5 Years in Prison for LA Doc

[bocarider]

The judge gave him 5 years:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/cyclist-sentenced.html

Fair sentence ATMO

[MattTuck]

It seems fair, but what do I know?

My entire exposure to the legal system is law & order. 5-15 years is usually what they talk about for some type of loss of life, sometimes less than 5.


I think it is a strong message to send. Five years is a long time.

[torquer]

I'll bet he was cryin'... thinking about the honeymoon suite at the greybar hotel!

[tim11]

Well, 5 years is some pretty serious time. Not that isn't deserved.

We had a hit-and-run (no death) out here in Colo. last summer and the driver just pled guilty. He faces up to 9 years, apparently, because he was drunk at the time and had kids in the car.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14146633

[azrider]

He'll be out in twenty days.

Brutal.

[Ahneida Ride]

na 25 days !

[Louis]

Edited !!!!

Edited

[rugbysecondrow]

Ray, this is pretty disgusting. Why post something like that here?


I don't get it?

[azrider]

I don't get it?

Google it.

[Ahneida Ride]

Ray, this is pretty disgusting. Why post something like that here?

Louis

You are so correct ... I had no idea ... Honest !!!

I just thought it meant "same ole tune" ...

Shows ya how much I know of the vernacular ...

I just google it ... Very Disgusting ...

it is what frn, brifter, etc. was replaced with across the hall.


I just assumed it was gibberish for same ole tune.
I'll never assume anything again.

I sincerely apologize. and I am very embarrassed.

[Kevan]

It might be a good idea to add comment about the facebook site that is spouting cycling hatred, including the link, if possible. Just saying.

[Keith A]

Thanks for posting this. BTW, here's VeloNews report with a few more details...
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/01/news/l-a-road-rage-doctor-gets-five-years_102274

[rugbysecondrow]

Google it.

disregard

[BumbleBeeDave]

" 'I would like to apologize deeply, profoundly from the bottom of my heart,' he told the three cyclists." (From the VN story)

. . . how this guy is suddenly so sorry when he finally faces heavy prison time.

" 'I would like to apologize deeply, profoundly from the bottom of my heart,' he told the three cyclists."

Does anyone know how much time this guy will REALLY be likely to actually spend in a cell from this date forth? Does he get credit for time already served? Does he get time off for "good behavior?" Or working in the prison infirmary? How likely is an appeal?

"Thompson spent much of the hearing in tears, as the three cyclists testified about the incidents that ultimately led to Thompson’s conviction."

Cry me a river, Doc . . . :butt:

BBD

[Ahneida Ride]

Hey BBD

WE know how much time he'll get ...

I figure between 1 and 2 years ...

[rugbysecondrow]

" 'I would like to apologize deeply, profoundly from the bottom of my heart,' he told the three cyclists." (From the VN story)

. . . how this guy is suddenly so sorry when he finally faces heavy prison time.

" 'I would like to apologize deeply, profoundly from the bottom of my heart,' he told the three cyclists."

Does anyone know how much time this guy will REALLY be likely to actually spend in a cell from this date forth? Does he get credit for time already served? Does he get time off for "good behavior?" Or working in the prison infirmary? How likely is an appeal?

"Thompson spent much of the hearing in tears, as the three cyclists testified about the incidents that ultimately led to Thompson’s conviction."

Cry me a river, Doc . . . :butt:

BBD

The sad thing is how utterly senseless it was. How the ripples might be felt across numerous families because this guy decided to be a violent with a deadly weapon. He can't even claim he was drunk and it was a mistake...he did it on purpose. For that, he deserves what he gets, the victims he attacked deserve this semblance of justice, but it is not a happy occasion nor a time to rejoice.

[Tom Byrnes]

I was glad to see that "Justice" was served and I felt sorry for both the two victims and the foolish doctor and his family and friends.

I was at the LAX Courthouse this morning to hear the argument and Sentence. However, I arrived too late to get inside the courtroom. When I arrived, the courtroom was already completely full and the bailiff would not let anyone even open the doors. The Judge had transferred all of the other matters on his calendar to a neighboring courtroom, so all of the people present were there for Thompson's Sentencing. I estimate that there were fifty-seventy interested people milling around outside of the packed courtroom.

