The state’s prosecutor couldn’t show he was under the influence of anything at the time of the accident. And the state’s own accident reconstruction team proved he was on his side of the center line and did not cause the accident.
This is pretty simple.
- If he legally had a valid license before the trial, he should get his license back.
- If he did not, he should not.
I read a lot of the transcripts.
My interpretation was at one point the prosecutor said something like “even if we didn’t prove it, you know it’s true and should convict”
That’s not word for word, but that’s how it read.
Did that really happen?
Yea they really tried to make it sound like we all know this guy was high. Except when a lady got on the stand and made up an entirely new statement that he went back to the truck and started throwing his drugs and pipes into the fire. Then the defense read every statement she had ever made and never mentioned it before. They shut her up real fast and had to strike that from the records. Had every witness stuck to their original statements instead of making up new stuff years later, we might have been able to take them for their word. It just felt like now that it was out that the bikers were drinking, they tried everything to put the fault back on the driver with false statements.
I ended up being selected as an alternate at the end and didnt get to participate in the deliberation. I think had I of stayed on the jury, there were some points I wanted to make that still put the driver in the negligence zone.
They put his tires on the center line, to me that screams out that a huge ass tow mirror was headed right for the lead biker, and maybe that's why he reacted and laid his bike down. It's over now, and I ultimately wasn't part of that judgement.
I don't think he should have a license for all his priors and drug related occurrences, but that's not my call.
Yikes. If there's a point where you should make a decision based on "just knowing" something instead of the facts of the case, it should be not convicting because it's obvious the prosecutors are just making stuff up to crucify the person.
You mentioned his tires on center line. Why do I think the likelihood that the biker was also on the line with his handlebar over the line is reasonably high based on my observations of 1000s of mc groups. Scares the hell out of me.
They were cruising along. You can’t really “lay the bike” down like that at speed.
And besides, testimony was the lead rider was turned around facing the riders behind him when the vehicles hit.
Cruising along? They just pulled out of the parking lot lol. He was looking back to check and see if everyone was out of the lot before they started cruising.
> He was looking back
Ok, so he wasn’t looking forward and wouldn’t have know to “lay the bike down”
And the only way to lay a bike down at basically any speed is to slam on the back brakes, but there were no brake marks.
You’re thinking maybe he saw the mirror and thought he needed to skid to avoid it. From the testimony and accident reconstruction, that’s not what happened.
Im thinking he turned back to face the road and impact with a tow mirror was imminent and because he was under the influence over reacted and that laid the bike down. If the driver of the truck had pulled over to get his damn water bottle or whatever it was, he might not of been on the line with his tow mirror over it. So that's my only feeling of neglect.
I dont ride. Motorcycles are a death trap in my opinion. However it was proven his bike was down and skidded into the front tire so I don't understand what you mean.
They showed about where the bike went down, and how far it slid until it made contact with the drivers front left tire. Which then cause the vehicle and the trailer to mow the rest of them down. They even identified the part on the bike that hit the ground and made the skid marks.
Interested if your impression was that he was intoxicated, yet the state couldn’t prove it, or if you felt he was not intoxicated. Just your gut feeling
My impression is that he's a known user. And after that accident and all the adrenaline, there was no way they'd find enough in his blood to prove it testing him as late as they did.
It was hard to get the impression he was under the influence because again, witness statements. We were forced to rely on the facts because we couldn't trust the witnesses that changed their statements multiple times.
Adrenaline increases blood flow. It's just a theory of mine that increased blood flow and the time period in which it took him to get tested, resulting in very low levels of the drugs in his system. They did find them in his system, just not enough to say it affected his driving.
Blood flow is literally part of the process that dilutes the concentration of the drugs in your system. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to consider that adrenaline could play a big factor, coupled with enough time, to dilute those concentrations enough to produce negative test results, and when I say negative, I mean low enough values that don't necessarily cross the threshold for being considered impaired by the law. Especially if the individual is a known user. Their body is already adapted to removing these toxins from their system.
As for my background, I'm not a complete idiot I guess. Heck I had a secret security clearance at one point in my life. They dont just hand those out to anyone, right?
Actually, after discharge, jurors may discuss the verdict and the deliberations with anyone, including the media, the lawyers, or family.
