Letter to the Editor
Unfair prosecution
Published Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!June 29, 2008
To the editor:
This letter is to address a situation of outrageously blatant prosecutorial malfeasance.
The current Fairbanks district attorney is pursuing a course against a local, longtime resident which is just wrong.
She has decided to prosecute one of the victims in a not-too-recent traffic accident for manslaughter. Ted Wicken is being singled out because he survived a head-on collision caused by the driver, who died.
The young man made a very poor decision to make a left turn across the Mitchell Expressway against oncoming traffic and paid for the mistake with his life.
Ted was unable to work, was physically and emotionally injured for an extended period of time, and now for whatever misdirected, ill-considered reason, the DA has elected to pursue an injurious and frivolous prosecution. This community must stand up and protest this ridiculous course by the DA. In order to defend himself from this action, Ted is being forced to seek legal advice at unaffordable rates.
This action is comparable to the ridiculous suit concerning hot coffee and McDonald’s and has less merit.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I don't know anything about this accident, but the 81-year-old lady in the McDonald's case suffered 3rd degree burns and needed surgery. McDonald's had been serving much hotter coffee than other restaurants, and that lawsuit forced them to fix the problem. Prior to that case, there had been 700 other reported injuries from McDonald's coffee.
If this prosecution is comparable to the McDonald's case, then it isn't frivolous at all.
I do'nt understand if he was a passenger why are thay trying to prosecute him ? or was he one of the drivers ?
Here's a link to a ASP report on the accident. If you search for Theodore in the document, you'll find it.
http://www.dps.state.ak.us/pio/dispatch/...
Did a McDonalds employee pour coffee on this woman? Thats the only way I see it being a legitiment case. Coffee, by its very nature, (less you go for the cold fru fru ones) is hot. If you spill it on yourself, thats your own fault.
I hope this guy is cleared. For his sake and ours. Think of the precendent this would start.
it was her fault for spilling it but the way i hear the story is...the coffee was like 175 degrees way to hot. maybe 150 should be the high end limit so if you take a drink it doesnt burn your mouth. i dont know the whole story but i do know that no one has be burned since so....you made the final judgement.
pizza is another tricky food to eat with the melted cheese. im sure we have burned our chin a time or two.
I love how members of the public, who aren't privied to official police reports/criminal investigations and the internal files of the District Attorney's Office, make judgement calls based upon very limited releases of information in the News-Miner, which many times is incorrect.
Wicken may have been seen driving recklessly just prior to the accident, or even in the events leading up to the accident. With as many cases as this DA dismisses, I'm betting there is good reason it is pursuing this one. Don't cry too hard, Fairbanks, there may be some justice in the works.
So if you are a "local long time resident" that should excause you from prosecution? I know nothing about this case but from what i read in this letter it sounds a little fishy... cant figure out how McDonalds got involved in a traffic accident...
I believe that the author is comparing the McDonalds case with this case as being without merit. The DA's office apparently has enough probable cause to pursue. As for him being singled out because he is a survivor - I don't see that happening. Doesn't matter or make it wrong if one just is here visiting or a long time resident to be prosecuted. If Mr. Wicken's cannot afford an attorney, he should file the paper work and have the court appoint him one. There is always 'more than meets the eye' in most cases.
3rd degree burns result in charring of the skin. I believe McDonalds lady had 2nd degree burns, i.e. Blistering.
Obviously I don't know all the details but, unless he ran a red light, how would he have been at fault? If they were both "pushing" a yellow light, wouldn't they both assume part of the blame. I hope this isn't a case of Prosecute the guy that lives. I don't know Ted extremly well, but if you ever get stuck behind him on the road, you will going less than the speed limit.
There is a difference between a tort case (a civil wrong, such as the McDonald's debacle) and a criminal case (a crime committed against society as a whole). The purpose of the District Attorney, who represents all citizens in the state, in prosecuting the defendant driver is to protect society by punishing the driver for violating a law and to deter other drivers from acting in the same manner. The purpose of a tort case is to compensate a person for injuries caused by another person's breach of duty. A criminal prosecution (protecting society) has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with a tort case (getting monetary awards). The letter writer is completely off base in this respect.
Did you ever bite into one of those Hot Apple or Cherry Pies at Mickie Dees, WOW!Key word "Hot".
I went to the web site Kornmonkiedotcom said to look and it said wicken was southbound on mitchell expressway it looks like creek made a left hand turn at the light with out yeiding and got hit by oncoming
trafic so why is wicken being charged? man if it is going to be like this just think what the DA will try do next to somebody else!
The McDonalds' case was justified as the McDonalds' coffee maker was malfunctioning and making much hotter than normal coffee. McDonalds had been informed of the situation many times and had done nothing, including warning customers, and the woman in the case had only asked for medical costs and not initially for any pain and suffering. The high pay out was because McDonalds infuriated the judge by refusing any money at all, so the woman ended up with allot more than she was asking for.
