Snowboarders cited for triggering avalanche at Eisenhower tunnel

**snoqpass** · 10-26-2020, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by altasnob

My mistake, there was a snowshed there but they instead raised the freeway up so that slides would go under the freeway rather than over.

Their plan was to build them but during construction the bean counters figured out the cost of building and maintaining the fire suppression systems for the snow sheds would cost more than building the bridges

**Danno** · 10-26-2020, 11:31 AM

There are snowsheds on highways 550 and 160 in Colorado (but those are not interstates).

**SKIP IN7RO** · 10-26-2020, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

There are snowsheds on highways 550 and 160 in Colorado (but those are not interstates).

The one on 160 is where most of the auto accidents happen, horrible design.

**adrenalated** · 10-26-2020, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by doebedoe

You answered your own question -- Europe vs US.

But just for a little more context, they didn't bury a highway. The buried a service road that serves a highway. And it took a big slide to do that. To my knowledge, the highway itself has never been directly impacted by anything sliding in this area.

Avalanches have definitely buried the highway from the south facing slidepaths near the tunnel on the west side, don't have a link handy but have seen it in the report before. I'm not aware of the highway having been buried from the westerly aspects.

**mall walker** · 10-26-2020, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by adrenalated

Avalanches have definitely buried the highway from the south facing slidepaths near the tunnel on the west side, don't have a link handy but have seen it in the report before. I'm not aware of the highway having been buried from the westerly aspects.

yeah 2 (edit: maybe 3? idk time has no meaning anymore) seasons ago during that wild historic avalanche cycle weren’t there a few slides that hit 70? I think the road was closed for control work but still. also maybe a different road, I was observing from a distance

**Danno** · 10-26-2020, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by mall walker

yeah 2 (edit: maybe 3? idk time has no meaning anymore) seasons ago during that wild historic avalanche cycle weren’t there a few slides that hit 70? I think the road was closed for control work but still. also maybe a different road, I was observing from a distance

I don't recall ones at the tunnel burying the highway 2 years ago, but there were definitely some crazy slides that did that, not all that far away.

**Danno** · 10-26-2020, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by SKIP IN7RO

The one on 160 is where most of the auto accidents happen, horrible design.

Fun fact (well, not really fun, but...). Quite a few years ago, a couple of friends were riding WC backcountry, one of them had been there before (with me). He was trying to ride the stuff we had hit before, where you come back out to 160 well below the snow shed, by (IIRC) MM 171. Well, they got well off track and almost got caught in a slide (they have video), and came out right at the snow shed. Which he described as a "tunnel". I don't think they realized that they were skiing a line that slides so much that CDOT built a snow shed (I know they didn't realize that). I have not ridden backcountry with either of them since, lol.

**altasnob** · 10-28-2020, 09:34 PM

They had court on 10/27. I can't find the new court date on the docket search but the article below says a jury trial has been set in March 2021.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/10/...rch-avalanche/

**Danno** · 10-28-2020, 10:45 PM

Going to trial seems so wasteful and risky. But I don't know if the prosecutor is offering them a shitty plea or if they're trying to make a stand on principle (or a little of both).

**MakersTeleMark** · 10-28-2020, 10:49 PM

I'd absolutely take this to trial. Not that they aren't DB's, but this is retarded.

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/trial...valanche-case/

**altasnob** · 10-28-2020, 11:15 PM

If I was their attorney, I would advise them to accept no plea offer that requires them to pay the $168,000. If they go to trial and lose, they will likely get no jail and have to pay the $168,000. If they go to trial and win, then they don't have to pay a penny. The jury (I believe six for this charge in Colorado?) must be unanimous to convict. If there is a single hold out juror, then it is not a guilty verdict. So what do they have to lose by going to trial? The $168,000 restitution can be paid off with a payment plan but the balance accrues interest at the statutory rate (12% in Washington). So even if they start making payments the balance can keep going up. The snowboarders don't pay for the trial, the Colorado taxpayers do.

**MakersTeleMark** · 10-28-2020, 11:18 PM

I just took a reckless endangerment case this week. Seems like the flavor of the month in the 5th.

**Name Redacted** · 10-29-2020, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

I'd absolutely take this to trial. Not that they aren't DB's, but this is retarded.

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/trial...valanche-case/

That reporter should be put on trial for such a shitty article. Few details about the accident but goes into where the guys work and how busy their jobs have been? WTF?

