Hit and run on the Natchez Trace

[BobO]

Marshall Grant Neely III, 58, has been charged with assault with a deadly weapon, providing a false statement to a federal agent and destruction of evidence. The charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 37 years.

I have concerns. The providing false statements and destruction of evidence are easy, but, neither is likely to carry any serious time in prison. While assault with a deadly weapon may be the appropriate charge, how is the prosecution going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to assault the victim with his car? We can certainly surmise what was going on in his head, and we are probably right that this was a red-mist assault with a car. But, we're not in his head and it's going to be hard to prove.

I would like to see some additional fallback charges centered around negligence which turns his "I didn't see him," defense into a liability.

[Tony Edwards]

Originally Posted by redir

Those are some serious charges. I'll still stand by what I said and wait for the outcome. He's still claiming that he 'didn't see nothin' and I've seen that work as an excuse too many times in our court system.

Interesting that his son basically turned him in. At least someone in the family has morals.

The fact that he removed decals from the back of the car upon returning home, but before his arrest, pretty well nullifies the defense that he didn't know he hit the cyclist in my view, and yes, I am a lawyer.

[kookmyers]

Originally Posted by BobO

While assault with a deadly weapon may be the appropriate charge, how is the prosecution going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to assault the victim with his car?

An automobile is a deadly weapon and he assaulted the rider with it. How is driving into someone (in the conditions shown in the video) not the same as pulling the trigger of a gun? Seems very cut and dry to me.

[BobO]

Originally Posted by kookmyers

An automobile is a deadly weapon and he assaulted the rider with it. How is driving into someone (in the conditions shown in the video) not the same as pulling the trigger of a gun? Seems very cut and dry to me.

For example if I were trying to lie my way out of this;

"I was fixated on missing the cyclist to the right side of the road, I did not see the other cyclist, I'm sorry, it won't happen again."

Deliberately driving into someone is assault with a deadly weapon, we all agree on this. Now, prove that's what he did beyond a reasonable doubt. The risk is that by overcharging him with something that will take some doing to prove to a jury leaves the door open for a not guilty verdict. Take the negligence in the criminal trial, its a lock, and we need victories.

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by BobO

I have concerns. The providing false statements and destruction of evidence are easy, but, neither is likely to carry any serious time in prison. While assault with a deadly weapon may be the appropriate charge, how is the prosecution going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to assault the victim with his car? We can certainly surmise what was going on in his head, and we are probably right that this was a red-mist assault with a car. But, we're not in his head and it's going to be hard to prove.

I would like to see some additional fallback charges centered around negligence which turns his "I didn't see him," defense into a liability.

Copy and pasted from user solo at slowtwitch, the full statement regarding the charges. Seems like they have some pretty good evidence that the hit and run was intentional, and the biggest possible charges are from obstruction of justice:

This is remarkable--subject arrested federally. US Attorney Jack Smith is an IM athlete and active ST member...

Jack Smith

Acting United States Attorney

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

__________________________________________________ _____________________



FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE MAN FACING FEDERAL CHARGES RESULTING FROM HIT & RUN OF BICYCLIST ON NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY


NASHVILLE, Tenn. – July 28, 2017 – Marshall Neely, III, 58, of Franklin, Tenn., was indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury and charged with reckless aggravated assault; lying to a federal agent; and obstruction of justice, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Jack Smith of the Middle District of Tennessee.

The federal indictment is a result of an incident on July 8, 2017, on the Natchez Trace Parkway, where a bicyclist was struck by a vehicle and injured. The driver of the vehicle, later identified as Marshall Neely, III, failed to stop and left the scene of the incident.

“Middle Tennessee is an area where bicycle traffic is abundant and growing daily,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Jack Smith. “Our roads are used both by recreational bicyclists as well as a growing number of citizens who use alternative methods of transportation to get to and from their workplaces. To achieve the sense of community that we all want for our area we must respect the rights of others in our community to live and move about the area. That means drivers of automobiles respecting the right of bicyclists to use our roads and bicyclists respecting the right of drivers to use our roads as well. The wanton recklessness exhibited by this defendant could easily have taken the life of the victim in this case. Such indifference to human life cannot be tolerated as it places all our bicycling citizens in grave danger. Whenever such blatant disregard for our citizen’s safety occurs on roadways under federal jurisdiction, you can expect that this U.S. Attorney’s Office will move swiftly to seek the appropriate avenue of justice.”

