Spokane7
65°
April 27, 2011 in City
‘Stolen’ hot dog, 99 cents. Baffled jurors, priceless
John Richardson stands across the street from Mitchell’s IGA in Cheney where he was taken to court over a 99-cent hot dog.
(Full-size photo)
Call it the great hot dog caper. Or maybe the greatly overblown hot dog caper would be more accurate.
One day last December, Eastern Washington University student John Richardson got himself a German sausage at the self-serve counter at Mitchell’s IGA in Cheney. He ate it as he shopped for peanut butter (crunchy), jelly, bread and other items. When he left, he forgot to pay for the 99-cent dog – though he did pay for more than $28 in groceries.
Store managers approached him once he left the store, refused his efforts to pay for it, and held him for the police to arrive when things got heated. Thirteen weeks later, Richardson was found not guilty by a baffled jury with a minimum of deliberation.
“From all the testimony, you’d have to be an idiot to not realize that the guy simply forgot,” said juror Patrick Reeves. “It took the jury about five minutes to come to a verdict.”
Five minutes would have been about the right time to devote to the case, start to finish. Instead, the taxpayers of Cheney paid for the full legal megillah: The officer who arrived, cuffed the protesting Richardson, and wrote a report in which he described the “stolen” property as a “bronze” German sausage; the prosecuting attorney, who said Richardson’s demeanor and a 12-year-old shoplifting charge on his record persuaded her to pursue the case; the public defender; the judge; the jury pool …
“To me it’s an outrage,” Richardson said. “I just think it was a frivolous thing.”
From the perspective of a store owner, a certain zeal about shoplifting is understandable. In the grocery business, margins are slim, and theft takes a big toll. In a family-owned business like Mitchell’s, the owners can take it even more personally. But it’s hard to understand why this zeal wasn’t tempered somewhere along the way.
Cheney Municipal Prosecutor Julie McKay said she simply doesn’t buy Richardson’s claim that he forgot to pay. She said that it isn’t unusual for someone to steal something while purchasing something else, that a lot of people accused of a crime deny it, and that the fact that Richardson was arguing with the store managers after they confronted him influenced her decision.
“Did I want to try that? Certainly not,” McKay said. “From my perspective, he took something without paying for it. … The jury didn’t feel he was guilty. I disagree with that.”
Everyone seems to agree that Richardson offered to pay for the hot dog when he was confronted by store employees outside the store. The one exception to this is the police report, in which a store manager is quoted saying Richardson refused to pay for the hot dog. According to Reeves, Richardson and public defender Don Richter, that was at odds with testimony at the trial from everyone, including store employees.
“When my client was confronted, he immediately said ‘I’m sorry, I’ll pay for it,’ ” Richter said.
To the store owners, the question of intent was beside the point. Someone who leaves without paying for something has stolen. If you let this slide, where do you draw the line? But that’s simply not the way the law works – a person must intend to steal something for it to be theft.
McKay said the reason this ended up before a jury is that Richardson refused to accept a deal. Here’s an example of a deal he was offered: In exchange for the charges being dropped, he’d pay restitution for the sausage, and pay the store owners a $200 civil penalty.
“So now the $1 hot dog was a $201 hot dog,” Richter said.
The case went to trial Feb. 25. Richardson said that he was committed to proving his innocence, and because he knew that the specter of a shoplifting conviction can hang over you – as his conviction as an 18-year-old had done. But he was adamant that he did not steal the hot dog. After he got it, he walked around the store and ate it in full view of everyone, planning to pay for it with his groceries at the cashier, he said. The managers were watching him closely, and he was aware of them watching – which would make him a pretty poor thief indeed, if it wasn’t an oversight. When he was confronted outside the store, he said the store employees taunted and insulted him, and refused to accept either his explanation or his money.
One of them said, “It’s too late now. We got you,” Richardson said. “It was very humiliating.”
Store officials declined to comment, but it’s clear from court records and interviews that they view this confrontation differently, and say that Richardson was uncooperative and instigated conflict rather than trying to resolve it.
I think it’s safe to say that nobody wanted the case to wind up before a jury, but nobody was willing to budge. Richardson wanted to be cleared, and the prosecutor wanted to send a message – or at least not send the wrong kind of message.
In the end, though, the jury wasn’t on board.
“If you really want to send a message,” Reeves said, “get a good case.”
