Is 110 years a just sentence for a vehicle crash? (1 Viewer)

[ttwtt78640]

This is a story I’ve been following since 2019. In 2019 I was in part working as a truck driving instructor and I used this accident as part of my curriculum. This was on I-70 eastbound towards Denver coming down the mountains. The driver, Rogel Aguilera-Mederos of Texas, was driving down the mountain and apparently lost control of the truck, probably shifting incorrectly, and then melting his brakes. He drove past the runaway truck ramp and caused a rear end collision and fire through multiple vehicles at bottom, killing 4 people and injuring more. Part of his defense is that he is an immigrant (from Cuba) who’s first language is not English and he couldn’t understand the road signs warning of the the downhill grade and runaway truck ramp.

Well he was convicted last month and sentenced a few days ago, 110 years for the counts, although apparently the judge has mandatory minimums he is allowed to reconsider after 180 days.

I personally think the sentence is not a just one. Given the clear lack of intent, the remorse shown, and the circumstances of clearly being not qualified for the job expected, and low likliehood of reoffending, and no criminal history (he was negligent, I’ll come back to that in a second) I think 3 to 5 years would be more appropriate.

Now, this should also be a cause for mandating more training, i learned how to drive at a professional school from a collection of old logging drivers (log trucks require high skill) and I learned mountains in school, unfortunately many smaller carriers will sign off that someone has been trained when really they’re only good enough to pass the test. Texas is a large and kind of flat state. Drivers should have mandatory training for these situations. While there’s some question about Rogel’s English proficiency, it’s not hard to memorize key terms and know what they mean, and federal regulations require English profeciency from drivers doing interstate commerce. My Spanish is only ok and I can read road signs in Chile and Mexico.

So all that said, I think there needs to be training reform from the federal government, but I do believe this driver is unfairly sentenced and there should be reform in mandatory sentencing for crimes clearly committing by negligence without malice.

MSN

www.msn.com

Why not stay in the right lane (or shoulder) to rear end another big rig to stop his own big rig? Instead he decided to move into the left lane and collide with multiple smaller vehicles to slow his rig down (likely what saved his own life).

Prosecutors argued that Aguilera-Mederos had chances to prevent the crash that he did not take, like failing to take a so-called runaway truck ramp and choosing not to strike a large semi that was stopped on the shoulder.

Colorado DA seeks review of truck driver's 110-year sentence in deadly crash

Rogel Aguilera-Mederos killed four people when he crashed his big rig into stopped traffic on I-70 in 2019. State law mandated consecutive terms.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Alexios Makaris]

Baseline--the person holding the CDL and operating the truck has to have primary responsibility for operating the truck safely. He failed to do that, and I do believe his failure crossed into criminal negligence, I think the jury got that aspect right. When your criminal negligence results in four deaths, I think there must be some level of serious consequence.

I think 110 years in prison is too much though, base primarily on comparing this to similar cases I've pulled in Colorado. This works out to 27.5 years in prison per person killed, meanwhile I can find a number of cases in the last 5 years in Colorado where a reckless driver killed someone and did not even get a single day of incarceration, but instead got a year probation in some cases. Personally, I think a year probation is too light when you negligently kill someone, especially if you were behaving recklessly. I'd be 100% fine with this guy doing 3-5 years in prison, maybe with an option for early release for good behavior and etc.

Now beyond that I think there are several elements to this case that should cause us to think a bit about our criminal justice system.

One is that the reason his sentence was so high is because he was convicted of so many charges. The number of charges levied against him was entirely up to the discretion of the prosecutor, if he had played ball with the prosecutor he would never have been charged with so many crimes, but since he would not, the prosecutor charged him with a huge mountain of offenses. I've never been a huge fan of how in some scenarios a single "bad act" can result in literally dozens of charges, I tend to favor a model where the prosecutor is more limited in how many charges they can stack up for a single offense. I would not mind seeing for example a system where instead of being charged with 28 counts of assault or whatever and 4 counts of vehicular homicide, he was instead charged with 1 count of "Negligent driving causing death" and one count of "Negligent driving causing injury", and then the fact that there were 4 victims killed and 28 victims injured, would be something considered in the sentencing phase in which a judge would have discretion to decide how that affects the sentence.

Another big issue is the mandatory minimums and how they stacked up in this case, judges are generally pretty educated and experienced people, I usually prefer they be able to exercise discretion.

And finally the issue of trucker training / education is a serious one, it doesn't absolve this guy of his negligence, but as a society we need to think about it. My father retired after over 40 years as a truck driver and he said that in his final years the quality of driver instruction and the quality of drivers on the road was at all time lows. He says many companies now have guys working as "trainers" on these large trucks who in years past would not even be considered properly trained themselves.

