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
I did some quick google searching, and it was suggested (although not corroborated, so mountains of salt, etc.) that the defendant might have had a very ugly prior driving record (with run lights, speeding, reckless driving, etc.). Likewise, as suggested above, accident reconstruction (and other witnesses) could have told a very different story than the one told here.
While I am not justifying everything or anything that happened here, it’s usually the case that the “entire system” is not stacked against someone: there’s just more to the story. You have separate police officers, judges, prosecutors, etc., many of whom are acting independently, all behaving like this guy really screwed up.
If I were his spokeswoman, I would consider releasing corroborated details (e.g., the accident investigation showed he wasn’t speeding and that the light was yellow; his driving record is squeaky clean). Maybe there’s a darn good reason that hasn’t happened, but there are a lot of open questions.
Hashtag: cynical attorney.
Read the newspaper report and its links. It appears to be pretty thorough, but…their sympathies are crystal clear. Some comments:
Drive defensively.
I can understand the arguments here, but I still think it was a tragic accident and a very poorly designed intersection. I just can’t ignore that the police on the scene said it wasn’t his fault. There had to have been a good reason the police said that.
I can see taking Meyn’s license away for life, a hefty fine, maybe some community service, but I wouldn’t have put him in prison.
That’s just me.
And the newspaper story sounds like it was drafted by Meyn’s attorney. My sister’s medical career was ended by a guy who ran a red light. If you have to speed up to catch the yellow you can stop instead. She was in a coma 5 days and is still affected by her injuries today. The driver who ran the other light never came to the hospital, never expressed remorse and was, of course, uninsured. You take your victim as you find them. My sister had two brothers who were attorneys at major firms in town. We frankly made damn sure the prosecutors knew they were being watched and demanded charges (misdemeanor charges seemed appropriate to us). He got 30 days in county lock-up with work release and a big chunk of community service time with the judge directing that it be performed at a local facility that treats victims of head trama.
The chump’s attorney complained about “undue influence” and asked why two lives should be ruined. (cont)
(cont)
I was not sympathetic then and I’m not now. There was no malice, but there were several levels of carelessness. He blew through the red after cars in the two adjoining lanes had already come to a full stop, the multi second delay had passed and the green activated for the cross traffic. And he was uninsured.
If he had come to the hospital, cried there (instead of in court) and apologized for destroying my sister’s life, we probably would have let it go. But he showed no remorse whatsoever until he was in court and it was clear to everyone that he was going to get jail time.
I honestly hope that the experience helped him get his head screwed on straight. But if you run a red light and someone is injured or killed, I have no problem with jail time.
Amen.
I read the article and did not find mention of a passenger side impact. (I was confused. I live in Phoenix and, reading further comments on the post, I couldn’t correlate how he was impacted on the passenger side, so I read the newspaper article to verify.)
From the AZ Central article:
@hoyacon, can you tell me where you saw it was the passenger side?
Here’s a map of the intersection (and dry cleaner). Roof turned left from the dry cleaner driveway onto Northern Ave and was going to immediately approach the intersection. Meyn was heading from East to West approaching 12th Street. He must have cleared the intersection before he hit Roof.
We have many corner lots with driveways close to intersections. Usually, I’ll take the other street (12th Street, in this case) and use the intersection to make my left turn or I’ll go right and find a place to make a legal u-turn. Unless it’s super-light traffic, I won’t make a left like Roof did. 7:00 AM on a Monday morning, so rush hour would have been underway. Traffic would be heavy enough that caution (by both parties) should have been exercised.
David made mention of the fact that he understood that the newspaper article may not have all the facts concerning this accident.
My feeling is that there was an opportunity for the newspaper to present this story as a two part article. The first part could have contained a diagram of the accident scene and ended with the arrest of the subject. I’ll call that the what and how of the story. The second part could have focused on the aftermath and the legal proceedings concerning restitution.
The story is a cautionary tale of two families not only devastated by the accident itself, but the financial impact as well. After doing police work, if you want to call this a failing, I always place more importance on the full story than journalists do. That is because making an arrest and depriving someone of their liberty is a serious matter. The arrest even without a conviction can lead to loss of employment as well personal ramifications that do not include monetary loss.
I have one other trait that is left over from police work. Most of the people I encountered on the street would lie to me. In some cases there might be some truth mixed in with the lie. Sorting out the story can require some patience. My somewhat cynical feelings about what I read and hear are my problem. I still ask myself am I getting the full story. I’m getting less cynical, well somewhat less cynical.
You are kinder than I am.
That would be an illegal left turn by Mr. Meyn. He crossed a double solid line.
I have that trait left over from being an attorney. Clients would tell me they’d lie under oath to get out of a traffic ticket. So for $150.00 they’d perjure themselves. I’d either persuade them not to testify, or resign from representation. One of many things that drove me away, and why I believe nothing said, even under oath, from anyone with any interest in something.
The impression I got from the news accounts was that Mr. Meyn was going straight and Mr. Roof was making a left-hand turn coming out of the parking lot of the dry cleaner.
Sorry I had the names backwards.
:)
The only reason that is significant is that Mr. Roof was pulling out into oncoming traffic. My husband and I were talking about this case last night, and my husband said that in Massachusetts, there are only two situations that are clear cut for the insurance companies and police: if a driver rear ends someone, he or she is always at fault, and if a driver pulls out into oncoming traffic, that driver is always at fault. That’s another reason I’m guessing that the police on the scene felt that Mr. Meyn was not at fault, because Mr. Roof was pulling out into oncoming traffic.
