Hit-and-run driver guilty of misdemeanors / LJWorld.com

Archive for Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Sentence for fatality accident could be 2 years in jail, $5,000 fine

February 12, 2008

Jurors convict hit-and-run driver with misdemeanor

The man involved in a deadly hit-and-run accident that killed a KU student will not face prison time. Enlarge video

Joshua Walton won't be going to state prison for striking and killing a Kansas University student who had been walking across Kentucky Street in 2006, a Douglas County jury decided Monday.

Walton instead will face up to two years in a county jail sentence and up to a $5,000 fine after being convicted of two misdemeanors: vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an injury accident.

The conviction is for the Sept. 23, 2006, hit-and-run death of KU student Ryan Kanost.

Prosecutors had sought a conviction on two felonies: involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and leaving the scene of a fatality accident. If found guilty, Walton could have been sentenced to prison for more than three years.

"While we're happy with the outcome, this is not a victory for Josh Walton or for us," said Tom Bath, Walton's attorney, after jurors reached the verdict following 11 hours of deliberations that started Friday. "He's very sad, (and) feels a lot of guilt and remorse over the loss of another person's life. : He was prepared to take whatever punishment that the jury decided he should get."

Douglas County District Attorney Charles Branson, who met with members of Kanost's family after the verdict, said he remained confident his office was correct in taking the case to trial.

Branson conceded that getting a felony conviction would require the jury to decide that Walton either had been driving under the influence or had been grossly negligent in operating a motor vehicle.

"Anytime you have a DUI case where you do not have blood results or breath results, that makes those cases difficult," the district attorney said.

The accident occurred in the early-morning hours as Kanost walked across Kentucky Street at 13th Street. After Kanost was hit, Walton drove off to meet friends, telling them he thought he had hit something but didn't know what it had been.

Walton went to the police station the next day, after hearing Kanost had been killed on Kentucky Street.

"We're always going to take these cases to trial," Branson said after the verdict. "We're always going to let the jury decide the accountability factor for the defendant in these cases. And in this case, they chose vehicular homicide : and that's something that we'll have to deal with and live with."

Branson said he would seek the maximum possible jail term and fine when Walton is sentenced at 10:30 a.m. March 24. Each charge Walton was found guilty of carries a fine of up to $2,500 and a jail term of up one year.

Robert Dewhirst, who served as jury foreman, said jurors faced a difficult task in weighing the varying testimony of different eyewitnesses.

"Everybody knew what happened," Dewhirst said of the witnesses. "Nobody was really clear on exactly what happened, so we had to make a lot of inferences."

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

12 February 2008
at 7:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

moderation (Anonymous) says…

We need a new DA. Branson is a politician and always will be. This case was poorly presented and poorly litigated by an inexperienced DA's office. The guy even admitted that he hit and killed the victim and that he had been drinking that night before driving. This was no victory for the cause of justice.
12 February 2008
at 7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…

moderation…?
12 February 2008
at 8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

Umm, would part of his punishment be the loss of his license for a period of time - say forever and talking to students about drinking and driving. And if he is caught drinking and driving again, ever, the book should be thrown at him.
12 February 2008
at 8:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

krt (Anonymous) says…

I would like to repeat what I posted last night:

None of us can know exactly how this accident happened. But we need to realize that a traffic fatality is a tragedy - for all involved and those who care about them. Clearly no one intended for Ryan to die that night.

Many of us who have need to drive on Kentucky or Tennessee in the dark have experienced suddenly seeing a pedestrian - getting in or out of a car, or crossing the street - and thinking “Oh **** I almost hit that person.” Or as pedestrians we have experienced the other side - not realizing how close we would end up to an approaching car.

There is no question that Josh suffers the consequences of being the driver and knowing Ryan's life has ended. No legal consequence can bring Ryan back. And although Josh is still alive, this tragedy has changed him forever.

It's time for reflection and healing, including providing support for Josh - or we risk losing a second person to that tragic accident. Please don't help that happen.
12 February 2008
at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…

robdew - thank you for your service, especially given that you likely didn't 'volunteer' for it. Sadly, though, these seem to be the deductions we can take from this case:

1) It is not necessary to accept responsibility for actions or results after knowingly abusing alcohol or drugs. (Did someone force him to be there, or was he there of his own accord?)

2) If you are involved in an accident after abusing drugs or alcohol, leave the scene to avoid a blood/alcohol test.

3) Concoct a story about how it is someone else's fault that you were under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (Did someone force him to drink to excess?)

4) Claim you are remorseful.

5) Have the jury draw inferences that favor the defendant and not the victim.

6) Make sure the accident occurs in Douglas County.

7) Forget that life is precious, that you only have one opportunity at it, and it's OK for someone else to take that from you, all in the name of being delusional.
12 February 2008
at 10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

1029 (Anonymous) says…

Good thing he left the scene. That seems to have really paid off for him.
12 February 2008
at 10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Puggy (Anonymous) says…

It's a “Jump to Conclusions” mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor… and would have different conclusions written on it that you could JUMP TO.

That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.
Yes, this is horrible, this idea.
So STOP jumping to conclusions.