 

[Simpletruther]

This is a story I’ve been following since 2019. In 2019 I was in part working as a truck driving instructor and I used this accident as part of my curriculum. This was on I-70 eastbound towards Denver coming down the mountains. The driver, Rogel Aguilera-Mederos of Texas, was driving down the mountain and apparently lost control of the truck, probably shifting incorrectly, and then melting his brakes. He drove past the runaway truck ramp and caused a rear end collision and fire through multiple vehicles at bottom, killing 4 people and injuring more. Part of his defense is that he is an immigrant (from Cuba) who’s first language is not English and he couldn’t understand the road signs warning of the the downhill grade and runaway truck ramp.

Well he was convicted last month and sentenced a few days ago, 110 years for the counts, although apparently the judge has mandatory minimums he is allowed to reconsider after 180 days.

I personally think the sentence is not a just one. Given the clear lack of intent, the remorse shown, and the circumstances of clearly being not qualified for the job expected, and low likliehood of reoffending, and no criminal history (he was negligent, I’ll come back to that in a second) I think 3 to 5 years would be more appropriate.

Now, this should also be a cause for mandating more training, i learned how to drive at a professional school from a collection of old logging drivers (log trucks require high skill) and I learned mountains in school, unfortunately many smaller carriers will sign off that someone has been trained when really they’re only good enough to pass the test. Texas is a large and kind of flat state. Drivers should have mandatory training for these situations. While there’s some question about Rogel’s English proficiency, it’s not hard to memorize key terms and know what they mean, and federal regulations require English profeciency from drivers doing interstate commerce. My Spanish is only ok and I can read road signs in Chile and Mexico.

So all that said, I think there needs to be training reform from the federal government, but I do believe this driver is unfairly sentenced and there should be reform in mandatory sentencing for crimes clearly committing by negligence without malice.

MSN

www.msn.com

Why is he even negligent? People make mistakes sometimes. Is there more info that sheds light on him don't something negligent?

Sometimes accidents happen.

 

[Simpletruther]

This article has more information,

Trucker sentenced to 110 years in prison for fiery I-70 crash that killed 4

The truck driver who killed four people when he drove his out-of-control semitrailer into stopped traffic on Interstate 70 in Lakewood nearly three years ago was sentenced Monday to 110 years in pr…

www.denverpost.com

Including the fact he also injured six other people after causing a 28 car pile-up. Asserting the sentence was "just for a vehicle crash" is a bit disingenuous. A 28-car pile-up indicates at least 28 other people involved, and probably more.

I get that you think since there was no "intent" that he should not be punished "so severely," and maybe the Judge might consider modifying the sentencing at some later point.

But the man is responsible for the harms he committed, and pleading "ignorance" of the job and its requirements is no excuse. That's why we have CDL's for big-rig trucks and regular licenses for cars.

He is REQUIRED to have the training and knowledge that he claims he lacked. Asserting a "lack of English" for failing to note and use the runaway truck ramp is NO EXCUSE. That is something he was required to know and should have known to recognize at the very least by the design on that sign, language issues notwithstanding. Hell, I don't drive a truck and I am well-aware of what those runaway truck ramp signs mean.

By this logic one could argue a vast amount of auto deaths in accidents should result in murder changes for whoever is deemed "at fault".

You change lanes and forget to signal or miss that car in your blind spot and there is a fatal accident, why is it not the same situation and vehicular murder?

 

[VanceMack]

Id like to know why he "swerved into parked traffic". I'd like to know what his alternatives where at the time of the accident. Negligent accidents are tragic and by what I read, the sentence was mandated, thought he judge can revisit...and probably will/should.

Barring any new revelations, I think this would be a good case for a governor or presidential pardon after a few years.

 

[Alexios Makaris]

Generally, in any case of criminal negligence, you must be shown to have violated a standard duty of care. Usually "plain negligence" will result more in a civil case than a criminal one, while every State is different most do not criminalize "ordinary" negligence. For example you're traveling the speed limit, or even slightly under it, in an ice storm, and lose control of your car and slam into someone. There is an argument you were operating your vehicle negligently because the conditions of the road suggested you should drive even slower than you were, but in many states that will likely not result in any criminal charges.

Usually for criminal charges related to negligence there must also be an element of recklessness--which means that the person is proven to have actual knowledge that what they were doing was inherently negligent and dangerous, and they could have chosen not to do so, but instead continued to behave recklessly. This is why in most States, if I lose control of my car, or hit someone because I don't see them and they had the right of way, I am relatively unlikely to get a criminal charge assuming everything else I was doing was normal. But if I'm street racing and hit someone, I am very likely to face at least some prison time, because street racing is beyond negligent--it is also reckless and shows a disregard for the safety of others.