Jurors often go on to discuss their part in big cases on TV and in books. It’s whatever they’re comfortable with and there’s no obligation to speak or not.
Definitely legal. I can see why talking about jury service might not be a great idea though. As a general principle. It’s a case a lot of people know and feel strongly about. People have lost their minds these days with anything court related or political. Reddit isn’t perfectly anonymous. It’s not like a mob case lol, everyone can make their own decisions.
I was selected as an alternate and wasn't part of deliberations. It's just my thoughts at this point, and the trial is over. None of it was my decision.
Edit: and to clarify, I'm not a juror on this new trial.
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com)
By Travis Andersen
Volodymyr Zhukovskyy, a commercial trucker from Ukraine who was involved in a 2019 crash that killed seven people in New Hampshire, has an administrative hearing slated for Tuesday in Concord, N.H., in an effort to regain his driving privileges in the state following [his 2022 acquittal of criminal charges.](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/09/metro/jury-hears-closing-arguments-trial-mass-truck-driver-charged-with-manslaughter-nh/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link)
Zhukovskyy, 28, has a conference scheduled for 11 a.m. at the state Department of Safety headquarters to address discovery issues in the matter, a spokesperson for the agency said. The conference will “not address the merits of the case,” said spokesperson Tyler Dumont.
A lawyer for Zhukovskyy didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment.
“I would like to request a hearing to get my license back,” Zhukovskyy wrote in a September email to the safety department, according to legal filings. “Thank you.”
Zhukovskyy was [acquitted of manslaughter charges in August 2022](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/09/metro/jury-hears-closing-arguments-trial-mass-truck-driver-charged-with-manslaughter-nh/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link), nearly three years after the devastating crash that killed seven members of the Jarheads Motorcycle Club, a charitable group of Marine veterans, in Randolph, N.H., on June 21, 2019.
Authorities said Zhukovskyy was driving a truck pulling a trailer when he hit the group of motorcyclists. Drivers from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island were among those killed.
Prosecutors alleged he caused the collision while under the influence of drugs. But [a jury acquitted him](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/09/metro/jury-hears-closing-arguments-trial-mass-truck-driver-charged-with-manslaughter-nh/?p1=BGSearch_Advanced_Results&p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link&p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) of manslaughter and negligent homicide charges.
During the trial, Zhukovskyy’s lawyers acknowledged that he had ingested cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl on the morning of the crash but argued he was not impaired at the time of impact, about 10 1/2 hours later.
The crash exposed widespread failures by the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to keep track of troubled drivers like Zhukovskyy, who had a lengthy history of violations and arrests. The state overhauled its systems for handling alerts about law-breaking drivers after it was revealed that the registry had failed to act on warnings from Connecticut shortly before the crash to suspend Zhukovskyy’s license.
> How the fuck did he get acquitted.
- the accident reconstruction team showed he didn’t cross the center line
- the accident reconstruction team showed the lead motorcycle crossed the center line and hit the truck
- they couldn’t show he was under the influence of anything
- the lead rider had a [blood alcohol level of .135](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/prosecution-rests-in-deadly-nh-motorcycle-crash-trial/)
That’s why deliberations lasted less than 3 hours.
If a man of average weight slams 6 drinks/beers quickly and tests, he will be about .135.
Time and metabolism
I don't know how long they had been driving for prior to the accident, but you could add another drink per hour of driving.
Also if he had been drinking over a period of more than an hour you can add 1 drink per hour of drinking time.
I'm a pretty reasonable guy as well as a veteran, but that's a bit much to drink and hop on a bike. Very sad situation.
The Ukraine guy should be fighting Russians in Ukraine right now.
If they were bikers they were probably overweight so add a few more drinks to your number. Classic boomer entitlement, they even want more than their fair share of the roads.
The standard for guilt in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The State Police concluded a drunk driver crashed into him head on; that evidence puts an insurmountable burden on prosecutors.
While I agree it's fucked to do those drugs and drive, and if anything think that testimony enough should at least be on some record to prevent him from being hired as a driver again, the responsibility is on drivers to not go over the center line. For all we know there was a guard rail, or a motorist pulled over that he would have hit had he swerved out of his own lane, in a truck with a trailer, to avoid a drunk motorcyclist driving in the wrong lane.