12 February 2008
at 10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fatty_McButterpants (Anonymous) says…

Wow, just imagine…he's going to be trapped in a sentence for up to two years. I hated grammar class, but I NEVER had to face up to two years in a sentence; let alone one involving a county jail!

“Walton instead will face up to two years in a county jail sentence and up to a $5,000 fine after being convicted of two misdemeanors … ”
12 February 2008
at 11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kugrad (Anonymous) says…

No matter how you want to spin it, the posters above are absolutely correct, this guy is getting a lesser sentence because he fled the scene of an accident. Why did he do that? Because he was drunk and knew he was in trouble.
Sure, he didn't mean to hurt anyone, but he didn't try to help after the accident, he fled. Now he gets off with a conviction that does not match the crime and a lighter sentence than someone who stopped and tried to help the victim would have received. Quit apologizing for this guy, he left the scene and he knew what he did.
12 February 2008
at 1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

Anon cheeseburger:

“1) It is not necessary to accept responsibility for actions or results after knowingly abusing alcohol or drugs. (Did someone force him to be there, or was he there of his own accord?)”

Mr. Walton reported to the police station on his own the following morning. The video of the officers interviewing him that morning showed they believed he was doing the right thing, albeit later than he should have. Further, the evidence as to the amount and nature of his intoxication was seriously lacking. Both sides agreed there was impairment, but differed greatly on the extent and specifically the physiological effects of the intoxication (alcohol or otherwise).

Walton did the right thing, later than he should. The evidence of his intoxication was no more clear than “some drinks, over a couple of hours or more.”

“2) If you are involved in an accident after abusing drugs or alcohol, leave the scene to avoid a blood/alcohol test.”

This specific scenario (to be more general — “rewarding criminals for fleeing”) was discussed during deliberations. A criminal is always free to attempt evasion of authorities, and that may or may not affect the punishment of the crime. I do not believe it affected the final verdict in this case.

“3) Concoct a story about how it is someone else's fault that you were under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (Did someone force him to drink to excess?)”

The defense offered a plausible but mostly unsubstantiated alternate explanation of one of the ways Walton could have become intoxicated. It was weighed accordingly. He did not specifically fault anyone else for his alcohol or drug use.

“4) Claim you are remorseful.”

The evidence presented during video interviewed did demonstrated Walton was genuinely remorseful. I believe every member of the jury would agree to that point, though they may not agree to the extent of his remorse.

“5) Have the jury draw inferences that favor the defendant and not the victim.”

I would imagine this is what every defendant of any crime does.

“6) Make sure the accident occurs in Douglas County.”

Er, ok.

“7) Forget that life is precious, that you only have one opportunity at it, and it's OK for someone else to take that from you, all in the name of being delusional.”

Er, ok.
12 February 2008
at 1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

“Good thing he left the scene. That seems to have really paid off for him.”

Actually, no. It clearly counted against him. At one point in deliberations it was beginning to look like the only crime he would be convicted of was Leaving the Scene.
12 February 2008
at 1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

“No matter how you want to spin it, the posters above are absolutely correct, this guy is getting a lesser sentence because he fled the scene of an accident.”

No, he is getting a lesser sentence because the State (for a variety of reasons) did not satisfy their burden of proof for the Involuntary Manslaughter charges.

“a lighter sentence than someone who stopped and tried to help the victim would have received.”

Um, huh?

[Disclaimer: I was on the jury, but do not speak for all of them.]
12 February 2008
at 1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kugrad (Anonymous) says…

And they couldn't satisfy that proof because he fled the scene of the accident so there was no blood alcohol level.

If someone stopped to help, they would have been able to prove that the person was drunk and would have charged them as such.
12 February 2008
at 2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

“And they couldn't satisfy that proof because he fled the scene of the accident so there was no blood alcohol level.”

No, and if you had reviewed all the evidence as I have, you would understand that clearly.

“If someone stopped to help, they would have been able to prove that the person was drunk and would have charged them as such.”

That's a hypothetical situation and I doubt anyone involved in any aspect of this case would consider it relevant.
12 February 2008
at 2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

Clarification: BAC has no relevance to prove Involuntary Manslaughter.

12 February 2008
at 2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

My one big question is -
How do you NOT know that you hit a person?
12 February 2008
at 2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…

robdew….you must be his attorney….this guy DID in fact make a decision to kill this boy. I do not now nor will I ever feel sorry for someone who willfully and knowingly gets in a car a drives that 4000 pound weapon.
I hope this guy does suffer for it the rest of his life, the family cant bring back their son, they cant being back their grandson, brother…never gonna happen….sorry rob….cry me a river….
12 February 2008
at 2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

geniusmannumber1 (Anonymous) says…

Let's see…whose perspective to believe…the person who sat in the jury box for a few days and had access to all relevant evidence, hours to consider, weigh, and reweigh that evidence, and who at the end of the day have to live with the consequences of their decision…or the usual gaggle of LJW posters who read a few hundred words containing selective (and often inaccurate) quotations coming from LJW reporters (who time and again have proven an inability to understand basic facts about the criminal justice system) and consider themselves informed.