After the Sentencing, I saw Thompson's attorney, Peter Swarth, and a few of the doctor's close friends. Obviously, they were quite sad and despondent. Many people were crying and consoling each other in the hallway. Surely, the doctor, by his angry and reckless actions, has severely damaged not only his own life, but the lives of many others.

As an attorney, I assess a significant amount of responsibility of today's lengthy prison sentence to his attorney.

I also attended the Trial on a few days. There was a marked difference between that trial and today. Gone was the attorney's thinly veiled smugness and cockiness that were present during the trial. Dr. Thompson did not show any remorse or genuine regret at the trial. At that time, he was out of custody on bail and arrived each day surrounded by family and friends. (He had already relocated to Florida before the trial began. Florida has laws that help insulate a debtor from claims and judgments - witness O.J.)

Today, was quite different. He has been in the Men's County Jail since his conviction and he was humble and remorseful now. He apologized today -- a little late.

I believe that the Doctor foolishly thought that what he did on that fateful day was not a crime. That his conduct was markedly different from all of the other criminal defendants that are charged with Mayhem and Assault with a Deadly Weapon with Great Bodily Injury (both deemed "Violent Crimes" under California's Three Strikes Law). Both of those serious offenses carry mandatory prison sentences, to be served at 85% [no 50% time off for good behavior].

Why I place some fault on his attorney is because both he and his client arrogantly thought a jury would not convict him. And that arrogance and the lack of remorse were evident during the trial. At no time did the attorney approach the district attorney and attempt to work out a plea bargain arrangement that would have avoided the costly and public trial and that would have resulted in a much less severe punishment. Given the doctor's potential exposure if convicted, the failure to even attempt to settle the case borders on malpractice, imho.

What made me feel "good" about the doctor's sentence was that the doctor was treated like most other persons in the criminal justice system convicted of similar crimes. I feared that he would not be treated as harshly as the courts routinely treat many of the youthful offenders I represent who have been convicted of much less serious matters. I was relieved that the doctor did not get a probationary sentence (County Jail), suspended prison sentence or other very lenient sentence. In such a visible case, an unreasonably lenient sentence would send the message that people of privilege are treated more favorably by the Justice system.

To answer BBD's question: The doctor will have to serve five years at 85%, meaning he can earn a maximum of 15% credit or reduction for "good time". He will get credit for the few months he has been in custody since the jury verdicts. I do not believe that there is any reasonable chance that an appeal would be successful. Doesn't mean his attorney won't file one.

The only "winners" have been the justice system and the public's more heighten awareness for cyclists and motorists. Let's hope that heighten awareness is not too fleeting.

[ti_boi]

Really sounds like the good Doctor needed MEDs.

[Ahneida Ride]

Thanks Tom !

[Louis]

the doctor was treated like most other persons in the criminal justice system convicted of similar crimes. I feared that he would not be treated as harshly as the courts routinely treat many of the youthful offenders I represent who have been convicted of much less serious matters

Agreed. Rich white guys usually get the benefit of the doubt.

[Tony Edwards]

Why I place some fault on his attorney is because both he and his client arrogantly thought a jury would not convict him. And that arrogance and the lack of remorse were evident during the trial. At no time did the attorney approach the district attorney and attempt to work out a plea bargain arrangement that would have avoided the costly and public trial and that would have resulted in a much less severe punishment. Given the doctor's potential exposure if convicted, the failure to even attempt to settle the case borders on malpractice, imho.

I am an 11-year lawyer myself (including several years as a military prosecutor and defense attorney - I now practice commercial litigation), and licensed in California and Minnesota. With all due respect I think this comment is out of line. You have no way of knowing whether his attorney approached the prosecutor to discuss a deal, nor do you have any idea whether Dr. Thompson ever expressed any interest in a plea agreement (based on your own description I doubt he did). Obviously if Dr. Thompson wasn't interested in a plea deal, there's no way his lawyer could have made that happen. It's unprofessional for you to comment on the proficiency with which this case was handled in the absence of this information (though you are certainly entitled to your opinion of the performance you personally observed).