I have no idea. I’m guessing I formed an incorrect mental picture of the scene and just transferred it to words. My apologies to you and others for being misleading. The fatality certainly seems more likely when viewed the correct way.
So unless it was a traffic crime, and just not a violation they would pay you x number of dollars per hour to represent them for a $150 fine. That sounds like a resume builder for someone that wants to sit on the budget committee for some government agency.
Well the fact that Mr. Meyn was not cited immediately at the scene might have led Mr. Meyn to believe he was not at fault. All we have is Mr. Meyn’s statement that an unnamed police officer said it was not his fault. The accident investigation would include witness statements as well forensic evidence. Unless Mr. Meyn was intoxicated, did not have a valid license, reg, or proof of insurance it would not be unusual for the police to allow him to leave the scene without a cite. In the case of a vehicular homicide the actual charge may not come until the accident investigation is completed.
This exactly. If there was comparative blame in a civil action we have to be looking at 50 -50 responsibility. Look at the Google map. Roof had to cross 3 lanes of traffic to turn east onto Northern. Who makes a left turn like that? This was a terrible tragedy. Sometimes it’s God’s will. We always wish to assess blame, and most certainly when Roof dies and Meyn lives we tend to drop the hammer on the survivor. It doesn’t do much to blame the dead guy.
I have been in several car accidents…some my fault. The last one I ran a red light in a little sports car and was T-boned by an F150 pick up who, because of the circumstance, never had a chance to hit his brakes before creaming me. Thank God he was not seriously hurt (twisted knee/fully recovered). I broke five ribs and punctured a lung. Yes, I was hit in the driver’s door. I spent a week in the hospital. We all know this–it only takes one second of inattention to change your life.
There was no evidence of drugs or alcohol. In part because he wasn’t tested. The sad thing was that the consensus was that if we hadn’t pushed, it probably would have just gone away.
If I had my way, driving without insurance (or without the financial wherewithal to pay for your mistakes) would be a criminal offense with mandatory jail time. Same with drunk driving – mandatory jail time and you lose your car. But that isn’t what the law is. In so many ways we are not a serious society.
There are really two stories here. The newspaper could have given their readers a look at the nuts and bolts of the investigation of a fatal traffic accident and the process that led to the charges from the DA’s office, and even the process of the decision to issue, and serve the warrant. More importantly their readers would get a look at a specific case rather than a hypothetical case, or worse yet allowing readers to surmise and reach a conclusion based upon TV crime shows.
The second story could deal with the issue of restitution vs. retribution, and the effect that this incident had on two different families.
I think the newspaper story was supposed to be about how the father-in-law lawyer go the law changed so that he, rather than the prosecutor, could present the case for the restitution amount.
Just my opinion, and not specifically related to this story: I was taught growing up, and believe it to be a biblical principle as well, that two wrongs do not make a right. We are all liable, or should be, for the consequences of our actions. If I am involved in a car wreck that would not have occurred if I had been driving absolutely correctly and the other person dies, I am liable. The courts may absolve me but that does not mean doodle squat. Roof paid for HIS error, if he made one, with his life.
If we could go back and ask Mr. Roof to make a choice of his life or a brief stint in prison plus a large fine, what would he choose do you think? Who thinks Meyn had rather he was dead?
Going through life in a state of debt peonage is much worse than a couple of years in the big house. Seeking a pound of flesh won’t bring their boy back. The restitution gambit and the all-to-frequent outrages committed by sheriff’s deputies is the heart of this story, not the different levels of contributory negligence.
Usually it wasn’t their first ticket, and they did not want more stains on their record.
I don’t think I’d be able to be as clear-headed as you and your brother if it had been me. Actually I am positive I’d have pushed for something that wasn’t supported by the evidence. Because my motive would have been revenge, not justice. Good for both of you that you did not let your emotions run away with you.
The day after the accident we had to go recover her personal possessions from her car in the impound yard. By a bizarre twist of fate the other driver was there with a friend doing the same thing. I was not so clear-headed then, but my brothers kept me from confronting him then. Probably a good thing.
That is disturbing. I tried exactly one traffic ticket in my career only as a favor to the client. The client’s testimony and the officer’s matched, but the judge agreed that the conduct described did not violate the traffic code section under which she was cited. No lies.
I have never had a client admit to me that they planned to lie under oath. I may not have given them the chance, though, because I always emphasized that we would in or lose on the truth and nothing but. I had clients suggest it, but I made it obvious that it would be wrong and unacceptable. I have never had to go so far as threaten to withdraw.
This discussion has also brought to my attention another disturbing fact reported in the Arizona Republic article. Mr. Meyn only carried minimum limits of insurance coverage, even though he was making $200,000 per year.
The judge deducted the insurance recovery from the maximum $1 million restitution amount. If Mr. Meyn had carried $1 million in liability coverage (the least he should have had with that kind of income), he would not had had a restitution judgment (assuming the same thinking by the judge).
David, maybe it’s the climate where I practiced, and most clients did not say they planned to lie under oath, but enough did that I had to withdraw a few times. Amazing that people think nothing of asking you to put your career at risk, by suborning perjury, for such a small matter.