Star Gazette News: Justice was not served in bicycle death case

Witnesses’ testimony deserved greater weight than judge allowed. Basically there was no real dispute as to the actual facts in the tragic case involving the Sept. 25 conviction of Kyle S. Bradley, the driver in the hit-and-run death of Steven Bacon. Those facts as presented in court were as follows:

The two cars involved in this fatal accident were traveling at what witnesses said was a very high rate of speed.

That the two vehicles were communicating between one another via cell phone.

That they had just left a bar and restaurant.

That the defendant, while traveling at what prosecution witnesses testified was a “high rate of speed,” was passed by the other vehicle.

In the process of passing one another, the defendant’s vehicle struck an innocent bicyclist riding on the shoulder, not in the road, where he was legally travelling.

That because of this horseplay the defendant’s vehicle went at a high rate of speed onto the shoulder of the road, striking the innocent bicyclist with such force that he was dismembered.

Evidence:

The defendant testified that he “panicked” and that was the reason he ran away. Why in the world would he have panicked and run away if, as stated, the defendant at first said that he “thought he hit a deer”? This is totally inconsistent with his stated reason for “he thought he hit a deer.” One does not just panic when one hits a deer, and actually does not run away from such contact with a deer, as the defendant would stop and verify the dead deer and report same to proper authorities so he could recover the damages to his vehicle from his insurance company.

The law:

A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.

There is absolutely no requirement that a defendant must be found to have “mens rea,” or evil intent, to be found guilty of either manslaughter in the second degree or vehicular homicide. It need be only shown that the defendant acted negligently and his reckless actions resulted in death.

What were the reckless actions taken by the defendant just prior to impact with the bicycle? From my perspective of the trial testimony, they were:

•Excessive speed.

•Horseplay between the two cars involved, causing the defendant to lose control of his vehicle and strike the decedent with such force that he was dismembered.

•The defendant knew he did not hit a deer, but a person, and ran away to avoid accountability for his reckless actions and after the fact misled authorities when he said that he “thought” he hit a deer.

Such conduct taken in the totality of all the evidence clearly constitutes at least a conviction for criminally negligent homicide and conviction for leaving the scene of an accident. It seems just like the turtle “bitch slap” case: that the public is a better judge of facts and the proper laws to be applied to the facts than the trial judge, who became a jury of one, and who in my opinion clearly did not take into account the totality of the facts in order to render a proper decision. Justice was not served in this case.

Did the judge not believe the witnesses who testified as to “high rate of speed” and the defendant’s exclamation, “Did I just hit a dude?”, and that the defendant did not want a witness riding with him to call 911? The defendant had several run-ins with the law in Pennsylvania and clearly didn’t tell the truth about “hitting a deer.” His testimony should be totally disregarded, whereas Bradley’s passenger and the driver of the other vehicle clearly had no reason to lie about the true facts regarding the actions of the defendant.

Philip C. Learned is a partner in the Learned, Reilly & Learned law firm in Elmira. Guest View offers an opportunity to comment in-depth about an interest or to address specific issues that have public impact.