I saw someone cross a double yellow line the other day and later remembered this incident so I decided to see if I could find out what ever happened. The investigators bungled the case from the start so he basically just walked with a small fine and probation. I can't imagine how the family of the man who was killed felt about that.
http://www.hmbreview.com/news/reckl...cle_aed9ac1f-1054-5c38-8bb7-54fb9f02ff3a.html
Just a couple years ago, San Mateo County prosecutors were cruising along in their case against Florida resident Robert Rienecker, who they had charged with vehicular manslaughter. The 50-year-old Rienecker, prosecutors argued, sped his Acura sports car down Highway 84, tried to pass another car around a corner and collided head-on with the car of La Honda resident Charles Cutten, killing him.
Now, almost four years after the original incident, following a mistrial, a switch in defense attorneys and multiple investigations from independent experts, prosecutors say they were backed into a corner in late January and agreed to a misdemeanor plea bargain with Rienecker and defense attorney Geoff Carr.
The final tally for Rienecker: three months of probation, plus fines totaling $795.
"They just didn't want to have to say that the original investigation was bungled," Carr said.
Carr took over the case after the mistrial in February of 2006, precipitated when a bailiff improperly spoke with jurors and prosecutors. Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan, who has been on this case since the beginning, said that the mistrial occurred as she was on her final witness. Consequently, the defense saw the county's entire case before having to present any of its own evidence.
Carr said he believed the prosecution's evidence was inadequate from the beginning. "I looked at the case, and there was a glaring problem in the CHP handling of it."
California Highway Patrol officers on the scene misinterpreted tire skid marks in their original investigation, Carr said. That opened the door of reasonable doubt wide enough during the retrial that Carr was able to negotiate the plea bargain.
"Why this ends up being a 'nobody knows for sure' is that they botched the original investigation," Carr said.
"I'd hate to use the word 'botch' when talking about police, but Mr. Carr's comments are not unfair," said Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, who oversaw the case. "It was a bit of a problem. There were very significant mistakes" on the part of the CHP, Wagstaffe added.
As a result, Wagstaffe had to eat the words he spoke after the 2006 mistrial, when he said, "We're confident a crime occurred and that we can convince a jury that it occurred. We're not going to plea bargain it."
Carr presented McKowan with new expert analysis, and McKowan re-examined her evidence. The ultimate issue was whether Rienecker's brakes failed in the accident - a point that prosecutors could no longer prove one way or the other.
"They gave us a different opinion again which basically undermined our theory of the case," she said. "We all still think he pulled out (to pass someone) and that there was not a brake failure … What changed in the final evaluation is that our expert said we could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the brakes did not fail."
Carr said that his expert put Rienecker's vehicle at 44 mph, but McKowan said her experts put him at 53 mph. The speed limit where the incident occurred is 40 mph.
In the end, Carr said that his client, whose legs were broken in the incident, had to retire from his job as an airline pilot, and that he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on his defense.
Members of Cutten's family, McKowan said, attended every court hearing for four years. McKowan also said she explained the reasoning for the plea bargain to them and that they understood.
"We wanted to make sure that the victim's family did not go through all of this for nothing," she said.
and here's the article about the original mistrial:
http://www.almanacnews.com/morgue/2006/2006_02_08.mistrial.shtml
Mistrial in death of La Honda man
A mistrial was declared in the vehicular manslaughter trial of a Florida man last week in San Mateo County Superior Court.
Robert Reinecker, 48, is charged with recklessly racing his car and causing an accident on Highway 84 west of Four Corners that killed La Honda resident Charles Cutten in April 2004.
Twelve days into the jury trial, during a break on February 2, the court bailiff asked jurors if they were having trouble understanding one of the prosecution's witnesses, according to Steve Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney. When jurors said that they were, the bailiff advised the prosecutor to ask her witness to slow down his speech so the jurors could understand him, Mr. Wagstaffe said.
