My take on the Jessamine County v Cherokee Schill trial:
Note that this is *my own take*, with a couple of caveats: 1) I am not an attorney, nor do I pretend to be one, 2) Because I was a witness during the proceedings, I was not allowed to be in the courtroom until I was called to testify, and I was the next to last to testify, 3) I haven't had time to review the trial transcript with the attorneys involved to get their take on why this or that did or didn't happen. I am not intending to second-guess any decisions made by the attorneys.
At issue were traffic citations under KRS 189.290 and KRS 189.300. "290" requires operators of vehicles to operate "with regard to the safety and convenience of" other road users, and "300" requires operators of vehicles moving slowly on the highway to keep as far to the right as is practicable, a word that is not defined in KRS 189.010.
The County Attorney (prosecutor) was on his game. He kept hammering the point that nobody among the defense witnesses could speak to conditions at the exact moments of the citations BECAUSE shoulder surface conditions were subject to change often and none of us had been there on the day of the citations. As such, he managed to exclude much of the testimony that I was prepared to offer regarding the dangers of shoulder use in general, and indeed almost excluded me entirely as a witness. One result was all but inevitable: the judge was forced to consider the situation as reported by the people who were on site at the times of the citations—the officers who cited Ms Schill.
Never mind that said officers probably had no better training with regard to the dangers of shoulder riding than the average fifteen-year-old male of the human species (a point that, for whatever reason, the judge either ignored or didn't hear, as I don't know whether such was brought up in cross-examination of the officers).
Never mind that even the officers were no better judge of what was practicable at the exact moment they first saw Ms Schill on her bicycle (assuming that the on-road discussions happened at some distance along the road from that initial point on the roadway), a concept that, in hindsight, was not hammered into the judge's consciousness for whatever reason.
I don't have an informed opinion on why the officers' lack of bicycle-specific training wasn't highlighted. I know that in hindsight, I wish the heck I could have gotten in a statement or two to that issue.
Present at the defense table were Cherokee Schill (of course), Chuck Ellinger, Esq., Steve Magas, Esq., and at times David Middleton, Esq. Defense witnesses included John Schubert, myself, and Ms Schill, who testified last.
As for talk of appeal: At this point, Cherokee wishes to appeal. I understand that desire, as I share it. Appeal may or may not be a good choice for several reasons that will be explored with people more knowledgeable about the appeals process than I.
During my own testimony, I was offered opportunity to see photographs from near the site of one of the citations, showing a debris field from what had been a piece of furniture of some sort that had apparently fallen from a passing vehicle. Apparently some prior testimony had been offered along the lines of “I'd ride right over that on my bicycle!” and I was informed of this by the prosecutor after I had said I wouldn't ride through it lest doing so cause me to lose a tire, or a wheel, or have some other crash.
Speaking for myself only, and in hindsight, there are many things I wish had been done differently. Would the outcome have differed? I don't know. One likes to think so.
Note that this is *my own take*, with a couple of caveats: 1) I am not an attorney, nor do I pretend to be one, 2) Because I was a witness during the proceedings, I was not allowed to be in the courtroom until I was called to testify, and I was the next to last to testify, 3) I haven't had time to review the trial transcript with the attorneys involved to get their take on why this or that did or didn't happen. I am not intending to second-guess any decisions made by the attorneys.
At issue were traffic citations under KRS 189.290 and KRS 189.300. "290" requires operators of vehicles to operate "with regard to the safety and convenience of" other road users, and "300" requires operators of vehicles moving slowly on the highway to keep as far to the right as is practicable, a word that is not defined in KRS 189.010.
The County Attorney (prosecutor) was on his game. He kept hammering the point that nobody among the defense witnesses could speak to conditions at the exact moments of the citations BECAUSE shoulder surface conditions were subject to change often and none of us had been there on the day of the citations. As such, he managed to exclude much of the testimony that I was prepared to offer regarding the dangers of shoulder use in general, and indeed almost excluded me entirely as a witness. One result was all but inevitable: the judge was forced to consider the situation as reported by the people who were on site at the times of the citations—the officers who cited Ms Schill.
Never mind that said officers probably had no better training with regard to the dangers of shoulder riding than the average fifteen-year-old male of the human species (a point that, for whatever reason, the judge either ignored or didn't hear, as I don't know whether such was brought up in cross-examination of the officers).
Never mind that even the officers were no better judge of what was practicable at the exact moment they first saw Ms Schill on her bicycle (assuming that the on-road discussions happened at some distance along the road from that initial point on the roadway), a concept that, in hindsight, was not hammered into the judge's consciousness for whatever reason.
I don't have an informed opinion on why the officers' lack of bicycle-specific training wasn't highlighted. I know that in hindsight, I wish the heck I could have gotten in a statement or two to that issue.
Present at the defense table were Cherokee Schill (of course), Chuck Ellinger, Esq., Steve Magas, Esq., and at times David Middleton, Esq. Defense witnesses included John Schubert, myself, and Ms Schill, who testified last.
As for talk of appeal: At this point, Cherokee wishes to appeal. I understand that desire, as I share it. Appeal may or may not be a good choice for several reasons that will be explored with people more knowledgeable about the appeals process than I.
During my own testimony, I was offered opportunity to see photographs from near the site of one of the citations, showing a debris field from what had been a piece of furniture of some sort that had apparently fallen from a passing vehicle. Apparently some prior testimony had been offered along the lines of “I'd ride right over that on my bicycle!” and I was informed of this by the prosecutor after I had said I wouldn't ride through it lest doing so cause me to lose a tire, or a wheel, or have some other crash.
Speaking for myself only, and in hindsight, there are many things I wish had been done differently. Would the outcome have differed? I don't know. One likes to think so.