As for the disposition of this case, I am comfortable with the sentence and feel it represents a fair penalty for the crime Dr. Thompson committed. I imagine this conviction will have a severe, perhaps fatal effect on his ability to be licensed as a physician and certainly on his ability to be hired as one - in that sense this may be a death sentence for his ability to practice medicine. IMO the punishment fit the crime in this instance.

[Louis]

It's unprofessional for you to comment on the proficiency with which this case was handled

Because it just would not look right to have one lawyer criticizing another. ;)

Protect your own and we'll all be the better for it is what they say.

[Sandy]

I am an 11-year lawyer myself (including several years as a military prosecutor and defense attorney - I now practice commercial litigation), and licensed in California and Minnesota. With all due respect I think this comment is out of line. You have no way of knowing whether his attorney approached the prosecutor to discuss a deal, nor do you have any idea whether Dr. Thompson ever expressed any interest in a plea agreement (based on your own description I doubt he did). Obviously if Dr. Thompson wasn't interested in a plea deal, there's no way his lawyer could have made that happen. It's unprofessional for you to comment on the proficiency with which this case was handled in the absence of this information (though you are certainly entitled to your opinion of the performance you personally observed).

As for the disposition of this case, I am comfortable with the sentence and feel it represents a fair penalty for the crime Dr. Thompson committed. I imagine this conviction will have a severe, perhaps fatal effect on his ability to be licensed as a physician and certainly on his ability to be hired as one - in that sense this may be a death sentence for his ability to practice medicine. IMO the punishment fit the crime in this instance.

As you are a lawyer and I am not, you would know if in fact it is not legal or ethical for a lawyer to discuss a plea bargain deal, with others, during or after a trial. If that is not the case, then I would think that Tom might have obtained that information while at the court or in discussions about the case. He may have heard about what did or did not occur from another source. I have interacted with Tom relative to a legal matter, and found him to be extremely competent. I would doubt that Tom would make the statements he did without a substantial basis.

Perhaps you may have been a bit quick in accusing Tom of being unprofessional and stating his comment was out of line, as you may not know the totality of what occurred. You seem to criticize Tom because he did not know enough facts to say what he did. You might be doing that.

I say the above respectfully, as a layman, and as a friend of Tom.



Sandy

[Tom Byrnes]

[QUOTE=Tony Edwards]You have no way of knowing whether his attorney approached the prosecutor to discuss a deal, nor do you have any idea whether Dr. Thompson ever expressed any interest in a plea agreement (based on your own description I doubt he did). Obviously if Dr. Thompson wasn't interested in a plea deal, there's no way his lawyer could have made that happen. It's unprofessional for you to comment on the proficiency with which this case was handled in the absence of this information (though you are certainly entitled to your opinion of the performance you personally observed).


Tony -- YOU'RE WRONG!!

I do know about the defense attorney's failure to approach the prosecutor. I have personally known the prosecutor and her husband, a former prosecutor and now-Superior Court Judge in LA County, for more than ten years and we had face-to-face discussions and exchanged emails about the amount of evidence, credibility of the victims and Dr. T as witnesses and the absence of any defense attempt to resolve the case short of trial on a few separate occasions. Both the prosecutor and her husband expressed to me their disbelief and surprise about how the case was handled by the defense attorney, especially given the doctor's own statements and behavior.

I have commented on this trial and mentioned this particular topic previously. Right after the guilty verdicts in early November, I posted information about the lack of contact with the DA's Office on the following thread. http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=66214&page=2&pp=15&highlight=Mary+Stone

Apparently, you did not see it.

I have been an attorney for almost 34 years. I would not have made my comments about the defense attorney without having discussed those specific matters with my friends.

Seems like you wrongfully "speculated" that I was "speculating" about the lack of defense efforts to settle the case. :)

[Climb01742]

tom, thank you for the thoughtful analysis. and i, too, hope that one good thing can come out of this: that drivers are more aware of the precarious nature of the driver/rider "relationship". i know it's wishful thinking but i hope the prospect of real jail time could make drivers more careful. either that or a t-shirt that says: Hit me and get 5 years.

[Tom Byrnes]

. . . I would doubt that Tom would make the statements he did without a substantial basis.
. . . .
I say the above respectfully . . . . as a friend of Tom.

