Juror Admits Drunken Driving Convictions Conviction Of Driver Who Hit, Killed Child May Be Overturned
Defense attorney Dennis Scott dropped a bombshell late Thursday on the vehicular homicide conviction of former Pend Oreille County sheriff’s dispatcher Cathy Van Stedum.
Scott filed a sworn statement in which one of the jurors who convicted Van Stedum of the alcohol-related crime admitted to a history of drunken-driving convictions.
Because of that, Scott is seeking a new trial on the charge that Van Stedum was driving drunk when she struck and killed 5-year-old trick-or-treater Krissy Jones in Newport last Halloween.
Prosecutor Tom Metzger said the motion may be discussed July 6, when Van Stedum was to have been sentenced, but more time may be needed for legal research.
“I’m going to review the entire situation and try to determine a proper course of action,” Metzger said. “I’ll certainly be meeting with the victim’s family and discussing potential options.”
The admission by juror Craig Sherlund was one of two significant developments in the case.
Scott also filed a letter by another juror, Newport-area resident Neil Margoles, who pleaded for Van Stedum’s sentence not to exceed a year in jail. The standard sentencing range would be about 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years, and Metzger was recommending three years.
Sherlund said he thought he was telling the truth on a juror questionnaire when he said he had never been convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic violation.
“To me, that means crimes like rape, burglary or things like that,” said Sherlund, 42, who operates Sherlund Real Estate in Newport.
However, Sherlund acknowledged in another sworn statement Thursday that he had three drunken-driving convictions and an alcohol-related traffic accident in California.
“It’s not that I blatantly lied in court or on my juror’s affidavit,” Sherlund said. “This was over 14 years ago and I just didn’t stop to think.”
In the new statement filed in court Thursday, Sherlund said he has been sober for 13 years and still attends Alcoholics Anonymous “on an infrequent, as-needed basis.”
“I used my intimate knowledge of alcohol abuse, gained through my own experience, and experience with others as an educational basis to discern and disseminate facts which were brought up in the course of this trial,” Sherlund stated. “Frankly, everyone has a right to prove their innocence, and she did not do this.”
Sherlund said in a subsequent interview that he believes his background made him more, not less sympathetic. But Scott cited an alcohol counselor’s report that recovering alcoholics tend to be “more judgmental of those who are not in recovery.”
Sherlund said he weighed all the evidence presented, but from his own knowledge discounted Van Stedum’s claim.
, DataTimes