The following day, Judge John Schwartz granted the defense's motion for mistrial based on misconduct by the bailiff, Mr. Wagstaffe said. A hearing is set for February 16 to discuss a retrial.
http://www.hmbreview.com/news/reckl...cle_aed9ac1f-1054-5c38-8bb7-54fb9f02ff3a.html
Just a couple years ago, San Mateo County prosecutors were cruising along in their case against Florida resident Robert Rienecker, who they had charged with vehicular manslaughter. The 50-year-old Rienecker, prosecutors argued, sped his Acura sports car down Highway 84, tried to pass another car around a corner and collided head-on with the car of La Honda resident Charles Cutten, killing him.
Now, almost four years after the original incident, following a mistrial, a switch in defense attorneys and multiple investigations from independent experts, prosecutors say they were backed into a corner in late January and agreed to a misdemeanor plea bargain with Rienecker and defense attorney Geoff Carr.
The final tally for Rienecker: three months of probation, plus fines totaling $795.
"They just didn't want to have to say that the original investigation was bungled," Carr said.
Carr took over the case after the mistrial in February of 2006, precipitated when a bailiff improperly spoke with jurors and prosecutors. Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan, who has been on this case since the beginning, said that the mistrial occurred as she was on her final witness. Consequently, the defense saw the county's entire case before having to present any of its own evidence.
Carr said he believed the prosecution's evidence was inadequate from the beginning. "I looked at the case, and there was a glaring problem in the CHP handling of it."
California Highway Patrol officers on the scene misinterpreted tire skid marks in their original investigation, Carr said. That opened the door of reasonable doubt wide enough during the retrial that Carr was able to negotiate the plea bargain.
"Why this ends up being a 'nobody knows for sure' is that they botched the original investigation," Carr said.
"I'd hate to use the word 'botch' when talking about police, but Mr. Carr's comments are not unfair," said Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, who oversaw the case. "It was a bit of a problem. There were very significant mistakes" on the part of the CHP, Wagstaffe added.
As a result, Wagstaffe had to eat the words he spoke after the 2006 mistrial, when he said, "We're confident a crime occurred and that we can convince a jury that it occurred. We're not going to plea bargain it."
Carr presented McKowan with new expert analysis, and McKowan re-examined her evidence. The ultimate issue was whether Rienecker's brakes failed in the accident - a point that prosecutors could no longer prove one way or the other.
"They gave us a different opinion again which basically undermined our theory of the case," she said. "We all still think he pulled out (to pass someone) and that there was not a brake failure … What changed in the final evaluation is that our expert said we could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the brakes did not fail."
Carr said that his expert put Rienecker's vehicle at 44 mph, but McKowan said her experts put him at 53 mph. The speed limit where the incident occurred is 40 mph.
In the end, Carr said that his client, whose legs were broken in the incident, had to retire from his job as an airline pilot, and that he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on his defense.
Members of Cutten's family, McKowan said, attended every court hearing for four years. McKowan also said she explained the reasoning for the plea bargain to them and that they understood.
"We wanted to make sure that the victim's family did not go through all of this for nothing," she said.
and here's the article about the original mistrial:
http://www.almanacnews.com/morgue/2006/2006_02_08.mistrial.shtml
Mistrial in death of La Honda man
A mistrial was declared in the vehicular manslaughter trial of a Florida man last week in San Mateo County Superior Court.
Robert Reinecker, 48, is charged with recklessly racing his car and causing an accident on Highway 84 west of Four Corners that killed La Honda resident Charles Cutten in April 2004.
Twelve days into the jury trial, during a break on February 2, the court bailiff asked jurors if they were having trouble understanding one of the prosecution's witnesses, according to Steve Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney. When jurors said that they were, the bailiff advised the prosecutor to ask her witness to slow down his speech so the jurors could understand him, Mr. Wagstaffe said.
The following day, Judge John Schwartz granted the defense's motion for mistrial based on misconduct by the bailiff, Mr. Wagstaffe said. A hearing is set for February 16 to discuss a retrial.
Last edited:
