In a surprising development, the jury in the Michael Jaskcht Carefree motorcycle case was deadlocked on all the felony counts against Mr. Jasckcht, and the judge declared a mistrial.  I just looked at the Maricopa County Superior Court website, and the counts included multiple allegations of manslaughter, endangerment, and aggravated assault.  

The manslaughter counts apply to the motorcycle riders who will killed, the aggravated assault counts to the motorcycle riders who were injured, and the endangerment counts apply to the motorcycle riders who were not hurt, but were in "firing line" could very well have been hurt. 

Clyde Nachand, 67; Stephen Punch, 52; and Daniel Butler, 35, died at the scene. Dayle Veronica Downs-Totonchi, 47, died a day later.

When I was a public defender in Pima County, I defended and tried a case almost exactly like this one.  And that is why I am surprised that the Maricopa County Attorney did not charge Mr. Jaskcht for driving under the influence of an illegal drug or metabolite.   If Mr. Jasckcht's license was not suspended or he had no previous DUIs, then there would be no basis for charging him with a felony or aggravated DUI, but even for a misdemeanor DUI conviction a defendant can get up to 6 months in custody.  

The main point of a DUI illegal drug charge is that unlike alcohol, to be convicted of the DUI drug charge, a driver must only have the illegal drug in his system and it does not matter if the illegal drug or metabolite actually affected his ability to drive.  That is, even an inactive metabolite of an illegal drug- such as carboxy THC, which can stay in a person's system 30 days after smoking marijuana- is enough for an illegal drug DUI.

According to news stories, Mr. Jaskcht passed all field sobriety tests and the only reason the police found out about the alleged illegal drug use is because he volunteered for it.  Police routinely ask drivers for chemical tests- usually urine- in fatality cases even if they have no reason to suspect drugs or alcohol, and the driver has the absolute right to refuse such requests. It may be the case, because the DUI most likely would have been a misdemeanor, that it was handling in Maricopa County Justice Court or Carefree City Court separately from the felony counts. 

When Mr. Jaskcht's testified, he claimed that he was not taking drugs illegally and the positive test results were from a diet drug.  He also said the reason he crashed into the motorcycle drivers were because his brakes failed. "I'd say it [the truck] was fine throughout the morning, then gradually it just pulled to the left," he said. "I was in shock, I was numb [after the accident]".  He also said the brakes failed even though he checked him.

My belief is that the jury did not convict Mr. Jaskcht because there were no signs or symptoms of impairment. Thus, even if a driver has an illegal drug metabolite in your system and he is guilty of a illegal drug DUI, if the driver is not impaired then he cannot be guilty of manslaughter, endangerment, or manslaughter.  

In the parlance of legal procedure, the defense did something very smart: they presented their own alternative version of events, supported by their own evidence. That evidence was Mr. Jaskcht's testimony. Under our law, the defense is not obligated to produce any evidence or offer an alternative explanation of events, and is free simply to rebut the prosecution case.  But while the defense does not have to produce evidence or an alternative explanation, when it does so, it gains a powerful advantage.  That is because while the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, if the defense evidence is sufficient for the defense's alternative explanation to be "reasonable", that means reasonable doubt and not guilty.  That point is spelled out clearly in standard criminal jury instructions, the famous Arizona Portillo instruction on reasonable doubt.  

That means if the jury believes the defense evidence and explanation is reasonable- not even likely, probable, etc..- just reasonable, that means not guilty.  Here it seems the 9 out of the 12 jurors believed Mr. Jakscht's testimony was reasonable.   

Because the jury deadlocked on all the counts, Mr. Jakscht is now legal purgatory, and the county has the right to retry him on all the counts.  Double jeopardy does not apply to jury deadlocks and mistrials. My experience has also been that the conviction rate is much, much higher on retrials than original trials because if Mr. Jakscht, for example, were to testify in a second case, the prosecution could use his testimony from the first case to challenge him. 

If Maricopa County decides to re-prosecute Mr. Jakscht, they will 60 days from the end of the the last trial do so.  One thing the prosecution may need to do is work very hard during jury selection to make sure none of the potential jurors are biased against motorcycle riding victims. I don't know how careful the prosecution was in the first trial making sure none of the jurors disliked motorcycle riders (see "Should Arizonans Hate Motorcycles and Motorcycle Riders?").  I can't help but think that if this case was a car accident instead of a motorcycle accident, the result may have been different. Certainly, as someone who rides a motorcycle myself and has represented motorcycle riders in accident injury cases, I am aware that many people- especially insurance companies- consider motorcycle accidents, even when the motorcycle rider is not at all at fault, the "cost of doing business" and that motorcycle riders have essentially assumed the risk of getting hurt.