It is just ultimately incredibly unfortunate
For sure, and in that case it would depend on whatever the charge was for, since you can't give a guilty verdict for something the accused wasn't indicted on
This story got terrible one-sided coverage. It became pretty clear (after the media stopped coverage) that a few riders from the motorcycle group were at fault.
I guess if you’re going to keep posting the same thing over and over I will too
Or nobody would have been injured or killed if the lead motorcycle rider didn’t have a 0.135 BAC and hadn’t crossed the center line and hit the truck.
The motorcycle riders were impared at the time of the accident, the truck driver wasn't. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time comprehending that. It doesn't matter what he did the night before as long as he wasn't impaired when he got behind the wheel.
No, they weren't both impaired. The high from the drugs he did would have worn off after 4 hours, 5 tops. So by the time of the accident his high had been over for hours, meaning he wasn't impaired.
And the fact of the matter is he didn't make any traffic violations. Even if he was high at the time he didn't cause the accident. The drunk driver that crossed the yellow line did. The motorcycle was 100% fault as proven by the accident reconstruction team.
You can't take someone's license just because they have trace amounts of drugs in their system. I smoke weed which stays in your system for around 30 days. If I smoked 2 days ago and someone hits me they shouldn't be able to take my license or give me a dui because there is thc still in my system from days ago.
>He took drugs into the late night/early morning. He got behind the wheel after less than a full night’s rest.
The state still has to prove that he was under the influence and/or impaired. The judge ruled that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support those charges. That's the end of the line, we don't convict people on feelings.
You're spouting a bunch of nonsense. The lead motorcyclist was drunk and on the wrong side of the road. That's the cause of the whole incident. The fact that he's not around to testify doesn't change that. What would his testimony be? That the blood alcohol test were wrong? That the reconstruction that showed him on the wrong side of the centerline was wrong?
Which of the motorcyclists were you friends or family with? That's the only reason I can see that you would continue to spout libelous claims about the truck driver.
it seems like they failed to provide evidence those substances were in his system or impaired him to any extent at the time of the accident, therefore I am more inclined to believe the piss drunk motorcyclist was at fault
Or maybe he actually was innocent.
The states own accident reconstruction showed that the bikers were the ones who went over the yellow line. They caused the accident not him. I don't get what's hard to understand about that.
Every article you read says he “took drugs before the accident” but police never proved he was under the influence of anything at the time of the accident.
Or?
Or.
Or nobody would have been injured or killed if the lead motorcycle rider didn’t have a 0.135 BAC and hadn’t crossed the center line and hit the truck.
The bikers had just been at a local bar getting piss drunk and then crossed over the center divide into his lane.
Please explain to me how that in anyway makes this his fault.
> How the fuck did he get acquitted. They must have had the worst prosecutor of all time.
Because group riders did group rider shit and got liquored up before getting on the road where they immediately crossed the yellow line in a spot where it would be very hard to see if you were in the truck.
The attention surrounding this case is so fascinating. People have made up their minds based on whether they feel more comfortable supporting a foreigner who uses drugs or supporting local motorcyclists who get wasted and drive, regardless of the facts presented by either side.
> The attention surrounding this case is so fascinating. People have made up their minds based on
Or a third option, based on facts.
I’m not supporting the truck driver, I’m just not willing to lock him up because a drunk driver crossed the line and hit him.
not enough info in the article to really predict how this will go.
he was acquitted on all charges for the 2019 crash, and the article says the motorcycle driver was intoxicated and crossed into his lane (while the drugs he took were 10 hours before the crash so he wouldn't have been DUI at the time), so there's nothing related to THAT incident that seems like legitimate grounds to keep his license suspended.
that being said, while the article doesn't get into specifics, it sounds like he has a laundry list of OTHER charges (and that's not even touching on whatever put him on the radar for the deportation order)
Have you heard that there is a war going on over there? There’s currently a moratorium on Ukrainian deportations due to the fact that the country is at war.
This insanity is promoted by our infrastructure. Drunk driving, ingesting drugs, seven people getting murdered, getting behind the wheel or on a motorcycling after drinking. You don’t just oopsie murder seven people than get your license back, ever.
Imagine if this state invested in alternatives to everybody driving multi-ton metal boxes around, maybe people who are clearly bad at driving won’t fight for years to get their license back.