Hmm…what to do…
12 February 2008
at 2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…

gee…I dont know genius…..lets see….there was a murder with a vehicle, the victim was left ALONE on the street to die, and now the perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist……humm what to do………..
12 February 2008
at 2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

mom_of_three:

“How do you NOT know that you hit a person?”

This is a question most of the jurors asked themselves over and over again, but that's not the way the evidence works. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did know.

And in fact, we found him guilty of knowingly hitting a person and causing injury.
12 February 2008
at 2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

ksdivakat:

“you must be his attorney”

No, I was the jury foreman.

“this guy DID in fact make a decision to kill this boy”

The *prosecution* didn't even assert this during their case, so I am not sure how you can.

“sorry rob:.cry me a river”

I am answering questions in these comments specific to the facts of the trial, and to offer insight into the jury's decisions. At the point when I start to sense personal attacks based on the verdict, I will leave.
12 February 2008
at 2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

“there was a murder with a vehicle”

Not even the prosecution asserted that a murder occurred. This was not a murder trial.

“the victim was left ALONE”

No, the victim was surrounded by friends (I can even remember several first names) and other witnesses.

“on the street to die”

The victim was found well off the street, where his body struck a standpipe. The forensic evidence indicated he was most likely killed instantly.

Are we even talking about the same trial?

I know you're upset, but making stuff up doesn't help Ryan Kinoche.
12 February 2008
at 2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

Sorry, Ryan Kanost.

12 February 2008
at 2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

Robdew,
thanks for the clarification. Just from reading above, your job and that of the jury must have been hard. He says he thought he hit something after he drove to a friends house, but didn't know what. I find that hard to believe, but then I am thinking as a parent and a responsible adult. My mind wants to conclude that he was drunk out of his gourd to not know what he hit, but turned himself in the next day out of guilt and knowing he would be caught anyway. I want to think the worse about this person, because this was an unconciousable act of leaving the scene of an accident, and I could not have sat on the jury.
12 February 2008
at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

geniusmannumber1 (Anonymous) says…

1. “there was a murder with a vehicle”
No, there wasn't. You have absolutely nothing to support this statement.
2. “the victim was left ALONE on the street to die”
Were you there? Didn't think so.
3. “the perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist”
Your opinion. Seems pretty reasonable, for a misdemeanor. I mean, if you have evidence that he committed a more serious crime…well, you would have been a witness. But you weren't. You got your information from a couple of LJW articles. Which is almost as good as nothing.

So, you're entitled to your opinion. Just as I'm entitled to disregard it as utterly ill informed and lacking foundation in facts and/or reality, and to seek out a source of information that, at least at first glance, seems reliable.
12 February 2008
at 3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…

ok, then here are some specific questions…..1-was the clown driving a car?
2-did the clown admit to drinking?
3-was someone murdered with a car?
4-did that victim lay in the street and die …alone?
5-did that clown turn himself into police because he was innocent? (turning yourself into police would make one believe that a crime had been committed.

I actually feel sorry for you rob, Im not saying that shotty prosecution isnt to blame here, im sure it is, but think about the victims family…..the victims life was reduced to nothing…courtesy of douglas county, lawrence ks….and just so you know, I have no sympathy, my husbands father was killed by a drunk driver who also left the scene and my father in law had to have his face attached back to his skull with toothpicks! THis is a tragedy anyway you look at it, and i hope the family of the victim will appeal this decision due to incompetense.
12 February 2008
at 3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

mom_of_three:

Your instincts are much in line with what everyone felt.

In reviewing Walton's video interviews with the police, I don't believe he thought he would “get caught anyway”. His remorse was belated and certainly he shouldn't have left the scene, but I don't recall even the State asserting he turned himself only because capture was inevitable.
12 February 2008
at 3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

I don't recall any mention for empathy of the accused being discussed during deliberations. No one felt sorry for Mr. Walton.
12 February 2008
at 3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…

ok genuis….enlighten us! Just what did happen to the victim?? Where was he found? WHo found him? what did they do with him? was he alive when they found him?
Sorry I have to call a spade a spade, the jerk knowingly and willfully got behind the wheel of a car and drove while he was drunk! How can you defend that?? Even if there would have been no crime how can you defend drunk driving?? And that comes from the murderers mouth….”he was so drunk he didnt know what he hit” is one to assume that some one held a gun to his head and made him drink? and then furthermore, held that same gun to his head and made him drive…..poor fella, he was skeered for his little life, from the big bad bullies who MADE him drink and then made him commit a murder with that car!
12 February 2008
at 3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

krm (Anonymous) says…

“In reviewing Walton's video interviews with the police, I don't believe he thought he would “get caught anyway”. His remorse was belated and certainly he shouldn't have left the scene, but I don't recall even the State asserting he turned himself only because capture was inevitable.”