Avalanche equipment was put in an avalanche path and then it was destroyed by an avalanche. It was installed last year, so who's to say that that slide couldn't have slid naturally someday or during O’bellx use and done the same damage? Who's to say that the reason that the slope was so unstable wasn't because of the O’bellx system? This sounds more like negligence of CDOT to me. The system is new, and they apparently haven't learned how to install the equipment correctly. I bet there's even a line item in the budget for replacing these when they are destroyed by avalanches during their learning curve.

**whipski** · 10-29-2020, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by altasnob

If I was their attorney, I would advise them to accept no plea offer that requires them to pay the $168,000. If they go to trial and lose, they will likely get no jail and have to pay the $168,000. If they go to trial and win, then they don't have to pay a penny. The jury (I believe six for this charge in Colorado?) must be unanimous to convict. If there is a single hold out juror, then it is not a guilty verdict. So what do they have to lose by going to trial? The $168,000 restitution can be paid off with a payment plan but the balance accrues interest at the statutory rate (12% in Washington). So even if they start making payments the balance can keep going up. The snowboarders don't pay for the trial, the Colorado taxpayers do.

Well if you seek the opinion of a surgeon they will usually recommend surgery...a lawyer will recommend trial...it's how they make a living...(all you dentists calm down) but legal fees can be substantial

**Danno** · 10-29-2020, 07:41 AM

See, all this is why I'm wondering what they were offered. I agree, if they weren't offered a reduction in the 168k then it's worth fighting.

**altasnob** · 10-29-2020, 09:23 AM

I highly doubt they were offered a plea deal that would reduce the restitution amount. Restitution is not the prosecutor's money, it is the victim's, so they would need the blessing of the victim to reduce. Plus, this case is all about the prosecutor using the criminal justice system as leverage to extort money from the snowboarders.

The article says Hannibal is not working at his patrol job this winter to focus on med-school. If his income is low, he should demand a public defender be appointed. If they make too much money for a public defender, they need to try harder to find an attorney who will take this case to trial for free or at least cheap. Lots of defense attorneys take prominent cases that are getting media attention for free. It's great advertising. Get a not guilty verdict on this case and the attorney will own the Summit County defense market.

Or just represent themselves. This shit aint rocket science. They already gave a full confession on tape, so there is nothing they could say or do to make their case any worse. I appreciate their honesty and the fact that they are not trying to hide anything. They truly believe what they did is not criminal. At trial, the $168k restitution amount should be suppressed because it is not relevant to the charge, and highly prejudicial. So at trial, you have to find 6 num nuts in Summit County who have never heard of this case. And they won't know how crazy expensive the damage was. This is not an easy case for the prosecutor.

**cravenmorhead** · 10-29-2020, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by altasnob

Restitution is not the prosecutor's money, it is the victim's, so they would need the blessing of the victim to reduce.

...

They already gave a full confession on tape, so there is nothing they could say or do to make their case any worse.

These statements are both wrong.

**altasnob** · 10-29-2020, 10:31 AM

How so? Every dollar of restitution payment goes to the victim. There is no legal rule that says prosecutors cannot negotiate a restitution amount. But when the amount of restitution is not being disputed (i.e. the snowboarders are not objecting that the devices they destroyed costs $168k) I have never seen a prosecutor agree to lower the restitution amount just to get a plea. For one, if the victim does not agree to this you know they are going to be livid that the prosecutor caved. Victim's view prosecutors as their "free" attorney even though this is not technically correct. And prosecutors just want to make the victim happy.

On the confession (video) they are making consciousness of guilt statements (I hope no one was down there, I hope the cops don't come). Those statements are coming in at trial and provide the basis of the prosecutor's case. They KNEW it was RECKLESS and yet jumped in anyway. As a defense, I would focus on the fact that the run slid, and the fact the slide caused damage, is irrelevant to whether their action was reckless. The reckless act was skiing a line that that had a high likelihood of sliding and that if it slid, would cause harm to a PERSON. Harm to property is not enough. The conduct must created a "substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person." The Colorado recreation attorney in the article agreed with me. He said there must be a person at the bottom for this case to stick. Since there was no one at the bottom, this charge could get dismissed at a motion hearing pre-trial because legally, even assuming the facts of the prosecutor's case are true, as a matter of law, it does not amount to Reckless Endangerment.