Sandy

Sandy -- Thank you, my friend. You are right.

Louis - Thanks for your comment. I will elaborate a bit.

I "criticize" or fault the defense attorney because I believe that his client would have received a much lighter sentence (possibly even suspended prison with community service with a plea to a non-strike offense) if there would have been an early acceptance of responsibility and genuine showing of remorse. The evidence against him was strong, but no one in the DA's Office thought that a guilty verdict were a slam dunk. The DA probably would have settled the case for less than a strike conviction for fear that a jury, in spite of the strong evidence, would side with the motorist and against the cyclists. But, the defense attorney never approached the DA to explore the possibility of settling the case. I know this information from my own conversations with the trial DA and her husband.

At his Sentencing, the Doctor openly accepted responsibility and apologized to his victims for the first time. Even without admitting guilt or accepting responsibility, he could have and should have shown some remorse for what occurred and concern for his victims much earlier.

Obviously, it's easy for me or anyone else to look back in hindsight and comment or criticize what the attorney did or did not do after the fact. However, the strongest evidence against the doctor were his own comments, admissions and behavior right after the collision and should have created enough concern for the doctor and his attorney to at least explore the possibility of a pretrial resolution.

I believe that the defense attorney and the doctor completely misread how the jury would view the doctor's own damaging admissions and his behavior at the scene of the crime and his behavior and demeanor during the trial. And as a result of those mistakes, his client will spend a much longer time in state prison than he otherwise would have, imho.

Tom

P.S. Many criminal defense attorneys in LA feel the same as I do about how this case was handled.

[jpw]

A reader comment to the LA Times report of the case and sentence;

"Doctor, you did ok hitting the brakes and causing the collisions. But once the cyclists are down, you need to back up and make sure you finished the job, then get the heck out of there. You are basically doing time for getting caught failing to follow through."

I think I'll leave the bike at home when I visit America.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . but it is not a happy occasion nor a time to rejoice.

. . . about this. I will leave that to others on the various web pages and message boards where I have seen much, MUCH stronger expressions of "rejoicing."

But I also don't feel ANY sympathy for this guy for whatever punishment he has to endure. The stoking by the media and PR flacks and pundits of that sympathy for convicted felons--particularly well-off (like this guy) or "celebrity" convicted felons--is one of the factors that has contributed to what I strongly feel is a decline in appropriate sentencing for serious crimes--again almost entirely for "celebrities" or the rich. These are the very people who are in the public eye and serve as the examples that lead to real deterrence effect.

That's a regular opinion for me. It is not reserved for this guy. For this guy I hold a special place. He clearly intended to do what he did. He clearly did not think there was anything wrong with doing it. He clearly thought the trial was a joke and didn't take it seriously. He clearly had done stuff like this before. He clearly had no remorse. He clearly would have had no remorse even if he had hurt these guys worse--or even killed them.

And he did all of this--with intent, with violence and with no remorse--to cyclists. By proxy to me. That's me out there in lycra riding down that road. That's my friends out there on a beautiful spring day riding past Ballston Lake. Or descending Lake Desolation Road at speed. And that's you out there navigating the streets of Philly, or cruising the farm roads of Missouri, or enjoying the view of the Rockies from east of Denver as you cruise down the highway shoulder.

It's all of that. So that's why I am glad this guy got convicted and don't feel one single atom of sympathy for him. I don't rejoice at his sentence or the pain to his family or friends. But I DO rejoice that a message is finally, finally beginning to get sent to all drivers through the media coverage of this trial that it's not OK to do things like this to cyclists simply because we are there.

BBD

[jpw]

Change the law. All accidents are the responsibility of the vehicle driver and not the cyclist. Simple.

[rugbysecondrow]

. . . about this. I will leave that to others on the various web pages and message boards where I have seen much, MUCH stronger expressions of "rejoicing."

But I also don't feel ANY sympathy for this guy for whatever punishment he has to endure. The stoking by the media and PR flacks and pundits of that sympathy for convicted felons--particularly well-off (like this guy) or "celebrity" convicted felons--is one of the factors that has contributed to what I strongly feel is a decline in appropriate sentencing for serious crimes--again almost entirely for "celebrities" or the rich. These are the very people who are in the public eye and serve as the examples that lead to real deterrence effect.