I think it is ridiculous and should be dropped. it doesn't make any sense at all.
I read the report and don't see anything in it that indicates who did what. It just says that they collided. It also says alcohol does not appear to be a factor at this time. Until we have more details available, I think it is premature to pass judgement on Mr. Wicken or the D.A. Let's try something new and let all of the information come out in court before we decide guilt or innocense. I will say that if it was determined that Mr. Creek was the one who caused the accident, the case against Mr. Wicken should be dropped, period.
your right Mike ! there is'nt enough facts to say who did what?.
You are completely right that there is not enough facts to say. I have been on a grand jury before and as much as a DA would like to bring this case to trail by himself it doesn't happen like that. He presents his facts to a grand jury to decide if there is enough evidence to go to trail. Obviously the grand jury found that there was enough evidence for a case. You can blame your peers for this not the DA.
lagirl -- Sorry, have to disagree with you there.
If the cops/DA get a bee in their bonnet about someone's guilt, they can present things in a disingenuous manner (perhaps even falsifying evidence). Their description and explanations to the jury in no way have to be reality - it can be fabrication as they see it (e.g. this is what we *think* happened...) I've seen this happen to a close friend of mine IN FAIRBANKS, and I've heard others tell a similar tale.
So, I still don't think the blame HAS to lie with our peers.
One could say that the jury is supposed to see through this smoke screen, but that all depends on how masterful the illusionists are, doesn't it?
Having said that, I have no opinion either way about this particular case.
how does someone make a turn crossing a lane of traffic and have any right of way? Yellow light, blue light it doesnt matter, this guy should have had the right of way. The only thing (agreeing with the whole 'lets let the whole story come out' thing) that would make a case in my view was if they later determined, and not listed in the police blotter I read also, that alcohol was a factor or even better narcotics or some other type of drug. One does not know from the info provided, but they had better have more than they have shown so far.
Should we just forgo the trial and evidence and let the court of public opinion reign? That is all this letter is one persons opinion and a jibe at the DA’s office for doing their job. There are no facts out now just supposition and innuendo. The DNM did a disservice to this man and to the family of the victim by printing this letter. How can the defense and prosecution find an unbiased jury pool? I wish the DNM would look a bit deeper into what they choose to print and the ramifications of such.
newsreader; I have had something happen to me like that!.
I got jump by my ex and her brother and got 2 broken ribs because
I wanted to leave her. instead of looking at the facts the Cops/DA
went after me because thay thought I was the easiest target to go for!
fortunat for me he got arrested and thay dropped the case without saying so much as sorry we made a misstake.
Oh--that's right Newsreader I forgot the justice system is always out to get--well the innocent. They are all liars!! Everyone that has been imprisoned is innocent and the lawyers should be in jail. I am sooo glad that you set the record straight on how the court system works.
Don't you think maybe you should put the blame where it really lies---with the person that committed the crime?!
This is the reason we have a jury of our peers, so that if (if) the lawyer is lying the jury has the facts from both sides defendant and prosecution to try to figure out what the truth really is.
lagirl --
If you re-read my post, you will not find words like "always" "all" or "everyone". You inserted those yourself.
Yes. Its called sarcasm.
SeanWhite I feel you. It seems like Seans have the most sense. The DNM was irresponsible for doing so.
Everyone....QUIT arguing about the McDonalds case that is not the point of the letter, and that case is over and done with, lets stay on track here and discuss the case at hand.
wow i'm pretty sure that the da is privy to more information than any of us.... funny to see everyone get so worked up about 1 biased letter to the editor
But really??Did you ever bite into one of those Hot Pies,SONOFABISCUIT!!!
Kinda like those loose dogs at the dump sight.
It is possible for this guy to be at fault if the other driver was waiting, got a green arrow, and the driver being charged ran the light shortly after it turned red. In that case, the driver turning left DOES have the right of way.
Cops lie, that's a no brain-er. Not all the time but it does happen. They are the shepherds and we are the sheep. If they tell a few lies to keep us in line whats the harm. Are the DAs guilty of going after people when the facts of a case are insufficient to prove guilt? Does Lacrosse and Nyfong ring a bell?
How many times does a grand jury actually tell the prosecution that there is not enough evidence to deem probable cause and permit the indictment?
The burden of proof required for the indictment is very low in a grand jury and the prosecutor can present just about anything to convince the grand jury of his case.
I know many of the facts in this case and it seems that both parties were a little late for work and pushing it. One man sadly lost his life and I am sure the other still has nightmares about it.
I remember seeing the destroyed car in the ditch and it was quite stirring. One car clearly turned in front of oncoming traffic. Red light, yellow, green....they were both partially at fault.
This charge is rid