Snowboarders should get a buddy to testify as an expert witness that says there was no way that slide could get to the freeway (which is true). And testify that the access road almost never has anyone parked on it, so they assumed no PERSON was endangered by their actions. In closing, point out that if the snowboarders actions are criminal, that means every skier who ever skis a slide path in Colorado that leads to a highway in high, or moderately high avy conditions is committing the same crime (there are 200+ of these types of runs in Colorado). That would be the whole theme of my defense.

The snowboarders have this prosecutor on the ropes. Time to go for the jugular. The Summit County Prosecutor has quite possibly the most cush lawyer job in the country. I assume they are elected? All they have to do is not rock the boat and they can keep their fat govy pay check and fat govy pension for as long as they want, while sipping champagne at their house in Breck. But charging a case like this, which a lot of people think is bs and a waste of tax dollars, could cost this prosecutor their job, particularly if the prosecutor loses at a jury trial.

**thefrush** · 10-29-2020, 01:31 PM

https://recreation-law.com/2020/10/1...-right-to-rem/

"I keep trying to figure out the motivation for the District Attorney’s actions. The chance of getting any money out of these two men is zero. Does he want to keep people from going out in the backcountry? Probably. No doubt there is going to be a lot of Search & Rescue this winter based on sales of backcountry equipment. However, idiots in the backcountry is not a new thing.Instead of wasting the time, money, and resources to prosecute these two men, which will not stop idiots in the backcountry, why not try to educate them.

Besides, any expert who is going to get on the stand and say that these two triggered the avalanche is possibly wrong. Even with the men saying on tape, they started the slide; they could still be wrong."

**Bunion 2020** · 10-29-2020, 01:51 PM

^^^ this.

As I posted back a few pages, a great opportunity to educate a lot of BC users as to their responsibility not to be an idiot.

**cravenmorhead** · 10-29-2020, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by altasnob

How so?

I'm aware of how restitution works; I'm a former deputy district attorney. The victim may think the prosecutor represents them, but that misconception doesn't mean the victim needs to sign off on a reduction of restitution.

Everybody can make their own criminal cases worse, particularly if they don't have representation.

**altasnob** · 10-29-2020, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by cravenmorhead

Everybody can make their own criminal cases worse, particularly if they don't have representation.

Most of the time, yes. All of the time, no.

Defendant Marcus Carter, who is not an attorney, represented himself pro se (by himself) for over a decade on this case and ultimately prevailed.

The State appeals the dismissal of a machine gun possession charge, contrary to RCW 9.41.190(1) and .010(7), against Marcus Alton Carter. The trial court dismissed the charge because the State lacked sufficient evidence to prove that an ammunition supply device, defined by RCW 9.41.010(7), was present at the scene. The State argues that the statute does not require it to show the presence of an ammunition supply device and that the trial court erred in disregarding its evidence that such a device was present. Because RCW 9.41.010(7) contemplates a weapon accompanied by an ammunition supply device and because the State did not respond with an affidavit containing evidence of an ammunition supply device, the trial court did not err in dismissing the State's case on Carter's Knapstad motion. We affirm and construe the trial court's dismissal to be without prejudice.

State v. Carter, 161 Wn.App. 532, 255 P.3d 721 (Div. 2 2011)

The point being, if I had nothing to lose by going to trial I wouldn't let the cost of a private attorney stop me from going to trial. The world would be a better place if more people followed this advice.

**MakersTeleMark** · 10-29-2020, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by altasnob

The snowboarders have this prosecutor on the ropes. Time to go for the jugular. The Summit County Prosecutor has quite possibly the most cush lawyer job in the country. I assume they are elected? All they have to do is not rock the boat and they can keep their fat govy pay check and fat govy pension for as long as they want, while sipping champagne at their house in Breck. But charging a case like this, which a lot of people think is bs and a waste of tax dollars, could cost this prosecutor their job, particularly if the prosecutor loses at a jury trial.

The D.A. serves Clear Creek, Summit, Lake, and Eagle Counties. He is also term limited, and his Deputy is running unopposed.

**doebedoe** · 10-29-2020, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by thefrush

....."
Besides, any expert who is going to get on the stand and say that these two triggered the avalanche is possibly wrong. Even with the men saying on tape, they started the slide; they could still be wrong."

I don't get this part. Like...really? Is it up for debate what started this avalanche? CAIC report says skier trigger. The skiers say skier triggered. What reasonable expert could say it wasn't skier triggered?