Shawn Vestal can be reached at (509) 459-5431 or shawnv@spokesman.com.
The draw of the unknowable 
greenlibertarian on April 27 at 1:56 a.m.
Waste of taxpayers’ resources.
Do not repeat such foolishness.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on April 27 at 5:40 a.m.
The city prosecutor must have studied under Mr Tucker. Most overweight people eat all the time without knowing they are consuming food…. this is something that anyone might do… and the store owner ought to be paying the court fees on this one..john
Ninch on April 27 at 7:14 a.m.
Stealing a hot dog is still stealing and the guy got caught. I truly doubt if he “forgot” and it was not the first time he pulled such a stunt. Most don’t realize that many people steal these little things because they get a thrill. In other words, it is not about the money. Years ago one of my roommates spent the night in jail for toothpaste, and lost a whole day’s of work… and it was all about the exhilaration (until being caught).
BTW: If you are a small business person, this is not a wasteful prosecution because adding up all the thrill seekers and shop lifters (even at 99 cents an event) is very costly. Anyone who condones this bad behavior (makes excuses) and denigrates the business and prosecutor for using the law to protect their livelihood (and teach lessons) seems to be ethically-challenged. I also wonder why Shawn Vestal is focusing on these kind of crimes lately….like these people who steal hot dogs are the victims?
Ninch on April 27 at 7:16 a.m.
P.S. Dumb excuse about overweight dementia…Overweight people are not comatose and fully realize they are consuming food, they just do not realize how much (the quantities) they are eating.
DickAdams on April 27 at 7:35 a.m.
Where does one draw the line? Two hot dogs?
Charlie on April 27 at 8:12 a.m.
Errors committed by all concerned. Is anybody thinking?
skime on April 27 at 8:14 a.m.
What is his excuse going to be the next time he is CAUGHT stealing going to be, you know his THIRD time. How many times did he do this before he was caught? PUNK
reservedparking on April 27 at 8:35 a.m.
Mitchell’s, huh? Good to know.
Won’t ever shop there again.
opiemuyo on April 27 at 8:41 a.m.
Grocery shop owes the taxpayers for the cost of the trial me thinks. Payment was offered and refused. Solve the problem at the lowest level, fools.
Orphan on April 27 at 8:43 a.m.
A jury that knows a lot more than we do found him not guilty, thats good enough for me. Those of you still saying he unlawfully took the hot dog are dead wrong at this point a jury of his peers says he did not steal the dog. It only took the jury 5 minutes that should be a clue right there that there is more to the story that we are being given in a short news story. What if he had done this many times before and paid for the dog each time in the past???/
I’m with Green here what a collosal waste of time and money.
eagleproducer on April 27 at 8:45 a.m.
BTW, I grew up in Cheney and the police and prosecutor’s office are known for wasting resources in such a manner. It’s like Mayberry, where every molehill becomes a mountain because of Reinbold.
SpokaneLiberal on April 27 at 8:48 a.m.
This type of prosecution is one of the reasons why this country is in a fiscal crisis. Lets say the jury convicted the guy - and sent him to jail for a year. We lose a year of productive citizenry, plus the cost for trail, imprisonment, etc. would come to somewhere around 100K. In Washington we have a functional tax rate of around 9%. That means to pay for this stupid prosecution we would have to have over $1.1 million dollars in income earned in the state.
The guy offered to pay. The fact that everyone agreed he offered to pay undermines intent. They should have taken his dollar and issued a trespass warning telling him to never come there again. The small business is protected, so is the taxpayer, and there is a consequence to the “theif” (or forgetful fool). Problem solved. Instead they passed on a substantial cost to the taxpayers.
eagleproducer on April 27 at 8:52 a.m.
I remember being “detained” as a youth in Cheney for underage drinking in a wheat field adjacent to our football stadium on a Friday night. My friend and I were transported “downtown,” un-cuffed, with him riding in the rear seat of the cruiser and me in the front, with the offending bottle of Southern Comfort resting between me and the cop. When I got out, somehow my arm got caught on the bottle and it toppled to the pavement where it shattered into thousands of pieces. The cop was furious to see his “case” go literally down the drain and let us go, but I (18 at the time) received a letter in the mail about two weeks later stating I was going to be charged with destruction of evidence. The case went to a pre-trial hearing where my lawyer argued the city couldn’t prove the bottle fragments were from our bottle because the police didn’t recover them at the time of breakage, but waited two full days. Something about chain of custody, but I walked….