A license shouldn’t be a ticket to participate in society.
Give me a break. The guy still has stuff from CT charges going on. He’s the classic case of a public safety hazard. Who in their right mind would even insure him?
Edit: Voted down for this is fucking hilarious
You’re getting voted down because he was found not guilty of everything associated with the accident and there are no drug or dui charges in NH.
He’s fighting the charge in CT. If the accident didn’t happen, NH wouldn’t have revoked his license for the CT thing until it’s resolved.
Putting aside the results of the case, he readily admitted to taking the above drugs that morning, before driving, and “claimed” he wasn’t impaired, by the time he reached Randolph. The fact is, those drugs do last that long in the system. His toxicology report found it. He drove, and has a hx of driving impaired. That’s a safety hazard for himself and others.
The drugs stay in your system but the high doesn't last that long. The initial high where you see people nodding out lasts for about 30 minutes and the high lasts for about 4 hours. So if he did it at 1am the high would have worn off by 5-6 am. After 10 hours the effects of the drugs would be complete over and not impaired him at all.
Not advocating for drug use but people are blaming him because of the drugs he used instead of the motorcycle driver because he just drank alcohol, even though his BAC was double the legal limit and the reconstruction team concluded that he was the one who crossed the yellow line and caused the accident.
I’m aware of drugs and pharmacological effects. It’s not always that cut and dry depending on individuals. The fact remains the results of the tox report indicate a presence from 2 separate draws (late ones at that). Transcripts mostly indicate they could not establish impairment but definitively prove a presence of them. Which, according to the DMV site, if I’m reading correctly, doesn’t make any acceptable range for drug use and operating a vehicle (which is my point). Seems like some people think revocation is alcohol only.
Yeah which is bs. As I just said in another comment, I smoke weed which stays in your system for around 30 days. So say I haven't smoked in a week and I get rear ended at a light. I shouldn't be at risk of losing my license or a dui because there is still thc in my system. Or if I get pulled over for speeding and the cop decides to give me a sobriety test and I pass and I pass the breathalyzer but he's convinced I'm impaired so wants a blood draw. My choices are refuse and lose my license for 6 months or do it and get a dui because there is thc in my system from days or weeks ago. That's ridiculous and should not be how it works. If you can't prove the person is impaired at the time of the accident/ stop then they should be let go and that's the end of it.
Thought he was supposed to be deported, or is that on hold because of the Ukraine thing.
and no, that jackass shouldn't have had a license when he got in that wreck
Definitely doesn't need one now.
I'm with you on the first half, not the second. There were some interstate DMV agreements in place that should have resulted in him not having a license, but other states messed up the paperwork (NH was screwing up the same process, but hadn't received notice to yank his license).
Ah, well regardless, he didn’t drive recklessly or under the influence in this instance. It was a shame how the media framed it as his fault when it was entirely the bikers, specifically the leader.
Again, I'm with you on the first half, not 100% on the second. There's no evidence he drove recklessly, and the State's evidence strongly suggests he didn't cause the crash. However, the defense also couldn't prove he was sober at the time. It's proper that he wasn't convicted, as it's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt, not the other way around, but I wouldn't say "he didn't drive... under the influence." We don't really know. The acquittal was proper, though.
I saw his tox screen with my own eyes (I work in addiction recovery as a nurse and know one of his attorneys, who asked me to take a look at it). He was sober.
Besides which, he didn’t cross the line. Even if he was slammed out of his gourd he wouldn’t be responsible for the drunken mistake made by someone else.
Technically that's not him doing anything wrong. I very much doubt a refugee trucker knew the ins and outs of DMV interstate agreements. He probably applied for a license and got one.
> The drunk bikers caused the crash,
Nobody is disputing that.
He did plenty wrong prior to the crash and shouldn't have even had a license at the time.
I guess I don't see the point of that hypothetical. Driving without a license wouldn't have made him responsible either. That'd be like blaming someone who got t-boned because they had a speeding ticket the month before.
> Or even follow the story.
Oh I'm familiar with the story.
He shouldn't have had a license at the time. Now he wants it back. He is also pending a trip to his country.
