Spokane7
61°
February 11, 2011 in City
Mistrial declared in Strine trial after purported acquittal
Judge Tari Eitzen receives the verdict in the Jon Strine vehicular homicide trial Thursday.
(Full-size photo)
Wails from a victim’s daughter filled the courtroom just after the judge read what jurors had initially presented as a unanimous acquittal. But seconds later, one juror said she didn’t agree with the verdict. Then five more said the same thing.
The bizarre series of events, which several longtime Spokane County court officials said they’d never before seen, led to a mistrial Thursday in the vehicular homicide and assault trial of a Spokane stockbroker who broadsided a motorcycle in June 2009, killing the passenger and paralyzing the driver.
A new trial for Jon A. Strine, 43, is expected to begin in March.
The victims’ family declined comment. Strine and his lawyer, Carl Oreskovich, declined comment.
Deputy Prosecutor Mary Ann Brady said she was “so surprised by what happened.”
But, she said, “This was a very tough case. … Sometimes people just can’t agree.”
The 12 jurors left without speaking to media.
“I know this has been extremely difficult for everyone,” Judge Tari Eitzen said in court.
Eitzen twice asked the jury foreman if she thought they could eventually reach a verdict.
“A unanimous verdict you mean?” the woman responded. “No your honor.”
All jury verdicts must be unanimous in criminal trials.
Strine contends the June 2, 2009, crash in downtown Spokane that killed 48-year-old Lorri Keller, an elementary school secretary, and paralyzed her husband, Gary Keller, 61, was a tragic accident resulting from a routine driving decision, not a criminal act.
State crime lab tests placed Strine’s blood-alcohol level at 0.20, but Oreskovich said the tests are notoriously unreliable. Experts for the defense said Strine’s alcohol consumption before the crash – about 4 1/2 drinks in 3 1/2 hours – would not have placed him over the legal limit for driving, which is 0.08.
Jurors watched surveillance video from Fast Eddie’s, where Strine was drinking before the crash. Strine drank two beers and took a sip of a shot of Crown Royal, but he didn’t appear visibly intoxicated on the video. Jurors also saw seconds-long video from Washington State Department of Transportation cameras that showed Strine’s silver Mercedes driving with the flow of traffic. But several motorists testified that Strine was driving erratically before the crash and nearly hit a curb.
Strine said he accelerated to pass a car on his right after realizing he was in the wrong lane of southbound Browne Street. Oreskovich told jurors his client was driving between 35 mph and 39 mph in the 30 mph zone.
Investigators placed Strine’s speed at 54 mph, but Gary Keller testified that he didn’t believe Strine was driving faster than 40 mph.
The Kellers, who lived in Mead, were in the area that evening so Gary Keller could find the location of an appointment the next day.
A civil suit filed by Keller against Strine, who has at least two previous drunken driving arrests, was settled out of court.
Human trafficking suspects released 
oneanddone on February 11 at 2:50 a.m.
Time to take another online course in effective journalism Meghann. Where’s the explanation for the miscommunication between the jury foreman and judge? From your opening, that seemed to be your central point but the connection was threadbare. You seemed to imply that the foreman decided on their own to acquit the defendant, ignoring the input from the other jurors. How about filling in the blanks.
bszottlinger on February 11 at 8:18 a.m.
Oneanddone:
I’m not sure I understand your point. Do you expect the reporter to go to the judge and ask the judge if she screwed up by not emphasizing the unanimous instruction? Or do you expect the reporter to press the jury at this early stage as to way they didn’t understand the verdict must be unanimous? Or do you mean the reporter should have pressed the prosecutor(the only one apparently willing to talk) as to why the jury didn’t understand the instructions? I’m confused as to what your journalistic expectation is immediately after a hung jury, a point at which, I’m sure you are aware, everyone including the jury wants to get the H out of there.
HammerSix on February 11 at 10:27 a.m.
Mr. Szottlinger,
I have to agree with oneanddone. I have a degree in Technical Writing and it is true that in any form of writing, the very first paragraph suggests what the piece is about. Unfortunately, in this case, one of two things is wrong here. Either, the author failed to support the thesis paragraph throughout the article (with the sufficient detail oneanddone is looking for). Or, the article actually isn’t about the miscommunication at all and therefore, its thesis is missing or misplaced within (which appears the more likely case here).
Oneanddone didn’t suggest how the “journalist” should go about doing her job. It appears that you have done that for him. He simply pointed out her failure to do it within acceptable journalistic standards.
Based upon our posting histories, I claim to be an expert in very little and have posted 18 times in just over a year; or, on average, about once every 21 days. On the other hand, I see that in your just over seven months, you average 3.75 postings per day and claim expertise in myriad topics.
I see that you’re an intelligent and accomplished man, but I simply cannot figure out why you would say anything at all to this posting, let alone contrary. It is OK to say nothing sometimes. Further, “others” are not wrong all the time and subject to critique to the tune of 3.75 times per day.
Now I predict a volley of defense, correction, or enlightenment about how I am wrong—to which I won’t respond and probably won’t ever see.
bszottlinger on February 11 at 11:05 a.m.
Hammersix:
Perhaps you are right, and I yield to those with journalism expertise. As far as the 3.75 I have always tried to maintain at least a B+ average and I’m in the unenviable position that I have far too much time on my hands. With respect to a claim of “expertise in myriad topics”, I don’t believe I have made that claim. I have however stayed in a Holiday Inn Express on several occasions.
I hope this met your expectations. My question to you is if “to which I won’t respond and probably won’t ever see.”, why bother?