So you see, this case is a natural progression of the CPD policy to hassle the youth instead of rooting out the real crime that occurs in that little town.
jddavis on April 27 at 8:58 a.m.
Greenlib, reservedparking and SpokaneLiberal are right on. This is a huge waste of time and resources.
For those that suggest he did this for a thrill, I’m certain the thrill quickly faded as he paid $28 for overpriced groceries.
PlanB on April 27 at 9:34 a.m.
Absolutely a waste of everyone’s time and resources.
I’d like to challenge all the “string ‘em up” people to prove they don’t inadvertently break at least one of the thousands of laws on the books on a daily basis.
93bird on April 27 at 9:43 a.m.
I wonder whether the owners, police, or prosecutor ever considered the negative effect of prosecuting a case like this. I live in Spokane but shop at Mitchell’s almost every weekend in the summer. I normally spend a lot of money on gas for my boat, beer, soda, and groceries for the days spent at the lake with friends. It’s a convenient spot to shop. This is the end, though. I will never shop at Mitchell’s again. I would never take the risk that my family or friends were treated like this over a simple mistake.
misjustice on April 27 at 10:15 a.m.
***** he said. The managers were watching him closely, and he was aware of them watching – *****
If he knew this, and still “forgot” he had eaten the dog, then he was trying to steal it. If someone is watching you like a hawk, believe me, you don’t forget why they are watching you! That would have been the first thing I told the cashier. “Hey, I ate a .99 sausage while shopping.”
He did this just to see if he could get away with it. You know, “Hey, I paid for $28 worth of groceries so why would I not pay for a .99 German sausage?” Why? Because he only had $28.
spokaneboy on April 27 at 10:24 a.m.
He looks like he had eaten his share of hotdogs.
eagleproducer on April 27 at 10:42 a.m.
gramma: I’ll bet it was because he paid for his groceries with food stamps and they don’t allow you to buy prepared food with food stamps. I’m shocked you didn’t come to that conclusion. The poor are the cause of every problem.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on April 27 at 10:48 a.m.
^ …. not every problem, just the ones that cost taxpayers money ;-|
postalcode98560 on April 27 at 11:22 a.m.
As a former police officer in Washington I find this wrong on so many fronts.
First, the store manager should be punished by the owners/corporate for his stupidity of not just taking the dollar in the first place, and then for lying about the (lack of) offer of payment to the police (you can be sure the employees will be reprimanded and maybe fired for not lying and backing up the manager). This sounds like the manager was supplying false information to get Richardson arrested, and may be a crime in itself or at least actionable by Richardson in a lawsuit.
If the manager is the owner, he needs to be punished by the public by not shopping there, as now the public knows the intent of the store management. Catching shoplifters is a profit center, you can get civil penalties worth much more than the cost of the goods - the comments about ‘too late, gotcha now’ seem to indicate they were looking for the big civil payoff, not just selling groceries. Maybe that’s why the manager lied to the police, to get the civil fine.
The public has been warned. IGA has a black eye over this, thanks to that manager.
Next the cops should have either talked the manager into taking the dollar or refused to arrest (Google “officer discretion”, something the arresting officer apparently has no knowledge of) and force the manager to take the case to the prosecutor on his own if he felt he had too. And yes, Mr. Arresting Officer, Richardson was protesting because he was confronted by the stupidity of the store manager and his boneheaded desire for an arrest and civil penalty. You’d be upset under similar circumstances, and it’s an officers job to see all sides. Your lack of discretion is troubling.
Third, of all the parties involved who should know better, the prosecutor, the one with the law degree, should be fired by the voters next time at the polls. Discretion gives the prosecutor the power to dismiss based on factors such as the probability of conviction (NIL, as we saw in 5 minutes), the nature of the offense (a dollar), the characteristics of the offender (a student with one error in his past), and availability of adequate civil remedies ($200 is not “adequate”, it was EXCESSIVE). Her statements only serve to show she is incompetent for the job.
We can only hope Richardson is studying law. He can have McKay’s job when he passes the bar.
Bone on April 27 at 11:44 a.m.
A ridiculous waste of resources and unfortunately isn’t an isolated event. What is NOT mentioned is this: The store owners have a civil remedy. They have the ability to file a suit and recover the cost of the hot dog plus additional damages if they can prove them.