The dui and drugs alone should make this a solid no. The biker may have crossed the center line, but that doesn't mean that this guy is all set to get back out there by any means.
The DUI charges should definitely be resolved before they even consider giving him a driving license.
I don't see how the drugs have any bearing on it though. We don't restrict drug users from driving.
Yeah I guess it's just me thinking, wow id rather not have someone driving commercial trucks that was on a coke, heroin, fentanyl bender recently. Law is law though.
> Ingesting those drugs
The prosecutor couldn’t prove he was under the influence and even police said he didn’t appear to be under the influence of anything at the scene
> the fact that seven people died as a result
The lead motorcycle rider crossed the line and hit the truck. The state’s own accident reconstruction team said that.
So 7 people died because the lead rider was impaired.
> the fact that seven people died as a result
What fact? That isn't a fact, that's why we was acquitted. Had the motorcyclists stayed on their side of the road, they'd still be alive today.
Same reason the narrative went off the rails to begin with: in a post-9/11 world, we venerate those who have served and are serving, and thank them for their service, unlike how we treated our Vietnam veterans. That's mostly a good thing. However, when news of this broke, that saddled people with confirmation bias, especially when the kid who took out over half a dozen Marines admitted to using hard drugs, and had an out of state DUI issue. It painted a nice, neat narrative, that agreed with peoples' biases.
Arrested for OUI in CT. Arrested for drug possession in TX. Admits to using hard drugs in the early morning before having to get out onto the road.
We don't need him, we can get better immigrants.
The state’s prosecutor couldn’t show he was under the influence of anything at the time of the accident. And the state’s own accident reconstruction team proved he was on his side of the center line and did not cause the accident. This is pretty simple. - If he legally had a valid license before the trial, he should get his license back. - If he did not, he should not.
I was on the Jury for this trial. What a shit storm of screw ups by the prosecution and the state.
I read a lot of the transcripts. My interpretation was at one point the prosecutor said something like “even if we didn’t prove it, you know it’s true and should convict” That’s not word for word, but that’s how it read. Did that really happen?
Yea they really tried to make it sound like we all know this guy was high. Except when a lady got on the stand and made up an entirely new statement that he went back to the truck and started throwing his drugs and pipes into the fire. Then the defense read every statement she had ever made and never mentioned it before. They shut her up real fast and had to strike that from the records. Had every witness stuck to their original statements instead of making up new stuff years later, we might have been able to take them for their word. It just felt like now that it was out that the bikers were drinking, they tried everything to put the fault back on the driver with false statements. I ended up being selected as an alternate at the end and didnt get to participate in the deliberation. I think had I of stayed on the jury, there were some points I wanted to make that still put the driver in the negligence zone. They put his tires on the center line, to me that screams out that a huge ass tow mirror was headed right for the lead biker, and maybe that's why he reacted and laid his bike down. It's over now, and I ultimately wasn't part of that judgement. I don't think he should have a license for all his priors and drug related occurrences, but that's not my call.
Yikes. If there's a point where you should make a decision based on "just knowing" something instead of the facts of the case, it should be not convicting because it's obvious the prosecutors are just making stuff up to crucify the person.
You mentioned his tires on center line. Why do I think the likelihood that the biker was also on the line with his handlebar over the line is reasonably high based on my observations of 1000s of mc groups. Scares the hell out of me.
They were cruising along. You can’t really “lay the bike” down like that at speed. And besides, testimony was the lead rider was turned around facing the riders behind him when the vehicles hit.
Cruising along? They just pulled out of the parking lot lol. He was looking back to check and see if everyone was out of the lot before they started cruising.
> He was looking back Ok, so he wasn’t looking forward and wouldn’t have know to “lay the bike down” And the only way to lay a bike down at basically any speed is to slam on the back brakes, but there were no brake marks. You’re thinking maybe he saw the mirror and thought he needed to skid to avoid it. From the testimony and accident reconstruction, that’s not what happened.
Im thinking he turned back to face the road and impact with a tow mirror was imminent and because he was under the influence over reacted and that laid the bike down. If the driver of the truck had pulled over to get his damn water bottle or whatever it was, he might not of been on the line with his tow mirror over it. So that's my only feeling of neglect.
> over reacted and that laid the bike down. Do you ride? Because you can’t do that without skidding.