Robdew, was Walton's call to a friend after knowing about the death to ask whether a body shop would ask questions about how damage occurred discussed by the jury?
12 February 2008
at 3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

geniusmannumber1 (Anonymous) says…

Hee hee, where to start:
1. “Just what did happen to the victim?? Where was he found? WHo found him? what did they do with him? was he alive when they found him?”
I don't know. I wasn't there. Nor was I at the trial. Neither were you. That's my point.
2. “The jerk knowingly and willfully got behind the wheel of a car and drove while he was drunk!”
How do you know that? You weren't there. You weren't in the court room. Yes, he drove. Yes, he was drunk. Knowingly? Willfully? How do you know?
3. “How can you defend that?? Even if there would have been no crime how can you defend drunk driving??”
Where on earth did this come from? Who's defending drunk driving? If you can't distinguish between a defense of the indefensible and somebody pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about, then that sort of proves…that you don't know what you're talking about.
4. “And that comes from the murderers mouth:.”he was so drunk he didnt know what he hit”“
Is that an exact quote? The accused kept referring to himself in the third person? That must have confused the jury. Oh? You're just making that up too? Also, you keep using words like “murder” and “murderer”. Either you do not know what this word means, or you and I are talking about two entirely different court cases.
5. “Is one to assume that some one held a gun to his head and made him drink? “
No. Again, my point is that you shouldn't make assumptions. Especially when they're not based on fact, even a little.
6. “Sorry I have to call a spade a spade”
I am not sure what this refers to. It doesn't make sense in the context. I'm sorry if this pains you. I wasn't calling you out personally, as you did me. But while I'm here, I guess I can just vent a little frustration at the 90% of the people in the world who form opinions about things without thinking first.

12 February 2008
at 3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

ksdivakat says,
“then made him commit a murder with that car!”

There's a big difference between murdering someone and an accident resulting in someone's death.

You're showing your extreme prejudice because of a personal tragedy you experienced. When you lose your ability to remain objective and fair, as you are here, it's time for you to seek help or grow up! It's sad what happened to your father-in-law and what happened to Ryan, but you're losing your mind over there.

There are some equally traumatic things that have happened in my life, but I still find a way to keep my perspective and composure. Please leave robdew alone, ksdivakat.
12 February 2008
at 3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

krm:

Yes, the call asking his friend Kyle “does the body shop ask questions?” was definitely discussed.

I don't remember the specifics but it wasn't discussed extensively. It didn't prove much except that he *might* have made an initial steps to conceal evidence. I didn't go much further than that. This would have played into the crime of Leaving the Scene, but it occurred well after he had already left the scene.

There just wasn't a place in the puzzle where that piece fit. It was good clear evidence, but it didn't really move the severity of the charges in either direction, based on our definitions of the charges.
12 February 2008
at 3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

krm (Anonymous) says…

robdew:

Was Kyle's statement about Walton falling out of his chair at the bar and Kyle's trying to prevent him from driving when he left the bar not considered evidence that he was too impaired to drive?
12 February 2008
at 3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

Robdew, thank you for your insights and service on the jury. Far too many people always try to get out of jury service, and then are the first to criticize the system for not working the way they'd like.

To all those 2nd guessers who are critiquing the outcome, let me just say that rarely are facts presented in the newspaper all inclusive, let alone all accurate. Robdew was there for the whole trial, and even more so for the jury deliberations. Only someone who can say the same can really speak to what was (and was not) presented or considered during the course of this trial. He is giving you some good information, whether you like the outcome or not. If you do not like how the system works, talk to your lawmakers about changing current laws.

I want to encourage all who express opinions on these boards to TRY to stick to accurate facts and when expressing a personal opinion not to be mean about it. This world is full of half-truths and mean spirited attacks. And we then wonder why it seems so hard to find peace. If you are unhappy, please do not take it out on strangers.
12 February 2008
at 3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…

robdew says:

“A criminal is always free to attempt evasion of authorities, and that may or may not affect the punishment of the crime. I do not believe it affected the final verdict in this case.”

The DA says:

“Branson conceded that getting a felony conviction would require the jury to decide that Walton either had been driving under the influence or had been grossly negligent in operating a motor vehicle.”

Rob - I must say it is extremely difficult for me not to believe that, had Walton stayed at the scene, he would have easily tested above the legal limit for intoxication, and therefore the misdemeanor would have been a felony, according to the DA. So how can it be said that his leaving the scene did not affect the verdict in this case?

It's a darn shame that our judicial system seems less predicated on truth and facts, and more on who can get the best (or sleaziest) lawyer to plant all sorts of hypothetical bs in the minds of jurors. Makes one wonder why we bother swearing people in anymore when it sometimes seems to boil down to who can concoct the best stories and excuses.
12 February 2008
at 4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

krm:

Walton falling out of his chair was mentioned, but to most of us it didn't really prove anything. Especially considering there was no other (that I recall) credible testimony about Josh's motor skills. There was actually testimony he had no problem walking.

Personally, I have fallen out of chairs at the same bar over working lunches where no alcohol was involved.

Kyle's statement to Josh as he got in the car (and Josh's response) was definitely one of the most lucid, credible and crucial pieces of witness testimony. Whether or not this was enough to prove impairment was a very contentious point during deliberations. When considering the statements of most people involved that evening, only a few had no alcohol at all, and Kyle wasn't one of them. It's not that we didn't believe Kyle, but we had to weigh his testimony accordingly.
12 February 2008
at 4:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

cheeseburger:

The DA is close, but not entirely accurate. That may be a misquote or he may just be simplifying the law for whomever was quoting him.