That's a regular opinion for me. It is not reserved for this guy. For this guy I hold a special place. He clearly intended to do what he did. He clearly did not think there was anything wrong with doing it. He clearly thought the trial was a joke and didn't take it seriously. He clearly had done stuff like this before. He clearly had no remorse. He clearly would have had no remorse even if he had hurt these guys worse--or even killed them.

And he did all of this--with intent, with violence and with no remorse--to cyclists. By proxy to me. That's me out there in lycra riding down that road. That's my friends out there on a beautiful spring day riding past Ballston Lake. Or descending Lake Desolation Road at speed. And that's you out there navigating the streets of Philly, or cruising the farm roads of Missouri, or enjoying the view of the Rockies from east of Denver as you cruise down the highway shoulder.

It's all of that. So that's why I am glad this guy got convicted and don't feel one single atom of sympathy for him. I don't rejoice at his sentence or the pain to his family or friends. But I DO rejoice that a message is finally, finally beginning to get sent to all drivers through the media coverage of this trial that it's not OK to do things like this to cyclists simply because we are there.

BBD

BBD, I didn't mean to imply you were rejoicing, but I know it reads like that.

I have sympathy for the situation as a whole, but that is very different than having sympathy for the doctor himself. Like I wrote, he deserves his punishment. Like you wrote about the pain to his family and friends, they are left to suffer and clean up after the mess he made of their lives.

All of this, for no purpose, to achieve no gain, violence for violence sake. That is why he deserves his time in prison to fully develop and understand his actions. Hopefully he does that.

[gemship]

As you are a lawyer and I am not, you would know if in fact it is not legal or ethical for a lawyer to discuss a plea bargain deal, with others, during or after a trial. If that is not the case, then I would think that Tom might have obtained that information while at the court or in discussions about the case. He may have heard about what did or did not occur from another source. I have interacted with Tom relative to a legal matter, and found him to be extremely competent. I would doubt that Tom would make the statements he did without a substantial basis.

Perhaps you may have been a bit quick in accusing Tom of being unprofessional and stating his comment was out of line, as you may not know the totality of what occurred. You seem to criticize Tom because he did not know enough facts to say what he did. You might be doing that.

I say the above respectfully, as a layman, and as a friend of Tom.



Sandy



I read Tom's post and thought the same thing.


Oops I had to edit my post after seeing Tom's second post, I didn't realize he was buddies with the prosecuter. As a client though I believe ultimately it was the doctor's decision to role the dice... well he lost and got a slap on the wrist. Fives years is nothing with good behavior it may be much less.

[Keith A]

Tom -- Thanks so much for sharing your personal insights regarding this case!

[fjaws]

(including several years as a military prosecutor and defense attorney .


Enough said! (having seen these guys in action).

Thanks for the insight Tom....very interesting read.

[William]

"And dat's da name of dat tune".

http://www.tvguide.com/images/pgimg/11-tvpets-baretta1.jpg

[Louis]

1) It seems to me that the focus here should be on the bad doctor's actions, and not Tom's comments about his legal team.

2) Any time a member of some professional tribe, be it legal, medical, academic, or whatever, says that it is "unprofessional" to criticize another member of that tribe it reminds me of the old "we don't air our dirty laundry in public" saying. What is left unsaid is "If we protect our own we all profit in the long run."

Louis

[Sandy]

Tom's comments were directly related to the "punishment" that the doctor received which is the focus of the thread.


Sandy

[Louis]

Sandy,

I have no problems with Tom's comments. The intent of my posts was to question those who were criticizing him.

Louis

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . from VeloNews on the sentencing.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/01/news/a-reporters-notebook-sentencing-dr-thompson_102284

BBD

[weaponsgrade]

some very poignant testimony from peterson.

some time ago a car cut me off and i went sliding. i don't think it was intentional, but it was definitely reckless. the driver at first drove off and then returned - probably realizing that there could have been witnesses. the driver pretty much just lied to the cop and i was fuming when i heard it. fortunately, the cop saw through it and concluded driver fault. i remember being very twitchy on the next several rides so i can only imagine what peterson is going through.