Death of Jaahnavi Kandula, 23, from India, ignited outrage after fellow officer was recorded making ‘appalling’ remarks about case
Prosecutors in Washington state said on Wednesday they will not file felony charges against a Seattle police officer who struck and killed a graduate student from India while responding to an overdose call – a case that attracted widespread attention after another officer was recorded making callous remarks about it.
Officer Kevin Dave was driving 74mph (119km/h) on a street with a 25mph (40km/h) speed limit in a police SUV before he hit 23-year-old Jaahnavi Kandula in a crosswalk on 23 January 2023.
In a memo to the Seattle police department on Wednesday, the King county prosecutor’s office noted that Dave had on his emergency lights, that other pedestrians reported hearing his siren, and that Kandula appeared to try to run across the intersection after seeing his vehicle approaching. She might also have been wearing wireless earbuds that could have diminished her hearing, they noted.
For those reasons, a felony charge of vehicular homicide was not warranted. “There is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Dave was consciously disregarding safety,” the memo said.
It’s possible this was her fault, but there are an awful lot of caveats in there. This looks like a kitchen sink of possible excuses. But also, we should have definitive answers to those questions before deciding not to prosecute, shouldn’t we?
“He might not have been at fault.”
“Oh! Case closed.”
Actually not really. There has to be clear evidence of a crime. A bunch of open questions works against prosecuting the case. Remember this would probably eventually end up in a jury trail and you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
75 in a 25 is insane and negligent homicide in my opinion but it gets tricky since it was a cop with lights and sirens on.
Striking a pedestrian is evidence of a crime, no matter what. A trial is when the evidence is examined to see if the striker was at fault.
I hate the lack of police accountability as much as anyone, but this is literally how our legal system is supposed to work in order to prevent wrongful convictions. That’s what the presumption of innocence for defendants and the requirement for prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are all about.
This wasn’t in a court. This was the DA saying they would not open a case. Innocent until proven guilty applies to court of law, where they look at the evidence to decide if you are guilty.
The goal of a DA is to bring cases to court and get convictions. They’re not going to bring a case where they know in advance that the defense has a winning argument. The only burden of the defense is to create reasonable doubt, so if the DA isn’t certain the potential defendant is criminally liable, it’s reasonable for them to predict any halfway competent defense attorney can create doubt in the minds of jurors. Bringing a case in that scenario would just be grandstanding.
What we really need is to change the law so that the way the cop was driving is a crime in itself unless they’re responding to a live-threatening emergency.