Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hung Jury in Cyclist's Death; Prosecution Considers Retrial
Madison.com ^ | June 29, 2006 | Mike Miller

Posted on 06/29/2006 2:40:55 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin

Assistant District Attorney John Norsetter said today he has not decided whether to retry a traffic homicide case that ended Wednesday night with a hung jury after 12 hours of deliberations.

"I don't know," Norsetter said this morning when asked whether he will bring the case against Tracy Sorum, 30, of McFarland, back for a new trial. "We have to look at how the evidence came in in this trial and reflect on the likelihood there would be a significant positive change for the prosecution if we tried it again."

Sorum was driving down Hope Road near his hometown of Cottage Grove on June 30, 2005, when his car struck and killed Jessica Bullen, 29, who was on a bicycle. Sorum told jurors he was suffering from strep throat and felt he had something lodged in his throat. He testified that he took his eyes off the road, opened his mouth and looked into the rear-view mirror to see what the problem was.

Before he looked back to the road, he struck the rear of Bullen's bicycle. Although she was wearing a helmet, Bullen suffered a severe head injury and died July 3.

In closing arguments to jurors on Wednesday and in an interview today, defense attorney Stephen Eisenberg said: "This was just an accident." Neither Norsetter nor Eisenberg was surprised at the outcome and Eisenberg said, "I just hope they don't try it again."

At issue for jurors was whether Sorum's taking his eyes off the road for a few seconds - estimates ranged from 4 to 12 - constituted the type of substantial negligence that would justify a conviction for homicide by negligent use of a motor vehicle.

There were early hints that the case was going to be a difficult one for jurors. Around 3 p.m. Wednesday, after about four hours of deliberations, the jurors sent a note to Judge Patrick Fiedler saying the jury was split 6-6.

Fiedler responded by bringing jurors into court and reading what is called the "Allen Instruction," in which the judge exhorts jurors to reach a decision in the case.

Jurors went back to deliberate and later sent out several notes, asking to see Bullen's damaged bicycle, for a clarification of some definitions and for 12 copies of the jury instruction defining homicide by negligent operation so each juror would have one during deliberations.

At about 10:30 p.m., Fiedler brought jurors back into court and told them they had three options: breaking for the night; continuing deliberations; or declaring an impasses. He sent them back to the jury room to decide which option they would choose, and 10 minutes later they said they were hopelessly deadlocked.

One source said the breakdown at that time was 10 votes for acquittal and two for conviction.

There was little dispute at trial over the facts of the case and it was left to jurors to decide whether Sorum's actions "created a risk of death or great bodily harm," which was "unreasonable and substantial," and that he should have been aware that his actions were creating such a risk.

Norsetter said Bullen's family was disappointed in the outcome, while Eisenberg said Sorum "just wanted it over."

"He has to live with the fact he killed this woman," Eisenberg said of his client. "He wanted it over, but he understands that this is better than a conviction. I still don't think you'll find 12 people in Dane County who will convict on this one."


TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: banbicyles; getbikesofftheroad; murder
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last
Wow. Can you even imagine being in this situation? Which one of us hasn't done the same, taking our eyes off the road for 4-12 SECONDS? It takes me longer than that to turn around and smack the kids in the back seat! (Just kidding!)
1 posted on 06/29/2006 2:40:59 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

I know. I agree with you.

I gotta think most all of us have done something like this at one time or another. But for the grace of God (or some other deity of your choosing), nothing like this has happened to us.


2 posted on 06/29/2006 2:45:55 PM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
From what I'm reading here, this was an accident.

Accident's happen but in today's legal world, it isn't about justice. Prosecutors are looking to get a conviction at all costs.

3 posted on 06/29/2006 2:47:26 PM PDT by CrawDaddyCA (Tancredo 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
It is negligent.

I've heard of much worse instances of driver behavior.

There was one guy who was completely on the wrong side of a double yellow line on a state highway. He killed a man coming the other way and injured the man's wife.

And he had the nerve to sue the state!
4 posted on 06/29/2006 2:48:15 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
Which one of us hasn't done the same, taking our eyes off the road for 4-12 SECONDS?

I dunno. Maybe half a second, but not 4-12.

5 posted on 06/29/2006 2:48:43 PM PDT by scan59 (No matter where you go, there you are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

At 60 mph, a car travels 88 feet in a second -- 1,056 feet in 12 seconds.