I personally think this guy's situation is less egregious than drunk driving or street racing but is more egregious than "plain" negligence in just being a bad driver or not slowing down enough in bad weather. Why? Because he did have a CDL, even if it appears he was not a good driver, which means there's some societal expectation of a higher capacity for operating his vehicle. He also has additional obligations because he knew he was operating a very large vehicle that is more dangerous to other motorists. He also had an obligation to be able to read road signs--one reason he says he had trouble realizing there were emergency ramps available is he isn't able to read English very well, which is on him.

I think the people who believe this guy should do decades in prison are off base, but I do think he has negligence that rose to a criminal level. If he had gotten say, 8 years, with an option for parole in 3ish years with good behavior, I think that would've been fine.

 

[Captain Adverse]

By this logic one could argue a vast amount of auto deaths in accidents should result in murder changes for whoever is deemed "at fault".

You change lanes and forget to signal or miss that car in your blind spot and there is a fatal accident, why is it not the same situation and vehicular murder?

False equivalence. One I keep seeing similarly repeated over and over in this thread.

In point of fact all deaths and major injuries that occur as the result of a vehicular "accident" are investigated to determine if the driver responsible is criminally at fault. This can and often-times does result in criminal charges, including various forms of manslaughter/murder depending on the circumstances.

Meanwhile, let me repeat. A truck driver has a CDL which requires training on all sorts of special/specific on-the-road knowledge for heavy vehicle operations. This includes emergency actions in the case of a runaway situation as well as identification of signs, and use of runaway truck ramps. It also includes knowledge of vehicle operations and signs that there is a major problem...like issues with brakes.

Now per his own testimony:

"On cross-examination, Deputy District Attorney Kayla Wildeman focused on inconsistencies between Aguilera-Mederos’ testimony and what he’d told police in an initial interview, including that he’d told investigators he’d previously driven in Colorado’s mountains. Aguilera-Mederos said he’d misunderstood the police officers’ questions...

...Wildeman also questioned Aguilera-Mederos about why he did not take a runaway truck ramp that he passed after he lost his brakes, and asked him to explain why he continued driving after he pulled over to check his brakes after coming off Berthoud Pass. She focused on his actions well before the fatal crash, including witness testimony that he was driving recklessly in the hours beforehand.

Aguilera-Mederos said he saw the first two signs for the truck ramp — at 1 1/2 miles and 3/4 miles before the ramp — but said he did not see the last two signs for the ramp. He testified that he had not lost his brakes until after he’d passed the first two signs for the ramp. He added that he had always seen runaway truck ramps that go uphill, not downhill like the ramp he passed on I-70 heading toward Denver.

“There were several people who took the stand and told you they saw your brakes smoking, right?” she asked him.

“What I am trying to tell you is that I never saw that and I never saw the brakes smoking,” he said. “I was paying attention to many things. I never saw them smoking.” https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/10/15/i-70-crash-trial-rogel-aguilera-mederos-testimony/

Once again each "accident" is investigated, the facts examined to determine if any charges append, and if so which ones. In this "accident" we had four preventable deaths, and six citizens incurring preventable serious injuries.

So tell the dead, and their families "this was JUST an accident." Tell the seriously injured "this was JUST an accident." Tell the dozens of other people who suffered minor injuries and whose lives were endangered, and their property destroyed/damaged "this was just an accident."

Whether 110 years is excessive is up to the Courts to consider. But acting like "this was just an accident" is like saying a hurricane is just a "little wind problem," and a flood is just some "minor water damage."

 

[Airyaman]

Reduced to 10 years by Colorado gov.

Polis reduces punishment for I-70 crash driver originally sentenced to 110 years

Colorado's governor used his power to change the sentence after Rogel Aguilera-Mederos applied for clemency.

www.9news.com

 

[CaughtInThe]

This is a story I’ve been following since 2019. In 2019 I was in part working as a truck driving instructor and I used this accident as part of my curriculum. This was on I-70 eastbound towards Denver coming down the mountains. The driver, Rogel Aguilera-Mederos of Texas, was driving down the mountain and apparently lost control of the truck, probably shifting incorrectly, and then melting his brakes. He drove past the runaway truck ramp and caused a rear end collision and fire through multiple vehicles at bottom, killing 4 people and injuring more. Part of his defense is that he is an immigrant (from Cuba) who’s first language is not English and he couldn’t understand the road signs warning of the the downhill grade and runaway truck ramp.

Well he was convicted last month and sentenced a few days ago, 110 years for the counts, although apparently the judge has mandatory minimums he is allowed to reconsider after 180 days.

I personally think the sentence is not a just one. Given the clear lack of intent, the remorse shown, and the circumstances of clearly being not qualified for the job expected, and low likliehood of reoffending, and no criminal history (he was negligent, I’ll come back to that in a second) I think 3 to 5 years would be more appropriate.