The cost to the community needs to come into the equation at some point. A one-dollar hot dog “stolen”: Should you pay for a criminal investigation, the public defender who must be appointed, the court clerk’s time, the judge’s time, a pool of jurors [who probably have to take time off of work to appear for this nonsense], and a day’s trial where witnesses must be called to appear [an expensive endeavor for everyone]?
The system “worked” here and the man was acquitted. However, it would have “worked” equally well and at much lesser cost to the taxpayer if the city would have told the store owner they are “declining to prosecute, given these facts, and he may sue the hot-dog villain if they wish”.
Codywiench on April 27 at 11:54 a.m.
So this is a waste because the thing allegedly stolen was of little value to YOU? People try to take small things all the time and this guy got caught.
tsohns on April 27 at 11:57 a.m.
This happened to me back in the late 90’s at Dismores in Pullman. Only it was a donut, I offered to pay at the time as well. I even wrote a personal letter to the owner of the store. Eventually, it was turned over to a collections agency, I never got a chance to argue my case, it just ruined my credit because I refused to pay $200.32. I am glad he was aquitted.
Orphan on April 27 at 12:01 p.m.
Looks like common sense has broken out all over this thread, quick someone start an off topic argument.
Ninch on April 27 at 12:04 p.m.
Blaming the store management (and demanding that the store pay for court costs) for this stealing a hot dog is so wrong. Why do so many defend the person with bad behavior because the act was not of high monetary value? Why are so many people so ethically challenged? Where are the values that include “honesty?” I have NEVER left a store without paying for anything and I have had my share of absentmindedness. So why let this guy off the hook? And want to put the store (the victim) on the hook?
Bone on April 27 at 12:12 p.m.
The jury found him not guilty, after hearing all the witnesses, and considering all of the evidence, because they found he did not INTEND to take the hot dog. The people posting here saying he DID intend to take the hot dog snap to their judgment of guilty after only reading a small summary of the case in a newspaper. Thankfully, our forefathers drafted a constitution which protects us from such people. I wonder if you’d be crying “WITCH!” if we still tried people for witchcraft?
hamrsrscarry on April 27 at 12:40 p.m.
hot dogs are gateways to harder pork products like pepperoni and hams.
glad they busted this pigger before he got into the jimmy dean rack in the coolers
Thoreau on April 27 at 12:57 p.m.
How ridiculous.
He should have “returned” the hotdog, after it ran through his complete digestive system.
goshock on April 27 at 1:24 p.m.
What’s going on in Cheney with these shoplifting cases? Remember Kristin Bell and the ridiculous case that followed her? While she was clearly guilty, and admitted so, that one went way too far as well.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/jan/09/woman-cant-shake-felonys-impact/
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/apr/06/shawn-vestal-shoplifting-sentence-puts-focus-on/
WHS on April 27 at 3:00 p.m.
Ninch, have a couple of questions for you.
First - When you are driving and forget to signal when you change lanes, do you voluntarily send in a fine to the courts for your lapse?
Have you ever driven 28 in a 25? And did you find the nearest cop and report yourself and of course, demand a ticket?
Or what about taking a pen home from the office? I mean that’s stealing too!
Dude, there is a reason that you have misdemeanors and felonies and one of the deciding factors is value!
Honestly, stealing a .99 cent hotdog is not the same as stealing a $90,000 Mercedes. And it is not indicative of a greater criminal mind.
Personally, I will never shop at Mitchells. You have lost another customer.
terrymr on April 27 at 3:13 p.m.
Store owners don’t really care whether you intended to steal or not, they want the $200 civil penalty. The law is written such that they can collect it regardless of whether you are arrested / charged / convicted.
MrNatural on April 27 at 4:23 p.m.
This deserves the death penalty…by god that will deter shoplifting…and be great for business!
Frankly I think this is a dual edge issue…on one hand we have what appears to be an inconsiderate space-cadet dweeb rudely stuffing his pie hole and greasing up the shopping baskets and on the other hand we have this Reichstag retail applying harsh extortion over a buck s worth (actually 25 cents) of meat byproducts…what a classic combination of calamity…
eagleproducer on April 27 at 4:40 p.m.
Mr. Natural: “Pay the man, Shirley!”
greenlibertarian on April 27 at 5:10 p.m.