We were not allowed to simply convict Walton of DUI. We were allowed to find Not Guilty, Vehicular Homicide, Involuntary Manslaughter, or Inv. Mans. + DUI.
The burden of proof to convict of the most severe charge involves much more than simply proving he was intoxicated.

This is probably going to be repeated ad nauseum in the comments here, but believing Walton probably or even likely did something and the State proving the same beyond reasonable doubt are NOT the same thing.
12 February 2008
at 4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

Thank you for your service to us, robdew. It is clear to me that you did the absolute best that you could with what was given to you and I, for one, salute you, sir.

12 February 2008
at 4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fatty_McButterpants (Anonymous) says…

Robdew: So tell me, how do you feel being legally liable for discussing the personal issues, evidence, criminal history, etc. that was disclosed at the trial, but only after you took an oath, all in the name of answering the bloggers on the LJWorld??

Have fun with that, by the way.
12 February 2008
at 4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

Fatty:

If you could expound upon what you mean by “being legally liable for discussing…” I might be able to answer your question.

This is far from fun.
12 February 2008
at 4:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

flock:

I appreciate the thanks. I was but one of twelve, and the others on the jury did their best as well.
12 February 2008
at 4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…

Rob -

I appreciate your attempts to answer the questions posed here. I don't necessarily agree with what is said, but my disappointment is not with you personally; rather our laws, penalties, and the system as a whole.

I do wonder if our prosecutors did the best possible job they could, but it's likely you cannot comment on that.
12 February 2008
at 4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

moo (Anonymous) says…

Kudos, rob. Thank you for all the calm explanations. I, like many people here, was very upset when I first saw the verdict. My little sister and her schol hall friends walk past that intersection at about that time nearly every weekend night, so my emotional response to the case definitely resulted partially from the knowledge that poor Ryan could have been any number of people I know and care about. The relatively light conviction hurts for the family of the victim and anyone who felt emotional about the case. (LJW reporting geared towards increasing these emotions at the expense of fact doesn't help either.) However, as you said, that does not mean that Walton should be convicted if the evidence isn't there.

I do feel sorry for Walton. He's going to have to live for the rest of his life with the fact that he screwed up big time, in a way most of us can't imagine. I think he deserved a more fitting punishment, but Rob has demonstrated that the jury was thoughtful and responsible. We cannot throw our legal system to the wayside simply to punish one kid who made a very very bad decision.

To Ryan's family and friends: All of our sympathy in this very difficult time.
12 February 2008
at 4:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

geniusmannumber1 (Anonymous) says…

“Robdew: So tell me, how do you feel being legally liable for discussing the personal issues, evidence, criminal history, etc. that was disclosed at the trial, but only after you took an oath, all in the name of answering the bloggers on the LJWorld??

Have fun with that, by the way.”

I imagine that he probably feels pretty good about himself. I would, if I were him. The “personal issues, evidence, criminal history, etc.,” is public record. You could have taken your fat little butterpants down to the courthouse and heard all that yourself. And a juror only takes an oath not to discuss the case until deliberations begin, and once deliberations are complete, the jurors are free to talk about whatever they want, with whomever they want. So at the end of the day, Rob's doing a public service, and you're still a nitwit. So have fun with that.
12 February 2008
at 5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…

Call me insensitive, but my first thoughts aren't what Walton is feeling. I think about the things Ryan and his family are forced to miss out on - getting married, having children, having a career, the parents enjoying their son and his family, and so on. Walton chose to put himself in a situation whereby this type of result was highly possible. Personally, I think he should have longer than a maximum of two years to sit and think about his poor choices.
12 February 2008
at 5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kugrad (Anonymous) says…

Well Rob, you are right, I don't have enough information then. However, some of my presumptions came directly from inferences or statements made in the article in the LJW. The prosecutors seem to make it pretty clear that they couldn't get blood alcohol evidence since the driver left the scene and that, with that evidence, they feel they could have made a stronger charge stick.

It certainly appears that the driver benefited from leaving the scene of the accident rather than staying put and helping the victim (and being subsequently arrested and tested at the scene).

12 February 2008
at 5:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…

I've been guilty of thinking (and hoping) that Walton would get the maximum sentence of two years in jail and a $5,000 fine. I forgot - this is Douglas County - he'll probably get probation for taking a human life!
12 February 2008
at 5:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

A123 (Anonymous) says…

krm:

If you know so much regarding this case…maybe you should have testified. Until then back off.

Robdew, thanks for defending the jury, this should not have to happen in any case.
12 February 2008
at 6:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

local_support (Anonymous) says…

So a sober person thought they might have hit something but instead of stopping to find out what they instead called their friend to ask if a body shop would “ask questions” about the damage?

The jury got it completely wrong on this one.
12 February 2008
at 6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

misseve (Anonymous) says…

Just a small and perhaps a snide comment about our local newpaper. Dont take what is printed as truth or even half-truth. They tend to sway the articles printed. As a paralegal student, i have had to sit through trials for classes and what is presented in court and what is printed in this paper is like apples and oranges. Rob glad you were on that jury and can “enlighten” some of the sideline jurors.
12 February 2008
at 6:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

local_support:

Your understanding of the timeline is way off.
12 February 2008
at 7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says:

“My one big question is -
How do you NOT know that you hit a person?”