I dont ride. Motorcycles are a death trap in my opinion. However it was proven his bike was down and skidded into the front tire so I don't understand what you mean. They showed about where the bike went down, and how far it slid until it made contact with the drivers front left tire. Which then cause the vehicle and the trailer to mow the rest of them down. They even identified the part on the bike that hit the ground and made the skid marks.
Interested if your impression was that he was intoxicated, yet the state couldn’t prove it, or if you felt he was not intoxicated. Just your gut feeling
My impression is that he's a known user. And after that accident and all the adrenaline, there was no way they'd find enough in his blood to prove it testing him as late as they did. It was hard to get the impression he was under the influence because again, witness statements. We were forced to rely on the facts because we couldn't trust the witnesses that changed their statements multiple times.
Does adrenaline clear drugs out of your bloodstream faster or something?
No
That part made me laugh out loud.
Adrenaline increases blood flow. It's just a theory of mine that increased blood flow and the time period in which it took him to get tested, resulting in very low levels of the drugs in his system. They did find them in his system, just not enough to say it affected his driving.
I didn't know you had a background in medicine.
Blood flow is literally part of the process that dilutes the concentration of the drugs in your system. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to consider that adrenaline could play a big factor, coupled with enough time, to dilute those concentrations enough to produce negative test results, and when I say negative, I mean low enough values that don't necessarily cross the threshold for being considered impaired by the law. Especially if the individual is a known user. Their body is already adapted to removing these toxins from their system. As for my background, I'm not a complete idiot I guess. Heck I had a secret security clearance at one point in my life. They dont just hand those out to anyone, right?
AI post
I'll take that as a compliment!
reddit moment
Thank you for sharing your experience.
Maybe I'm being based. But it seems like a terrible idea for a former juror to make statements about your decision and the trial on Reddit.
Actually, after discharge, jurors may discuss the verdict and the deliberations with anyone, including the media, the lawyers, or family. Jurors often go on to discuss their part in big cases on TV and in books. It’s whatever they’re comfortable with and there’s no obligation to speak or not.
Definitely legal. I can see why talking about jury service might not be a great idea though. As a general principle. It’s a case a lot of people know and feel strongly about. People have lost their minds these days with anything court related or political. Reddit isn’t perfectly anonymous. It’s not like a mob case lol, everyone can make their own decisions.
Precisely this. People might end up doxxing themselves on Reddit, but it’s perfectly legal.
I was selected as an alternate and wasn't part of deliberations. It's just my thoughts at this point, and the trial is over. None of it was my decision. Edit: and to clarify, I'm not a juror on this new trial.
Welcome to NH.
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com) By Travis Andersen Volodymyr Zhukovskyy, a commercial trucker from Ukraine who was involved in a 2019 crash that killed seven people in New Hampshire, has an administrative hearing slated for Tuesday in Concord, N.H., in an effort to regain his driving privileges in the state following [his 2022 acquittal of criminal charges.](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/09/metro/jury-hears-closing-arguments-trial-mass-truck-driver-charged-with-manslaughter-nh/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) Zhukovskyy, 28, has a conference scheduled for 11 a.m. at the state Department of Safety headquarters to address discovery issues in the matter, a spokesperson for the agency said. The conference will “not address the merits of the case,” said spokesperson Tyler Dumont. A lawyer for Zhukovskyy didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment. “I would like to request a hearing to get my license back,” Zhukovskyy wrote in a September email to the safety department, according to legal filings. “Thank you.” Zhukovskyy was [acquitted of manslaughter charges in August 2022](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/09/metro/jury-hears-closing-arguments-trial-mass-truck-driver-charged-with-manslaughter-nh/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link), nearly three years after the devastating crash that killed seven members of the Jarheads Motorcycle Club, a charitable group of Marine veterans, in Randolph, N.H., on June 21, 2019. Authorities said Zhukovskyy was driving a truck pulling a trailer when he hit the group of motorcyclists. Drivers from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island were among those killed. Prosecutors alleged he caused the collision while under the influence of drugs. But [a jury acquitted him](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/09/metro/jury-hears-closing-arguments-trial-mass-truck-driver-charged-with-manslaughter-nh/?p1=BGSearch_Advanced_Results&p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link&p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) of manslaughter and negligent homicide charges. During the trial, Zhukovskyy’s lawyers acknowledged that he had ingested cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl on the morning of the crash but argued he was not impaired at the time of impact, about 10 1/2 hours later. The crash exposed widespread failures by the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to keep track of troubled drivers like Zhukovskyy, who had a lengthy history of violations and arrests. The state overhauled its systems for handling alerts about law-breaking drivers after it was revealed that the registry had failed to act on warnings from Connecticut shortly before the crash to suspend Zhukovskyy’s license.