I really appreciate the former police officer’s take on this.
People don’t seem to understand there are elements of a crime that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One of those is intent. There’s no doubt he took property belonging to the store, but the prosecution could not obviously, prove that he did it with the intent of not paying for it.
Orphan on April 27 at 5:15 p.m.
Bone gets it, not guilty by a jury of his peers per Washungton State law. He did not steal the hot dog.
pgroup on April 27 at 6:54 p.m.
What they do not tell you is that the police had zero discretion about the situation. They could choose to arrest or cite but the decision to prosecute is the victim’s. It’s called a citizen complaint and the citizen is the private prosecutor.
At some point, the public prosecutor decided to run with the case, which is her discretion. But if she had not, the victim would have had to prosecute pro se or hire an attorney to prosecute or drop the case.
The “victim” got off on the costs of prosecution because the public prosecutor chose to try the case.
What I have described above does not apply to felonies, but it does apply to all misdemeanors.
Additionally, there is a chapter of the RCW that is entitled “Compromise of Misdemeanors” (or something similar). It is a RIGHT of a criminal defendant to make a restitution offer in exchange for dismissal.
A condition of hire for public attorneys should be to read every word in the RCW at least once. No guarantee that they would remember but at least they would be exposed to each law.
alanshubert on April 27 at 6:57 p.m.
The next time a customer gets overcharged on an incorrectly marked item at this store, they should refuse the offer of a refund and call the cops to report a theft instead. I’ve never understood why stores are simply able to “make good” on those thefts, which require eternal vigilance by consumers to prevent, and just imagine the amount that goes unnoticed. To me, that’s a form of theft. Probably legally protected theft, but still, this store would be a deserving test case.
pgroup on April 27 at 6:57 p.m.
I made an error in my post - DV crimes cannot be compromised, and I believe there are a few other categories exempted as well. It’s always best to read the law before talking about it so I must go stand in the corner for half an hour to make me remember not to violate the rules.
Codywiench on April 27 at 7:46 p.m.
Returning something you stole or offering to pay for it is not how things work. In fact, it sounds like this guy was trying to bribe the store into not getting the authorities involved. I’m sure most people found guilty of stealing would go back and pay the retail price if given the option.
greenlibertarian on April 27 at 8:16 p.m.
Codywiench on April 27 at 7:46 p.m.
Returning something you stole or offering to pay for it is not how things work. In fact, it sounds like this guy was trying to bribe the store into not getting the authorities involved. I’m sure most people found guilty of stealing would go back and pay the retail price if given the option.
He is guilty of stealing only in your (and others) head(s).
He was given a fair trial, did not get off on any technicalities, and a jury of his peers in a court of law said the government did not prove its case. Not guilty.
For purposes of the law and REASON, he is not guilty in this case, no matter what ignorant opinion (to which you are entitled) you and the others hold.
These are the kinds of idiotic, wasteful, why in the hell did you bother cases that rightly make people lose trust in the justice system, although it served the proper purpose in the end, it was still an utter waste of resources, and I for one am sick and tired of paying for crap like this.
pollobot on April 27 at 10:13 p.m.
Why is this considered news? <yawn>
brentandrews on April 28 at 8:41 a.m.
Great story, Shawn. One thing though, I would have liked to know a little more about that past shoplifting charge. It didn’t happen to involve a hot dog, did it? You might be missing a serial hot dog thief, here, in which case no frank is safe, now. Follow up with a little something on that past charge. Inquiring minds want to know.
brentandrews on April 28 at 8:59 a.m.
This is a fascinating thread with a lot of interesting comments. Did the jury get to hear any information about the past shoplifting charge? If I had ever been charged with shoplifting before I would be super sensitive about paying for everything I got from or ate in the store. For example, after five speeding tickets my senior year in high school, I watch speed limit signs pretty carefully now. I really do think it’s worth looking into that past shoplifting charge. Someone here suggested the accused only had $28 on him - thus, you “let slip” the memory of eating the hot dog. Also it was suggested that the overweight can eat without knowing they’re eating - which is interesting if you think about it. The fact that this is the pettiest of products - nay, “by products” - matters not to me. True, the citizens have spoken and we’ll abide by their decision. That doesn’t mean we can’t continue to debate the matter. The $200 fine up for grabs by the store seems to incentivize lying and “gotcha” tactics by store owners - there’s room for debate, right there. I’m not a fan of shoplifting, it’s a plague, but there are many forms of theft and extravagant fines are one in my view. Another thought that occurs to me is you probably have several too many prosecutors, in this town.