[And others who have asked this question]

Many years ago a friend of mine struck and killed a person with his car. It was late at night and on a highway very similar to 59 south of Lawrence, no lighting and a 55 mph speed limit. There were several people walking along the side of the highway, all dressed in dark clothing (the girl who was struck was wearing all black), and the victim was well off the shoulder into the travel lane. The impact accordianed the front fender (of a late 60's Pontiac made of real steel, not tinfoil). Yes, he knew he hit something, but not what - he had never even seen the people walking, and didn't know if it was a person, deer, dog, or particularly large pothole. Even the people walking with the victim, including the one who had his arm broken from being hit by the girl who was struck by the car, did not realize exactly what had happened or that she had been hit - her body was found quite a distance away in a ditch. Until they found her they thought the car had tossed up a piece of road debris that hit the guy in the arm.

I'm not defending the driver in this case for not stopping and finding out (my friend did - it was without doubt the worst experience of his life), and I believe that was an offense he was convicted for.
12 February 2008
at 7:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kidmystic (Anonymous) says…

please, please, please friends or family of ryan don't take this as anything but a question. i have lost a lot of people close to me and i know this might seem out of line, but for us to understand the whole story i have to ask (cause I have no idea), what do we know about the victim's BAL at the time of the incident? I'm asking b/c it was early in the morning, in the student ghetto. was he at a cross walk? all the info i've heard has been about the driver.
12 February 2008
at 7:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kidmystic (Anonymous) says…

also, robdew, thanks for coming on here and answering questions. anyone who gets their info from the LJWorld alone has no right accusing you or the defendant of anything. as someone who is close to graduating law school, i can assure you that what goes on in a court room, and the facts of any case, are never near what we see in the media or close to the ideas we get from Law and Order (which, sadley, is what gives a lot of people the idea that they understand the legal system).

also, much love and prayers to ryan's family. a lose like that never goes away and the pain they have felt is hard to even comprehend.

12 February 2008
at 8:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kidmystic (Anonymous) says…

*(sorry about spelling, typing in class, multi-tasking)
12 February 2008
at 8:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

kidmystic:

The forensic pathologist testified for the State that his estimate of Ryan's BAC at the time of the accident was 0.08. This was based on both blood analysis and fluid in the eye.

Witnesses placed Ryan on or very near the crosswalk at the time of the accident. The police mapped out debris and other crime scene evidence with sophisticated tools. They produced a diagram of the scene after the accident from this mapping.

It was clear from the combination of the eyewitnesses and the police analysis that if Ryan wasn't on the crosswalk, he couldn't have been very far off.
12 February 2008
at 8:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kugrad (Anonymous) says…

Thanks Robdew for clearing some things up and keeping us all honest.
12 February 2008
at 9:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mediagal (Anonymous) says…

By the way…a tow truck driver with 15+ years experience towed Walton's car that night and had no idea that he had hit a person.
12 February 2008
at 10:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

local_support (Anonymous) says…

local_support:

Your understanding of the timeline is way off.

Please do enlighten me Rob. Did he call his friend before or after he hit something?
12 February 2008
at 11:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

robdew (Anonymous) says…

local_support:

Your understanding of the timeline did not place events out of order, so your followup question is highly confusing.

You stated that Walton called his friend instead of stopping at the accident. There were about 8-10 hours between the accident and the call to his friend.

Consider yourself enlightened.
13 February 2008
at 6:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Budgyrl (Anonymous) says…

I think it's very sad that justice was not served. To kill someone when you were drunk and get 2 years… Reading the Manhattan Mercury last night a man got 15 years for assault, & kidnapping and WILL be going to prision and his victim is still alive. Ryan gets killed and this guy gets two years in the county jail and a fine??? What's wrong with this picture??? Maybe Mr. & Mrs. Kanost should of tried Mr. Walton in Manhattan. There's alot of people who can't believe what Mr. Walton got away with.
13 February 2008
at 6:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Budgyrl (Anonymous) says…

One thing i would like to know is, “who does Mr. Walton know in high places to get away with such a light sentence”???? People say he's the one who has to live with it for the rest of his life, that don't matter to him cause if he gave a damn about what he did he would of turned himself in that early morning instead of waiting. And i don't give a damn what Ryan's BCL was, he was NOT behind the wheel as Mr. Walton was.

13 February 2008
at 8:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“what Ryan's BCL was,”
Hmmm. So someone sporatically and haphazardly making unpredicatable movements would not be at least partial fault?

ksdivakat : “I do not now nor will I ever feel sorry for someone who willfully and knowingly gets in a car a drives that 4000 pound weapon.”

