|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The young driver who ran down and killed a bicyclist in June remains in custody without bail and without entering a plea.
Cody Hall, 19, has been in the Santa Rita Jail without bond since August, when an initial charge of vehicular homicide was elevated to murder.
Hall was driving his 2004 Dodge Neon at an estimated 83 mph, more than twice the speed limit, and passing a car on a double yellow line when he lost control while pulling back into his lane, according to court documents. He struck and and killed Diane Hersevoort, 58, and also struck her husband, Joe Hersevoort, who was left with a broken leg in the crash.
The teen still faces a charge of reckless driving causing bodily injury for striking Joe Hersevoort.
Hall, wearing a yellow jail outfit, was in court this morning, but the case was continued at the request of his attorney, Joe Cox.
“We are still going through the discovery on this matter and it appears there is more discovery,” Cox told Judge Jacob Blea III, who agreed to continue the case.
Discovery is process of exchanging information between two parties in a court case.
About a dozen people showed up for Hall’s appearance. The case has been continued until Nov. 14.
The crash occurred at about 1 p.m. June 9 near Golden Eagle Way.
Hall graduated from Foothill High later that month. He faces 15 years to life on the murder charge and an additional three years and eight months for the reckless driving charge, according to Alin Cintean, a former Sacramento County prosecutor now in private practice.
Karma is a *****. I’m sure his fellow inmates are giving this thin young white man’s neither regions the same regard he gave his victims.
It would be interesting to have an update on the much-delayed Spencer Freeman Smith case, too. He’s the lawyer who allegedly killed an elderly Chinese cyclist in a hit-and-run back in May 2012, but has yet to go to trial.
His legal team was granted yet another delay – for thirty days – at the end of August 2013. I’m wondering what happened when that expired.
William Tell,
While I appreciate that you may have treated young offenders in such a manner in the past, I think a focus on rehabilitation rather than homosexual rape would be more consistent with our current stage of evolution.
Mike
William Tell and Cholo represent the absolute worst of the readership of this forum. Both are embarrassments to themselves and to the community. They must lead very sad, lonely lives.
“The young driver who ran down and killed….”
Has there been a trial? Has he been found guilty? Oh, I see, the PW Editors feel they must provide descriptives that reflect the will of the vigilante-prone community.
A more professional writer no doubt would have said “The young driver who allegedly ran down….”
But here in Pleasanton, our journalistic standards are not very high.
Or perhaps the PW editors are better censors than writers? Who knows?
As far as I can tell, he admitted hitting the woman. From the PW:
http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/show_story.php?id=11428
There’s no question that he hit the woman, the question is whether he’s criminally culpable in her death.
http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/show_story.php?id=11698
“Hall’s vehicle continued northbound out of control, subsequently colliding with two bicyclists traveling northbound in the east bike lane of Foothill Road,” according to a probable cause declaration filed with the court. “As a result of the collision with the two bicyclists, one bicyclist was severely injured and the other bicyclist was fatally injured.”
Rather than abide uncritically with half-elbowed media reports — see, for example, majority of PW stories — I prefer to allow the constitutional process to unfold. You know, that one about every man/woman should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And BTW, for all you vigilantes out there, confessions are often tossed out as inadmissible because they were given under coercion, or before Miranda rights have been read. It’s amazing to me that ‘citizens’ who post on these threads can be so utterly naïve about matters of law and constitution.
Jimmy,
He ran them down. No one is disputing that. Why in the world would anyone say “allegedly”? It would be like saying John Hinckley allegedly shot Ronald Reagan because he was found “not guilty by reason of insanity”
John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan but he was found ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’.
Still waiting for all the facts and testimony to come in on the Hall kid. I suppose a poor education might be your excuse, John. There should be no excuse for such sloppy reporting by PW editors.
If, John, you desire to start finding people guilty for crimes before a trial because YOU think there is enough evidence to convict, well you go right ahead and keep living in that little vigilante world you’ve created for yourself. I expect more from a newspaper reporter, though after reflecting upon PW editorial practices, perhaps I’m expecting too much.
Jimmy,
He did it. No one is disputing that. Why would you defend this peroson? Is it because you agree with his politics? Are you one of his friends. Do you have any idea what “vigilante” means? I guess ignorance could be your excuse, but you need to learn to look up the definition of words before you type them.
Cody Hall ran them down. That is a fact. It would be irresponsible of the Pleasanton Weekly to report otherwise.
Jimmy said: “I prefer to allow the constitutional process to unfold.”
Hey, that’s great. You go on doing that. By the way, does it say anywhere in the Constitution that everyone must abide by Jimmy’s personal preferences?
“You know, that one about every man/woman should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.”
Don’t look now, but we’re not in a court of law here on the forum. Still, you’re quite right. Unless there’s anything in the Constitution about us having the right to free speech or something.
“It’s amazing to me that ‘citizens’ who post on these threads can be so utterly naïve about matters of law and constitution.”
Now THERE is something we both agree on! 🙂
Yes, irresponsible according to an avowed vigilantist. You see, our Constitution is meant to protect individuals from a majority of yahoos who think they know better than the law.
On your view, we don’t need to give individuals their day in court. If enough hearsay is compiled by mediocre journalists (PW Editors), we can simply convict without a trial. You, and apparently even the editors of the PW, would have fit in well with the Southern vigilantists at the close of the 19th and beginning of 20th century.
Politics you say? Dude, you need to get your head examined. Seriously. You can’t even keep your own name straight. (I’m Jimmy; you’re one of the two or three other names you’ve posted under on this thread.)
Jim,
Your heart’s in the right place and I agree with the spirit of your post. To clarify, however, I believe the presumption of innocence refers to the burden of proof. That is, it’s the accuser’s obligation to prove the accusation rather than the accused’s obligation to prove innocence.
Mike
Yes, Ninny, you have a right to your vigilante views, however primitive they happen to be. And a newspaper like the PW has the right to express rightwing, vigilante views if it so desires.
Fortunately, we have laws and a legal process that is meant to protect individuals — all individuals — from the screwy views of their neighbors and the second-rate journalists who comment on cases apparently without even knowing the least bit about people’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, Mike, I agree. My point, irrespective of the vigilantes in our midst, is that a newspaper should refrain from treating unproven allegations as fact until allegations have been proven to be factual in a court of law.
There is no excuse for sloppy journalists to presume guilt before a trial has taken place. This is Journalism 101, which I doubt the PW Editors could pass at any reputable educational institution.
Jimmy,
You said “you’re one of the two or three other names you’ve posted under on this thread.”
No, I’ve only posted under the name John.
I don’t get your point here. Do you really think that is any question whether or not Cody Hall ran those people down? Is there any question in your mind? Is there any question in anyone’s mind?
What does a “court of law” have to do with that question? Even if a “court of law” finds Cody Hall innocent of all charges, that doesn’t change the fact that he ran those people down. Facts are facts. The Pleasanton Weekly is reporting the facts.