A June 12 press release from the Cook County Attorney’s Office reported that in the case of the State v. Maranda Weber, the Cook County District Court found adequate probable cause to indict Weber and ordered that the case proceed to trial.
A grand jury had indicted Weber on April 22, 2008 on one count of careless driving and one count of failing to drive with due care. Weber’s Border Patrol vehicle struck and killed Gunflint Trail resident Kenneth Petersen as he was attempting to clear a downed tree from the road the night of October 31, 2007. Weber was on duty at the time.
The court order was issued in response to a May 5, 2009 motion by Weber’s attorney, Paul Rogosheske, to dismiss the charges. Rogosheske had argued that the evidence brought to the grand jury was insufficient to establish the charges and that there was not probable cause to bring the case to trial. Judge Kenneth Sandvik did not agree, however.
In a 15-page document, Judge Sandvik weighed evidence that had been presented from both sides, some of which was not released publicly until now.
Sandvik wrote that earlier in the evening of the accident, Weber had assisted a Cook County deputy sheriff in removing a fallen tree from the road, with no evidence of Weber or the officer complying with federal work zone safety requirements. The defense had partly attributed the accident to Peterson’s faillure to comply with the federal work zone safety requirements.
When he stopped for the downed tree, Petersen left both high beam and hazard lights on, donned ear protection, and began to cut the tree with a chainsaw. He was accompanied by Susan Scherer, whose vehicle was parked in the northbound lane behind Petersen’s. When Weber’s vehicle approached, Scherer tried to warn Petersen, but he did not hear her.
Sandvik outlines the report of a state crash reconstruction specialist, which according to the court order concludes that if Weber had noted potential danger when Petersen’s hazard lights became visible in spite of the high beams, she would have had time to stop 50 feet short of the tree even if she took a little over two seconds to react.
On the other hand, Sandvik wrote, “the fatality report also indicated that Petersen’s headlights presented a ‘visual obstruction’ as a result of the positioning of his vehicle. In a series of reconstruction tests, Deputy [Jason] Hanson found that the southbound view toward the tree was obstructed due to the glare of the headlights.”
Sandvik cites defense witness David Daubert, an accident reconstruction expert who testified on May 5. “Daubert concluded that the defendant would not have been able to see the downed tree and Petersen in the road because she would have been blinded by the headlights on Petersen’s car,” Sandvik wrote. “Daubert opined that even though defendant would have seen Petersen’s vehicle’s headlights, she was not negligent in not stopping or slowing down because there was no recognizable hazard.
“…The court finds it notable that while Daubert based his conclusions on the reports of investigating officers and the fatality report of Trooper Hanson, he did not review the testimony from the single eyewitness to the incident.
“…Trooper Hanson informed the grand jury that the defendant’s attention was ‘less than stellar’ and had she reacted to seeing the hazard lights, the accident could have been avoided. …Daubert provided the court with a different opinion. Regardless, the issue is a question of fact to be determined by a fact-finding body.”
According to the court order, the defense argued that the case should be dismissed on the basis of the testimony of the defense’s expert witness, but the judge ruled that “expert opinion testimony need not be given any more importance than other evidence.”
The court order discusses several claims made by the defense attorney regarding statements made during grand jury proceedings that, according to the defense attorney, affected Weber’s defense negatively. The judge ruled that the statements did not hurt Weber’s defense.
The court order concludes with the following: “This court finds that the state has indicated the existence of evidence that, if offered at trial and if found credible by a jury, could support a finding that the defendant committed the crimes of careless driving and failure to drive with due care. Furthermore, the court does not believe that this matter fails [sic] into the category of rare cases where an indictment should be dismissed.”
A plea bargain may be offered. If it is and Weber declines, County Attorney Tim Scannell expects Rogosheske to request a change of venue.
Leave a Reply