Morgan Stanley wealth manager will not face felony charges for a hit-and-run

[Animate]

A Morgan Stanley wealth manager will not face felony charges for a hit-and-run because Colorado prosecutors don't want him to lose his job.
Martin Joel Erzinger, who manages more than $1 billion in assets for Morgan Stanley in Denver, is being accused only of a misdemeanor for allegedly driving his Mercedes into a cyclist and then fleeing the scene, Colorado's Vail Daily reports. The victim, Dr. Steven Milo, whom Erzinger allegedly hit in July, suffered spinal cord injuries, bleeding from his brain and, according to his lawyer Harold Haddon, "lifetime pain."
But District Attorney Mark Hurlbert says it wouldn't be wise to prosecute Erzinger -- doing so might hurt his source of income.


You have got to be effin kidding me right? Right?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_780294.html

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Animate

But District Attorney Mark Hurlbert says it wouldn't be wise to prosecute Erzinger -- doing so might hurt his source of income.

Wow.

[MysticCat]

Not defending the DA's decision, but . . .

the reason for the DA to be concerned about the defendant's source of income is because source of income is connected to ability to pay restitutition.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Not defending the DA's decision, but . . .

the reason for the DA to be concerned about the defendant's source of income is because source of income is connected to ability to pay restitutition.

Yea, I read that in the article. My "wow" was related to the fact that others who aren't quite so lucky would never receive this treatment.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Yea, I read that in the article. My "wow" was related to the fact that others who aren't quite so lucky would never receive this treatment.

Of course, because the calculus doesn't just change - it doesn't even exist for someone who isn't quite so lucky.

Quite simply, the DA is giving the defendant a lesser charge in order to preserve the victim's multi-million-dollar restitution claim. In a general sense, it may indeed be better for the victim to garner $10 million or so than to see the guy behind bars for any additional length of time.

It's definitely not a normal or commonplace deal, but you can certainly see where it comes from - and it is well-intentioned, and attempts to serve justice in the best way possible (but not necessarily the most intuitive way). Not sure if it's "wrong" or "right" but there is at least logic.

[AOII Angel]

Except that the victim, a physician, wants to perp behind bars.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Except that the victim, a physician, wants to perp behind bars.

Right, and in general that will be taken into consideration - however, the DA has to do what he thinks is right for the parties involved regardless of the victim's feelings or opinions.

Remember, victims often have difficult or poor perspectives given the circumstances. It would be really bad to start letting victims dictate how to proceed with legal matters - even a physician. Maybe even especially.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Right, and in general that will be taken into consideration - however, the DA has to do what he thinks is right for the parties involved regardless of the victim's feelings or opinions.

Remember, victims often have difficult or poor perspectives given the circumstances. It would be really bad to start letting victims dictate how to proceed with legal matters - even a physician. Maybe even especially.

So it's better to let the guy go free despite the victim's wishes beeeeecause....
In what way does this serve the greater good? It shows that because of his status he gets off scott free just because the DA perceives that he'll be able to pay his judgement better when a lawsuit finally goes through? That's not justice.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

So it's better to let the guy go free despite the victim's wishes beeeeecause....
In what way does this serve the greater good? It shows that because of his status he gets off scott free just because the DA perceives that he'll be able to pay his judgement better when a lawsuit finally goes through? That's not justice.

I'm not sure that the DA's decision does indeed serve the greater good to the best extent, but I think I've fully laid out what it appears his rationale is - if you disagree that's fine, but it's not like it's on a lark.

Also, we really don't ever want "the victim's wishes" to become a key relevant standard. Unless you want to also stop prosecuting domestics and other cases, we have to be careful applying the "strong" standard as justice while ignoring the "weak" version. The victim's opinion is what it is, but it is also subject to a large number of factors that make it unreliable and prone to rashness instead of reason.

I'm sure you'd like to have control over your own case, but it would be relatively similar to allowing self-diagnosis or self-remedy to your own patients. And, just like doctors, the DA will sometimes get it wrong, or take angles that don't immediately jive with what outsiders might initially want or think is best. Here, it appears compensation for the victim has been determined to be more important than punishment for the criminal. That may indeed be justice.

[Drolefille]

I think what disappoints me most is that Morgan Stanley won't fire him even though he's getting out of prosecution on a technicality. No matter whether he's charged or not, he's equally responsible for his actions.

