The third annual Shin-Dig Memorial Bike Ride will be held on July 23, 2022.
Shin would have turned 50 on July 26, 2022. Come join us and celebrate Shin and fight cancer!
There are three ride options:
The second annual Shin-Dig Memorial Bike Ride is scheduled for Saturday, June 19, 2021.
There are three options:
I've returned home to California, and have had some time to reflect on the criminal prosecution process, which offered some answers, but left me with some questions, as well.
One question is why and how the driver was released without bail the night of the incidence. He refused to take a breath analyzer test at the site, then was taken to a hospital for urine and blood test, latter of which required an order from a judge. It was at the time unambiguous that the driver was severely impaired, then showing 0.214g/dl, nearly three times the legal limit, many hours after the incidence. It would be easy to speculate that the alcohol level at the time of incidence was much higher, meaning the driver had had more than 10 drinks.
It was not until August 5, 2020, more than two months after the incidence, when he was finally arraigned. Then, he was again set free again, though a warrant was issued then executed on August 9, 2020. He posted a bail on September 16, and was finally equipped with an alcohol detector (SCRAM) and was released.
During the plea hearing, the driver stated that the sobriety date was "8/7" meaning the drive continued to consume alcohol after being arraigned and pleaded not guilty on August 5, 2020. While it is unknown whether the driver continued to operate a motor vehicle, he remained freely intoxicated, and someone continued to serve him alcohol.
So for more than 2 months after the incidence, the legal system allowed him to continue to consume alcohol, endangering himself and others in the society at large.
Prior to the plea hearing, the defense and the prosecutor agreed on a plea agreement, with the defense agreeing to plead guilty to two charges: aggravated vehicular homicide (second degree felony) and OVI (aka DUI outside Ohio, fourth degree felony), to serve 6 years and 30 months for each of the charges respectively, suspended for 30 days to "adjust the medications."
It was a shock to the defendant that the judge sentenced the defendant to an "indefinite term" of 9 years and 8 months minimum, to 11 years and 8 months maximum, with a mandatory term of 7 years and 8 months, to begin serving immediately. The judge had quite a few words to say about the defendant's prior criminal records and alcoholism. In addition, the driver was given a lifetime suspension from operating a motor vehicle nationwide, and a modest mandatory fine of $1,350.
The penalty was at or near the maximum within the sentencing guideline. Section 2929.14 (2)(a) of the Revised Code specifies a minimum sentence of between 2 and 8 years for the felony of the second degree, and between 6 to 18 months for the felony of the fourth degree. With an additional 60 day mandatory term for the OVI charge, the judge thus appears to have arrived at the minimum of 9 years and 8 months. It is not clear to me how the maximum sentence was determined. Section 2929.144 says "the maximum term shall be equal to the total of those terms so added by the court plus fifty percent of the longest minimum term or definite term for the most serious felony being sentenced."
Another question I have is how and why the sentencing guideline for aggravated vehicular homicide compares with other forms of homicide or murder. The vehicle was weaponized, just as many items in our daily lives can easily be weaponized. The incidence was completely preventable and predictable. Someone who drops rocks from an overpass onto the traffic below would eventually hurt someone. Someone who throws lit cigarettes onto a grassy area will eventually start a fire (sorry, it's not a Jewish space laser.) And someone who drinks and drives regularly will eventually cause a collision, just as someone shooting bullets randomly at buildings may eventually result in a serious harm.
Murder is defined in Section 2903.02. To be charged with murder, it must be a homicide on purpose (2903.02 (A)) or as a proximate result of another felony of first or second degree. Since OVI charge was a felony of the fourth degree, as the driver's prior convictions were misdemeanors, the homicide charge was not a murder. A murder has more severe penalties: Section 2929.02. Why wasn't the driver's prior convictions not a felony?
Under the legal framework at present, this case doesn't rise to a level of a murder, although improper discharge of a firearm such as shooting into an occupied building itself is a second-degree felony: Section 2923.161, and discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises itself may be a felony of the first degree, if the action caused serious physical harm to any person: Section 2923.162, and that means a homicide through these means would be a murder.
So, when a non-firearm object is weaponized, the homicide would be of a lesser charge it seems. Regardless of the method and the device used, the end result is the same, and it is probably far easer to weaponize an automobile than to discharge a firearm accurately. Why would a third repeat OVI conviction be a misdemeanor?
As I learn more about the legal framework, more questions will arise.
The prosecutor and the defendant had come to a plea agreement for 8.5 years for vehicular homicide of 2nd degree felony, and OVI of 4th degree felony, to begin serving in 30 days.
The judge had quite a few mouthfuls to say. The defendant was sentenced to 9 years and 8 months to 11 years and 8 months, with a minimum time of 7 years and 8 months, to begin serving today. The latter was particularly shocking, and clearly affected the defendant, as he was expecting to go home for 30 more days.
Come and drop by at the Taproom between 5-7pm today for a gathering. The first pint is on me.
Everything is currently in place for the final hearing to take place. It will take place at 10 am on April 6, at the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court at the Hall of Justice, 224 East Main Street, Lancaster, Ohio.
The plea agreement, negotiated between the defense and the prosecution, will be heard by Judge Berens, and it is expected that the defense will be sentenced according to the agreement, within the sentencing guideline under the Ohio Revised Code Title 29, Section 2929.14.
I will be hosting a gathering at the Taproom from 5-7 pm. Tell whoever is behind the bar that you were Shin's Best Friend (tm) for a pint of your choice. If you wear the Shin's Best Friend T-shirt, there may be a bonus pour. So, just drop by, and say hi.
Ken
Assuming that the hearing on April 6, 2021 goes as expected (ie, the defendant receives the sentence and is hauled off to prison for a long time) I will be hosting a get-together at the Taproom. I am thinking 5-7 pm if the weather is ok.
When you come in, find me hanging out, or tell the person behind the bar that you were Shin's Best Friend (TM) for a pint.
Will confirm again on the day of the hearing.
Ken (Shin's Best Brother)
The hearing for the motion to suppress evidence, originally scheduled for tomorrow was cancelled, and a new hearing for a change of plea is now scheduled at 10 am on Tuesday, April 6, 2021, at the Fairfield County Court, in the East Courtroom.
A plea agreement was reached between the prosecutor and the defense. It is expected to be a short hearing where:
Going through the motion to suppress evidence would have eliminated the possibility of a plea agreement, leading to a full jury trial in May. Needless to say, a lengthy jury trial would not only be extremely costly, but a painful process for Bree and her children. Whatever the plea agreement will be, nothing will bring Shin back, anyway. However, we can move on sooner, whatever that means especially for Bree, Kai, and Ayla, without the pain of reliving the dreadful day for weeks.
I will be coming to Columbus to attend the hearing.
