Charges dropped in Schlitterbahn Verrückt case
Posted
After a boy died while riding the Verrückt waterslide at Schlitterbahn Kansas City in 2016, state attorneys brought criminal charges against operators and associates of the water park, accusing them of recklessness. But on Friday a judge dismissed the charges and said prosecutors had submitted “improper evidence.”
Read more from The New York Times.
Related parks
The judge is an idiot. Assuming for a moment that the TV show was "fictional drama" (and seriously, is that going to give the president a pass for all of the dumb things he says?), the evidence that these guys didn't understand, ignored or neglected engineering standards appears to be present.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
I'm not a lawyer,so I won't speculate on whether the judge was right or wrong.
Thing is,the prosecution is free to refile charges.
If they feel they have a strong enough case,without the "improper evidence",I don't know why they wouldn't refile.
This could actually be a positive for the case.
Had this been raised on appeal,after a trial,its possible "double jeopardy" may have come into play,letting everyone off,with no ability to retry.
I am also not a lawyer, but I am certainly curious as to why the evidence was allowed in the first place.
In any event, I think this case deserves to have a clear and decisive verdict. Perhaps the dramatized footage of the rafts flying off the ride could have influenced a jury's decision making. Perhaps it wouldn't have. In either event, it would be better to retry the case without that footage. There seems to be plenty of other evidence for a jury to make a decision without it.
Fun said:
I am also not a lawyer, but I am certainly curious as to why the evidence was allowed in the first place.
In any event, I think this case deserves to have a clear and decisive verdict. Perhaps the dramatized footage of the rafts flying off the ride could have influenced a jury's decision making. Perhaps it wouldn't have. In either event, it would be better to retry the case without that footage. There seems to be plenty of other evidence for a jury to make a decision without it.
Although I'm not a lawyer,I do provide expert testimony in Civil and Criminal cases in N.J.
I know the rules of evidence for a Grand Jury are "looser" then for a trial.
So apparently the prosecution felt the "improper evidence" was O.K. for the Grand Jury.
I know from personal experience that you can introduce as evidence "recreations".
I've done it.
But it requires an extreme vetting to prove not only your qualifications to prepare a "recreation",but also that the "recreation "is 100% factual/accurate.
In one case we made a scale model of piece of playground equipment to demonstrate a design defect.
The Judge made us prove were were qualified to make that type of model.
You must be logged in to post