So do you walk everywhere?
Maybe you mean drive after drinking.
Do you drink?
Don't answer some other question, but answer, Do you drink?
13 February 2008
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Budgyrl (Anonymous) says…

gr~
And F.Y.I. no i do not drink….But thanks for asking. You want to tell me it's fair that Mr. Walton only faces up to 2 years in a county jail???
I think it's a bunch of B.S. what he's getting away with. His own friends admitted he was drunk.
13 February 2008
at 5:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Actually, that was directed to ksdivakat. That's the reason it was under his quote.

What was directed to you was, should a pedestrian making unpredictable movements be held at least partially responsible.

Try reading again with less emotion.
13 February 2008
at 9:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Budgyrl (Anonymous) says…

gr~
Sorry, guess i am letting my emotions get the best of me. It just really pisses me off that something this fatal can be dealt with so lightly…
14 February 2008
at 1:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

youareanidiot (Anonymous) says…

Rob-
Sounds like Josh's lawyer really made a strong impression on you. Tom Bath is an excellent lawyer with a reputation for being able to make DUI issues go away. Tom Bath had such a strong impression on you that you've posted dozens of comments that sound a lot like his jargon. He told you that because there was no way to know Josh's blood alcohol level you couldn't hand him a felony….so you gave him the slap on the wrist that he explicitly asked you for. I don't blame you, Rob, like I said, Tom Bath could sell ice to an Eskimo.

However, If Josh's family couldn't have afforded Mr. Bath , things would have gone differently.
1. Falling out of your chair while drinking at bars.
2. Driving recklessly and hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
3. Supposedly not being aware of the fact that you just hit a 6'3” grown man and threw his body 100 feet in the direction you were traveling.
4. Scheming about the likely hood that you won't get caught if you can fix your car without raising any eyebrows.
5. Realizing that you will eventually be identified as the hit and run driver and turning yourself in long after any booze is still in your system.
6. Remembering that your family is rich enough to afford a good lawyer and that without any “hard evidence” that you were actually drunk maybe your high dollar lawyer can convolute the whole situation enough to make 1 - 5 look a little less obvious.

I'm Sorry Ryan.

Oh yeah, Rob… you've fallen out a chair before, eh? And you weren't drunk were you? You were at lunch with co-workers. Well, have you ever fallen out of your chair while you were at a bar at 1 am, then driven your car so poorly you killed someone? Yeah, you're right… that doesn't “necessarily” mean he was consuming alcohol.

“when Walton voluntarily submitted to an interview with police the next day, he said he thought he had grabbed another person's drink at the bar by mistake “because he blacked out, went into a delusional rage”“

Guess you gotta be drinking if say you're grabbing drinks and drinking them, huh.

He probably ordered an apple juice, but it just so happens to look identical to bud light. That's an honest mistake.
14 February 2008
at 10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Budgyrl (Anonymous) says…

Why can't anyone see money got this guy off…
14 February 2008
at 2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

youareanidiot (Anonymous) says…

Money for a good defense, and a flawed justice system are what I see as the principle factors which lead to such a gross injustice. I have a hard time imagining a situation where there could have been more evidence pointing to involuntary manslaughter. Unless of course, if the driver of the vehicle stopped to help and the victim and their BAC was known. At some point you have to decide what “reasonable doubt” actually translates to in the reality that you're confronted with, rather than swallowing whatever a good defense attorney pushes down your throat.

Yeah, maybe it's possible to hit a person with your car and not notice it. Maybe… If you drive with your eyes closed and you have ear plugs in… and your body is numb enough not to feel any vibration, AT ALL. Or…maybe… if you're really, realllly, drunk. I suppose if you were drunk enough you might not have the presence of mind to realize what had happend.

I'm not posting this just because I'm some opinionated jerk. I might actually be a jerk, but jury foreman Rob has plastered himself all over public media making nonsensical remarks about his reasoning and role in the sentencing of Josh Walton. I really didn't want to think about this injustice, but Rob decided to attach his face to it, and open himself up for an inappropriate 15 minutes in the spolight. None of the other jury members have openly discussed their role in the trial. I bet they haven't done so because they realized that it could enrage members of the public. So, Rob, if you ever read this…Thank You for serving jury duty. I disagree with almost everything I have heard you say. Most of all though, I despise the fact that you are running around saying it like we're about to go to a commerical break at Judge Judy's courthouse and now it's your turn to tell the guy with the microphone whether you like the plantiff or the defendent. I even feel a little sick that I'm writing this to you on the same public medium. Well… I like I said, I'm probably a jerk.
15 February 2008
at 10:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mills (Anonymous) says…

“None of the other jury members have openly discussed their role in the trial. I bet they haven't done so because they realized that it could enrage members of the public.”

In your own words, youareanidiot, you give a reason to appreciate robdew. You may not like the verdict that was delivered, but many posters here have been asking for explanations and citing erroneous 'facts.' That robdew would give more of his time to this case and do his best to better explain the facts of the case and communicate the reasoning of the jury in spite of the flaming he is receiving here is miraculous. Having been given all of the facts in this case, robdew and those on the jury were the most qualified to make a judgment. He should not have to hide away or be ashamed of his part in the proceedings.