6 posted on 06/29/2006 2:49:08 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
But 12 seconds is a long time to be blind while driving. Watch it on a clock and imagine not looking at the road that long. Here's an experiment NOT to do. Next time you are driving, close your eyes for 12 seconds and see what happens. You've got to hit something most of the time unless you are the only guy on a road in Montana.
7 posted on 06/29/2006 2:51:18 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
If 12 Seconds is okay, would it be okay to take your eyes off the road for 15, 20, 30 or 60 seconds?

What do you think is the maximum amount of time one can safely take their eyes off the road?
8 posted on 06/29/2006 2:54:27 PM PDT by H. Paul Pressler IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Yes, that's about a quarter of a mile. That's too long not to know what's in front of you. I can see it taking even longer than 12 seconds to position the mirror and get the light just right to look inside your mouth. Accidents do happen, but this is just irresponsible.


9 posted on 06/29/2006 2:55:42 PM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

I think if you take your eye off the road at all, you are at risk. I KNOW we all do it, but two seconds max is about all that's tolerable. In most things, four seconds isn't much time, but it is when you're driving a car. I've recently taken up bicycling again, and I'm remembering how dangerous it is. A cyclist has to be on the alert for EVERYTHING.


10 posted on 06/29/2006 2:57:07 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

You need to work on your backhand. ;)


11 posted on 06/29/2006 2:57:27 PM PDT by CougarGA7 (There are no trophies for winning wars. Only consequences for losing them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scan59
I'm with you--that seems like an awful long time to have your eyes off the road...and what the hell was he expecting to see in the back of his throat using the rearview mirror?? I think this is more emblematic of the state of mind of today's drivers: cars are more safe, therefore I can do stupid s**t behind the wheel, like try to look down my throat in the rearview mirror, and not get killed. Well, at least he realized his desires.
12 posted on 06/29/2006 2:59:37 PM PDT by randog (What the...?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA; All

Yep. I agree. Driving is a dangerous thing. But, compared to what others do with their vehicles (drunk and drugged driving, car surfing, etc.) sometimes an accident is just an accident.

He'll be "paying" for this forever in his mind. I still re-live the dog I accidentally hit and killed when I was a teen. And I'm no wuss, but thinking about accidentally killing that dog still ties me up in knots. I can't imagine having to live with killing a human being.

On the other hand, it took 'The Law' SIX DRUNK DRIVING OFFENSES to finally throw my SIL's lousy @ss in jail. She'll get out in 3 more years, and I guarantee she'll drink and drug herself and drive again.

What are lawyers thinking? You rarely see a DUI case in this state; a condition which it completely preventable. Drinking? Don't drive! Duh!

And yet they want to prosecute people for honest to goodness accidents? That's not right.


13 posted on 06/29/2006 3:00:11 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

Hoo boy. These car vs. bicycle threads always get juicy.


14 posted on 06/29/2006 3:01:02 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7

LOL! Or just carry my tennis racket with me in the front seat?


15 posted on 06/29/2006 3:01:06 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Oh, yeah. I knew the "Holier Than Thou" crowd would show up quickly. ;)


16 posted on 06/29/2006 3:01:51 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
He testified that he took his eyes off the road, opened his mouth and looked into the rear-view mirror to see what the problem was.

Very careless. Negligent? I don't know how the law is written. If it was that bothersome, he should have pulled off the road.

17 posted on 06/29/2006 3:02:10 PM PDT by Flyer (Don't question the questioner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

4 seconds is way too long, unless you are going 5 mph. 12 seconds at highway speeds is just an eternity. He may as well have gotten in the back seat.


18 posted on 06/29/2006 3:02:39 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
He took his eyes off the road for 12 seconds to do some kind of medical examination on himself. What if he was has suffering from hemorrhoids and decided to examine himself while driving? Would that be okay?


He killed someone and should go to jail.
19 posted on 06/29/2006 3:03:22 PM PDT by H. Paul Pressler IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: H. Paul Pressler IV
"What do you think is the maximum amount of time one can safely take their eyes off the road?"

I don't know, but I know that if every driver in the country shut his eyes for 4 - 8 seconds, there'd be hundreds of thousands more accidents than there already are, on a daily basis.
20 posted on 06/29/2006 3:03:32 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson