped up to get through a yellow light, especially in this type of case is a going to hurt your case. That being said the driver that made the turn when it was unsafe to do so puts themselves in a position of shared liability, especially in a civil case.
I don’t know that such a protection exists.
The imbalance between the pleas and the charged offenses is breathtaking. I faced a choice between a possible 8.5 years plus the scarlet letter or 2 years probation with no scarlet letter. Only an innocent person or the insane would choose trial. Thankfully it never got that far.
I fault the prosecutor. The prosecutor had to know that an arrest was in process, because the prosecutor had to know about the indictment.
I understand that arresting an unarmed man outside is safer. I don’t like using the swarming technique in all cases. Not always necessary. Police as bullies.
Using the 6 year old was evil.
I agree that is more probable than not that the prosecutor’s office dropped the ball by failing to communicate within their own office, or worse to communicate with the judge that was going to, or who issued the warrant.
This story should be emblazoned across every major newspaper in the country. Because that is the only way to get market forces activated to stop this abuse of prosecutorial power. People should stop vacationing in Arizona. They should stop moving to Arizona. The businesses that are already there should take their businesses to states that don’t do this sort of thing. The insurance companies should stop insuring people because there is no way they can insure people against this. This upends everything drivers think they know about their liability.
The driver went too fast through a yellow light. It was a tragic accident, but it was only that. There was no malice involved.
This is a prosecutor trying to make a name for himself and a driver with a lot of money to sue for.
I’d launch some countersuits–against the state and town, for starters, for creating the death trap that the intersection apparently represented, for starters. And wow, would I sue the town for the SWAT team that so terrorized my son that he ended up in mental hospital for the rest of his life. You do not ask a kid to be part of arresting his own father. The kind of guilt and trauma that kid will suffer will be lifelong.
The state of Arizona and its tourism have the most to lose here: Why would I think about driving through a crazy state? I could lose everything.
This story is very upsetting.
[continued from comment 20]
I am not trying to say that Arizona is crazier than any other state. I’m trying to make a point that applies to every state in the union. I think these types of cases exist in every state, and these cases should all be considered threats to the states in which they occur.
The only way to stop this is through massive publicity and hundreds of countersuits, against the car manufacturers, roadway engineers, and anyone else the creative lawyers can think of.
The only way to stop this from happening is to generate a massive public outcry against it. And the insurance companies and car manufacturers should be leading the pack.
I have only the newspaper story to go on. What if Mr. Meyn actually ran a red light according to outside witnesses? I have to assume that the prosecutor had something like that be bring an indictment. Does that change your feelings on the matter?
Thank you for responding. I was so upset I had to take a walk. :)
Yeah, my mind is going in fifty directions.
I hope there is some rational explanation somewhere. I shall go digging to see.
I really hate to think the world has gone this insane. It makes me afraid to drive my car anywhere. I must be overreacting and there’s some logical explanation for all of this.
Of course, nothing excuses what that SWAT team did to that little boy. Nothing.
Living in Arizona I’m a big advocate of issuing tourist visas to Democrats that would like to visit for a week and play some golf. I’m also in favor of not allowing them to buy property in Arizona or allowing them residency status. As long as were talking about building a wall, I would like one that runs the length of the Mississippi River. ;)
If I remember correctly, @dougwatt is a retired police officer. His only justification for the traumatizing of the six-year-old was that it was safer for the police to take down the accused out of doors. In fairness to him, he did not actually mention the use of the six-year-old.
To ask a child to participate in harming his or her parents in any way is asking for a lifetime of psychiatric care for that child. There are some lines civilized people do not cross.
We have intersection cameras in a local suburb, and the result is that most drivers stop on the yellow light to avoid the risk of a
“camera ticket”. This can and has caused rear-end collisions when the driver behind is not watching carefully enough. At very busy intersections it slows down traffic at rush hours.
I would not have sent the six-year old back into the house. There is nothing wrong in asking the six year-old if he lived in the house in question, and if his dad was at home. You have to remember they were serving a felony warrant.
The ideal situation would have been to have his attorney drive him to booking in light of the fact that negotiations had been made and it seems that some sort of agreement had been reached for a voluntary surrender. Unfortunately that did not happen.
That’s interesting.
I have several times cruised through a stale yellow light to avoid causing a pileup behind me.
This story needs a lot of publicity because it will change the way people drive. A pileup behind me is better than my getting put in jail or losing my home.
This is the part that is making me crazy.
This was wrong on so many levels.
You do not do this to a little kid.