15 February 2008
at 11:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…

youareanidiot (Anonymous) says:

“1. Falling out of your chair while drinking at bars. ”

Since you evidently know so much about it, please tell us, at what BAC does one fall out of a chair? Is it at .08? 1.20? Or only .05? You've never seen a person fall out of a chair or try to sit down and miss the chair stone sober? I have.

“2. Driving recklessly and hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk.”

You were a witness? You saw him “driving recklessly?”

“3. Supposedly not being aware of the fact that you just hit a 6'3” grown man and threw his body 100 feet in the direction you were traveling. ”

I'm glad this has never happened to you. I know it hasn't happened to you, or you would know that it is very possible to hit a person and not know it.

“4. Scheming about the likely hood that you won't get caught if you can fix your car without raising any eyebrows.
5. Realizing that you will eventually be identified as the hit and run driver and turning yourself in long after any booze is still in your system.”

Or maybe when the alcohol was gone judgment returned.

“Yeah, you're right: that doesn't “necessarily” mean he was consuming alcohol.”

I don't believe that fact was ever at issue. But the law doesn't say it's illegal to drive after you've consumed alcohol, it says it's illegal to drive with a BAC above .08, and _that_ is what was impossible to establish.

“At some point you have to decide what “reasonable doubt” actually translates to in the reality that you're confronted with, rather than swallowing whatever a good defense attorney pushes down your throat.”

At some point you have to follow the law, not punish someone without sufficient evidence just because you want to, and it is the job of the defense to make sure that's what happens.

“I'm not posting this just because I'm some opinionated jerk.”

You sure do a heck of an impression of one.

“Well: I like I said, I'm probably a jerk.”

You got my vote.

Rob went out of his way, and took a lot of heat, to try to explain why the jury reached the decision they did, the only decision that fit the facts. Not the emotions, not the cries for vengeance, the facts of the case. He could have just kept silent and let people wonder about the decision, but he didn't. And something tells me that you have a personal stake in this and nothing would have made you happy.
15 February 2008
at 11:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godfather94 (Anonymous) says…

Is this the same story where there was three people crossing the street, and Ryan was in the back. The two friends looked back and he was not there. Here's my point. A normal driver (not impaired) would have started slowing down seeing people crossing. Why is this state of Kansas so easy on criminals. Another slap on the wrist.
19 February 2008
at 4:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Budgyrl (Anonymous) says…

For the last time MONEY is what got this kid off…. He knows he's guilty and deserves to do time not R & R in the county jail….Be any one of us without money we'd be doing years in prision…..
19 February 2008
at 5:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Buggie7 (Anonymous) says…

Rob is doing this for attention. Thats all the big guy who believes he can get attention off anothers death and court proceedings. This guy was drunk. he knew it so he went home. he knew he would be caught so sobered up and went into the police station the next day. He is at fault because he got behind the wheel in the first place. If he didnt know what he hit then why the guilt to go to the police the next day. For a juror to come on here and outpour is just wrong not sure about unethical although it seems it should be. Not that we dont appreciate the service but hey if I was a part of getting this guy off I wouldnt want to be the one on here talking about it.
3 March 2008
at 2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

diogenes (Anonymous) says…

What everyone can agree on here is that an unspeakable thing happened to someone who was, by all accounts, an excellent young person with a bright future. One cannot imagine the agony his family and friends must feel.

What people cannot agree on is what state the driver was in, how fast he was driving, what he knew about what happened that night, and why he did not stop.

Some posters who are justifiably outraged or brokenhearted about what happened to Ryan have made some leaps in logic. They state with certainty just what did happen, what the driver did and thought, and what he should receive as punishment. Some have said that the jury was duped by a wizard of a defense attorney.

But a defendant in this or any case finds himself facing the full power of the state—the combined forces of the police and the prosecutor's office—all with one goal: to prosecute and punish that defendant to the full extent of the law with every resource at their disposal.

In many parts of the world, a defendant would face the Napoleonic Code (presumed guilty) or worse. Our founders, in their wisdom, gave us a Constitutional right to a trial by jury of our peers along with a presumption of innocence until proved guilty. They understood the perils of vigilante justice and untrammeled desires for revenge. Unless those rights are honored for each and every one of us, they have no value.

In this case, the jury was composed of twelve citizens who had no personal stake in the outcome. Their job was to hear, weigh, and decide on the evidence presented. That, barring evidence to the contrary, is what they did.

They could not make assumptions of the type made by posters who declare their apparent omniscience, their power to know what the driver consumed, what he perceived at any given instant, what he was thinking when he said or did this or that.

From all accounts available, there was no convincing evidence that the driver had consumed enough alcohol to be legally intoxicated. He apparently had some alcohol over a period of hours, hours in which food also was presumably consumed. The testimony of people who were with him, according to what has been printed here, was reasonably consistent and seemed credible on that point. Apparently his behavior was unusual prior to leaving the bar, but his motor faculties seemed normal. (The foreman mentions a plausible—but not fully considered—alternative theory to intoxication, presumably an accidental drugging, something posters have noted does happen hereabouts.) Apparently, also, there was no way to gauge from the evidence what the rate of travel was. This evidence is what the jury had to go on.

What it boils down to in this horrible matter is that the jury had to decide the case on the evidence presented, not on speculation.