According to the indictment, on the morning of July 8, 2017, two individuals were riding bicycles along the Natchez Trace Parkway in Williamson County, Tennessee, when a black Volvo struck one of the individuals from behind. The impact caused the bicyclist to be thrown from his bicycle and he sustained injuries which required him to be transported by ambulance to the Williamson County Medical Center for treatment. Despite the impact, the driver of the Volvo did not slow down or stop but instead, continued on.

As the indictment alleges, the incident was captured on video by a helmet-mounted camera being used by the other bicyclist. This video was later posted to the internet and used to identify the owner of the vehicle as Marshall Neely, III.

Late in the afternoon on July 8, 2017, the indictment alleges that Neely’s son went to the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department and reported that the vehicle that struck the bicyclist belonged to his father and stated that he recognized the “Dartmouth, “Rice,” and “Boston” stickers on the back windshield, as depicted in the video. When law enforcement officers arrived at Neely’s home that evening, the indictment alleges that the Volvo was parked in the grass behind the garage and the “Dartmouth” and “Rice” stickers had been removed from the back windshield. Officers also noted that residue from a cleaning agent was visible on the right front of the vehicle where it had struck the bicyclist.

The indictment further alleges that shortly after observing the condition of the Volvo, officers found Neely in his home and unconscious on the floor. After being roused by law enforcement officers, Neely told the officers that while he was driving on the Parkway, earlier that morning, a bicyclist threw his bicycle at him. The indictment also alleges that Neely admitted to removing the stickers from his vehicle to prevent him from being identified.

Neely was arrested at his home earlier today by U.S. National Park Service Rangers and will appear before a U.S. Magistrate later today.

If convicted, Neely faces 2-12 years in prison on the reckless aggravated assault charge; up to 5 years in prison for lying to a federal agent; and up to 20 years in prison for obstructing justice.

This case was investigated by the National Park Service and the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Beth Myers.

[josephr]

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

Copy and pasted from user solo at slowtwitch, the full statement regarding the charges. Seems like they have some pretty good evidence that the hit and run was intentional, and the biggest possible charges are from obstruction of justice:

I think I like this Jack Smith guy!

[kookmyers]

Originally Posted by BobO

For example if I were trying to lie my way out of this;

"I was fixated on missing the cyclist to the right side of the road, I did not see the other cyclist, I'm sorry, it won't happen again."

Oh! Then you could file suit against the other cyclist for distracting you! It's his fault!

(My comment stems from the recent thread posted about the person who filed suit for pain and suffering for her killing a teen on a bike, or the suit brought against Apple for the FaceTime application being used by a driver that rear ended another car and killed a little girl.)

Your comment directly reminds me of the Seinfeld episode, The Bra.
I apologize for trying to bring humor to a very serious thread.

[kookmyers]

If convicted, Neely faces 2-12 years in prison on the reckless aggravated assault charge; up to 5 years in prison for lying to a federal agent; and up to 20 years in prison for obstructing justice.

Those can be stacked right?

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by kookmyers

If convicted, Neely faces 2-12 years in prison on the reckless aggravated assault charge; up to 5 years in prison for lying to a federal agent; and up to 20 years in prison for obstructing justice.

Those can be stacked right?

From all accounts yes, max 37 years. All about those marginal (incarceration) gains......

[BobO]

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

Copy and pasted from user solo at slowtwitch, the full statement regarding the charges. Seems like they have some pretty good evidence that the hit and run was intentional, and the biggest possible charges are from obstruction of justice:

That is getting to be good news. Like I said, I have concerns, which amount to this scumbag getting away with it on technicalities. I have yet to see anything overwhelmingly compelling to prove that he meant to assault the cyclist.

[HenryA]

The state charges are nothing to laugh at either.

[redir]

Originally Posted by Tony Edwards

The fact that he removed decals from the back of the car upon returning home, but before his arrest, pretty well nullifies the defense that he didn't know he hit the cyclist in my view, and yes, I am a lawyer.

He's been meaning to remove those decal's for a long time now, and since he went out to his car to check on the damage done by that idiot who threw the bike at him he noticed that the bike must have scratched the decals anyway, so he decided to take them off.

Reasonable doubt?

I hope you are right.

[Mr. Pink]

Wow, this is awesome. Thanks for the update. I feel better that there are some prosecutors out there thinking like that.

[shovelhd]

Prosecutors don't hand out sentences, judges do. That's where these deals always fall apart. Let's hope that there is an open minded judge on this case.

[Mr. Pink]

Prosecuters plea deal. Hopefully this guy gets ten years in a jail with nasty people all around him.