Only not firing him because of the actual felony is stupid.

[Low C Sharp]

Also, we really don't ever want "the victim's wishes" to become a key relevant standard.

We do where the theory for dropping the prosecution is financial restitution for the victim, and the victim is already rich (he's a transplant surgeon with a place in Vail). He doesn't need more millions. Besides which, where did the DA get the idea that the perp needs to keep his job in order to afford the restitution? What Morgan Stanley wealth manager with $1 billion under management doesn't have eight figures in assets? Please. Get a lien on his home in Vail, his yacht, and his Maseratis. He can afford plenty of restitution without working.
________
Depakote Settlement News

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

We do where the theory for dropping the prosecution is financial restitution for the victim, and the victim is already rich (he's a transplant surgeon with a place in Vail).

He's a transplant surgeon who claims that his ability to perform transplants may have been severely compromised.

Meanwhile, the HuffPost article linked above has an update:

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert told HuffPost on Monday afternoon that news reports about the prosecution have been inaccurate. "We charged him with a felony, first of all," he said.

What's happening is that prosecutors offered Erzinger a plea bargain for restitution and two misdemeanors potentially carrying two years of jail time. What the victim wants, Hurlbert said, is for Erzinger to plead guilty to the felony of leaving the scene of accident, causing serious bodily injury. Under that deal, judgment would be deferred and the felony would be cleared from his record after a few years of good behavior. The misdemeanors, though, would stay on Erzinger's record permanently.

"This is the right plea bargain given the facts of the case, the defendant's prior criminal history and his willingness to take responsibility," Hurlbert said. "We feel this is far more punitive than the felony deferred."

I'm speechless and terribly disillusioned that a HuffPost article got it wrong.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

He's a transplant surgeon who claims that his ability to perform transplants may have been severely compromised.

Meanwhile, the HuffPost article linked above has an update:

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert told HuffPost on Monday afternoon that news reports about the prosecution have been inaccurate. "We charged him with a felony, first of all," he said.

What's happening is that prosecutors offered Erzinger a plea bargain for restitution and two misdemeanors potentially carrying two years of jail time. What the victim wants, Hurlbert said, is for Erzinger to plead guilty to the felony of leaving the scene of accident, causing serious bodily injury. Under that deal, judgment would be deferred and the felony would be cleared from his record after a few years of good behavior. The misdemeanors, though, would stay on Erzinger's record permanently.

"This is the right plea bargain given the facts of the case, the defendant's prior criminal history and his willingness to take responsibility," Hurlbert said. "We feel this is far more punitive than the felony deferred."

I'm speechless and terribly disillusioned that a HuffPost article got it wrong.

This is good to know. I think the earlier reports, if they had been true would have shown an egregious lack of judgement. This sounds reasonable. The felony is not out of the question if the idiot doesn't keep his nose out of trouble. I agree with Low C Sharp. This surgeon may not need much help to stay financially independent even if he doesn't work another day. He likely has a very nice disability policy and retirement. Erzinger likely can liquidate to pay off his share if need be, as well. It's how the mere mortals do it when they are in the same situation.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

He's a transplant surgeon who claims that his ability to perform transplants may have been severely compromised.

Meanwhile, the HuffPost article linked above has an update:

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert told HuffPost on Monday afternoon that news reports about the prosecution have been inaccurate. "We charged him with a felony, first of all," he said.

What's happening is that prosecutors offered Erzinger a plea bargain for restitution and two misdemeanors potentially carrying two years of jail time. What the victim wants, Hurlbert said, is for Erzinger to plead guilty to the felony of leaving the scene of accident, causing serious bodily injury. Under that deal, judgment would be deferred and the felony would be cleared from his record after a few years of good behavior. The misdemeanors, though, would stay on Erzinger's record permanently.

"This is the right plea bargain given the facts of the case, the defendant's prior criminal history and his willingness to take responsibility," Hurlbert said. "We feel this is far more punitive than the felony deferred."

I'm speechless and terribly disillusioned that a HuffPost article got it wrong.

I'm becoming quite the inadvertant expert on "Conditional Discharges." Of course, most of my clients fail at that "discharge" part. On the plus side if he does this again he'll get the conviction, punishment for the original charges and the new ones too.