Now, this should also be a cause for mandating more training, i learned how to drive at a professional school from a collection of old logging drivers (log trucks require high skill) and I learned mountains in school, unfortunately many smaller carriers will sign off that someone has been trained when really they’re only good enough to pass the test. Texas is a large and kind of flat state. Drivers should have mandatory training for these situations. While there’s some question about Rogel’s English proficiency, it’s not hard to memorize key terms and know what they mean, and federal regulations require English profeciency from drivers doing interstate commerce. My Spanish is only ok and I can read road signs in Chile and Mexico.

So all that said, I think there needs to be training reform from the federal government, but I do believe this driver is unfairly sentenced and there should be reform in mandatory sentencing for crimes clearly committing by negligence without malice.

MSN

www.msn.com

Colorado governor slashes trucker's prison term to 10 years

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has shortened the prison sentence of a truck driver convicted in a deadly explosive crash to 10 years, drastically reducing his original 110-year term that drew widespread outrage.

apnews.com

 

[Luce]

This was excessive.

He wasn't driving impaired and there was no intent.

 

[Luce]

Colorado governor slashes trucker's prison term to 10 years

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has shortened the prison sentence of a truck driver convicted in a deadly explosive crash to 10 years, drastically reducing his original 110-year term that drew widespread outrage.

apnews.com

Ten years is still a little overboard.

I've seen drunks that killed people on the road get less.

 

[Glitch]

There is not enough information to determine whether the sentence was just or not. They say he was found guilty on "20 charges, including four counts of vehicular homicide," but they make no mention of what those other 16 charges were. The fact that he was charged with vehicular homicide instead of involuntary manslaughter also makes a difference in the sentencing.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

There is not enough information to determine whether the sentence was just or not. They say he was found guilty on "20 charges, including four counts of vehicular homicide," but they make no mention of what those other 16 charges were. The fact that he was charged with vehicular homicide instead of involuntary manslaughter also makes a difference in the sentencing.

The other charges were 1st degree assault on the theory that by not crashing the truck before hitting the cars he assaulted the people who didn’t die. That’s actually why the Sentence was so high, because normally first degree assault is an attempted murder, or assaulting with a weapon or causing grievous injury, those are violent crimes whereas vehicular is manslaughter is not

 

[Felis Leo]

Is 110 years a just sentence for a vehicle crash?​

Killing 4 people and injuring more.


It wasn't just a crash.

I would agree if he killed people due to recklessness, wantonness, or outright intentionally. It seems he was less morally culpable than, say, Ethan Couch, who killed just as many people but was given a slap on the wrist because he belonged to a wealthy and influential family. And he deserves a prison sentence. A long one.

But as others here have pointed out, I have read stories of people who have murdered others in the heat of argument and passion getting far "lighter sentences" of one, two or three decades behind bars and at least being able to enjoy their middle age or golden years out from behind prison walls.

 

[Felis Leo]

According to the article I saw, there are mandatory minimums attached to each charge (or so the judge thought) and separate law requires each sentence to be consecutive. That's what "tough on crime" laws do.

At any rate, I'm not diving into this one in any detail. Legal discussions on political debate boards are incredibly frustrating if you actually practice any law. People purport to state "what the law is" but it's just their personal opinion of what the law should be and is almost always completely divorced from caselaw that interprets the statutes. At most they'll cite a statute and announce that "these words here mean I'm right".....

As a lawyer, I find that maddening. But then again, I am a bankruptcy and family law attorney. Criminal statutes, case law and procedure are quite frankly not my wheelhouse.

 

[Glitch]

The other charges were 1st degree assault on the theory that by not crashing the truck before hitting the cars he assaulted the people who didn’t die. That’s actually why the Sentence was so high, because normally first degree assault is an attempted murder, or assaulting with a weapon or causing grievous injury, those are violent crimes whereas vehicular is manslaughter is not

That explains why the sentence was so high. Apparently the prosecutor was able to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers, and considering the charges against him he deserves the sentence he was given. It sounds to me like the prosecutor was particularly vindictive, but if he proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt then those sentences must be applied. The law must be applied equally to everyone, but as you say the judge will have some leeway in sentencing after 180 days.

I wouldn't worry too much about his sentence. Colorado is a blue State, which means he will probably be released from prison next month due to the Omnicron variant. Democrats just love freeing convicted criminals.

 

[Fledermaus]

I would agree if he killed people due to recklessness, wantonness, or outright intentionally. It seems he was less morally culpable than, say, Ethan Couch, who killed just as many people but was given a slap on the wrist because he belonged to a wealthy and influential family. And he deserves a prison sentence. A long one.

But as others here have pointed out, I have read stories of people who have murdered others in the heat of argument and passion getting far "lighter sentences" of one, two or three decades behind bars and at least being able to enjoy their middle age or golden years out from behind prison walls.

I was speaking to the headline.

He wasn't given 110 years for just the crash.