John_Fever_Richmond on April 28 at 10:53 a.m.
My friends have a cabin @ Clear Lake and pretty much every weekend you can find me there in my boat. It usually seems like Mitchells is the stop where we take care of our shopping for the weekend, (i.e. food, gas, beer, and whatever the kids grab). After hearing how they handled this incident I will make a point of shopping ANYWHERE but there! As I try to always look for the positive, hey, at least the mini-mart down the street will see an increase in business this year!
I don’t care if it adds an extra 20 or so bucks per weekend to my bill - because it’s a matter of principle. I’m curious how much in lost revenue Mitchells will see after this incident?
cheneyEagle on April 28 at 4:45 p.m.
seriously. first I really doubt that this was all about a hot dog. it was about stealing. not what he stole, since it wasn’t anything of excess value, but the fact that he tried to claim the store’s services without paying for them and he should be punished. and as a taxpayer in Cheney I can’t say that anything needs to be payed back by the company or manager. its was a 201 dollar court cost that was taken out of the roughly 8800 men and women who pay taxes in this town. that is just over 2 cents a person.
so for all of you that want to argue that its only a 1 dollar hot dog and you want your tax money back. here’s your 2 cents, you cant even buy a hot dog for that.
also for all the people who refuse to shop at Mitchell’s Harvest foods now because of this incident, you don’t want to shop at a store that protects itself from shop lifters? you don’t feel comfortable with your family shopping there because the company didn’t allow themselves to be had even for a dollar. maybe you should be making sure your family isn’t trying to leave the store with things they haven’t payed for. and for you to act like every situation would be handled this way is really naive. no one but the people who were present really know what went down. so who are we to pass judgment on the facility who was protecting itself.
granted it seems this whole thing could have been avoided at the door, but who listens clearly when their livelihood is taken advantage of.
Hcklbery on April 28 at 5:47 p.m.
This is the core problem with some in political office.
It’s NOT THEIR MONEY mentality.
dokdo on April 29 at 6:33 p.m.
alanshubert is right on: Why are stores able to get away with overcharging? About once a month I find that I’ve paid too much (it’s always too much, too - they never undercharge) for some item at the grocery store after I go through the receipt. Most customers don’t check the receipt every time - and they know that. And if I catch them - the burden is on me - I’ve got to go find the item in the store and show it to them. What makes it worse is that they can overcharge people all day long, and only 5% of the time will they get caught. And if they’re caught, there’s no penalty. Most don’t even bother to apologize. But Richardson eats the hot dog and has to pay $200. We need to change the law and bring some justice to this situation. Grocery stores should pay a fine if they’re caught - every time: $10 to the customer. The shoplifting law at present discriminates against the consumer - it needs to be changed.
bbalisong on May 01 at 5:38 p.m.
Why didn’t the staff of Mitchells say something?
They saw the “crime” going down and allowed it to play out.
To say “How about the hot dog? at the checkout would seem appropriate.
Why let a “good” boy go bad?
Don’t say that’s not their job …it is.
If there is a known discrepancy at the checkout address it.
The civil penalty incentive and a siege mentality that makes customers the “enemy” without any benefit of the doubt, only to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
keithj on May 02 at 8:03 p.m.
Nature abhors a vacumn. I never knew what that meant. There isn’t enough crime in Cheney. Lets face it, Cheney isn’t Oakland or Detroit. When you don’t have enough crime, absurd prosecutions like this will occur. The police, prosecutors and judges need something to do. When there isn’t real crime, incidents like this will be treated as crimes. After all, nature abhors a vacumn.
keithj on May 02 at 8:05 p.m.
Also, when I pass through Cheney, buying stuff on the way to the lake, I ain’t shopping at Mitchell’s.
jma on May 03 at 1:27 p.m.
Postalcode got it right.
Juror saying “you’d have to be an idiot to not realize that the guy simply forgot” tells me that the arresting officer and prosecutor either did not have anything better to do with their time or were motivated for unstated reasons to prosecute this case. What a waste of resources.
The total community cost far exceeds $200.
I’m skipping Mitchell’s too.