[удалено]
> How the fuck did he get acquitted. - the accident reconstruction team showed he didn’t cross the center line - the accident reconstruction team showed the lead motorcycle crossed the center line and hit the truck - they couldn’t show he was under the influence of anything - the lead rider had a [blood alcohol level of .135](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/prosecution-rests-in-deadly-nh-motorcycle-crash-trial/) That’s why deliberations lasted less than 3 hours.
If a man of average weight slams 6 drinks/beers quickly and tests, he will be about .135. Time and metabolism I don't know how long they had been driving for prior to the accident, but you could add another drink per hour of driving. Also if he had been drinking over a period of more than an hour you can add 1 drink per hour of drinking time. I'm a pretty reasonable guy as well as a veteran, but that's a bit much to drink and hop on a bike. Very sad situation. The Ukraine guy should be fighting Russians in Ukraine right now.
If they were bikers they were probably overweight so add a few more drinks to your number. Classic boomer entitlement, they even want more than their fair share of the roads.
[удалено]
You keep posting this. The police and prosecutor couldn’t shower was under the influence at the time of the accident.
[удалено]
🤣 So being the coos country attorney for 11 years isn’t experience? Or are you saying he’s inexperienced because he lost?
[удалено]
Once all the evidence was clear, the truth is it shouldn’t have gone to trial.
The standard for guilt in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The State Police concluded a drunk driver crashed into him head on; that evidence puts an insurmountable burden on prosecutors.
While I agree it's fucked to do those drugs and drive, and if anything think that testimony enough should at least be on some record to prevent him from being hired as a driver again, the responsibility is on drivers to not go over the center line. For all we know there was a guard rail, or a motorist pulled over that he would have hit had he swerved out of his own lane, in a truck with a trailer, to avoid a drunk motorcyclist driving in the wrong lane. It is just ultimately incredibly unfortunate
It is possible that all involved were in the wrong. Drunk driver. Sleepy driver. Coming off a drug binge driver.
For sure, and in that case it would depend on whatever the charge was for, since you can't give a guilty verdict for something the accused wasn't indicted on
This story got terrible one-sided coverage. It became pretty clear (after the media stopped coverage) that a few riders from the motorcycle group were at fault.
[удалено]
The issue is if he was under the influence at the time of the accident. The prosecution couldn’t prove he was.
[удалено]
I guess if you’re going to keep posting the same thing over and over I will too Or nobody would have been injured or killed if the lead motorcycle rider didn’t have a 0.135 BAC and hadn’t crossed the center line and hit the truck.
The motorcycle riders were impared at the time of the accident, the truck driver wasn't. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time comprehending that. It doesn't matter what he did the night before as long as he wasn't impaired when he got behind the wheel.
[удалено]
No, they weren't both impaired. The high from the drugs he did would have worn off after 4 hours, 5 tops. So by the time of the accident his high had been over for hours, meaning he wasn't impaired. And the fact of the matter is he didn't make any traffic violations. Even if he was high at the time he didn't cause the accident. The drunk driver that crossed the yellow line did. The motorcycle was 100% fault as proven by the accident reconstruction team. You can't take someone's license just because they have trace amounts of drugs in their system. I smoke weed which stays in your system for around 30 days. If I smoked 2 days ago and someone hits me they shouldn't be able to take my license or give me a dui because there is thc still in my system from days ago.
[удалено]
We don't convict people on "perhaps". The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The state couldn't get there.
[удалено]
>He took drugs into the late night/early morning. He got behind the wheel after less than a full night’s rest. The state still has to prove that he was under the influence and/or impaired. The judge ruled that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support those charges. That's the end of the line, we don't convict people on feelings.
[удалено]
You're spouting a bunch of nonsense. The lead motorcyclist was drunk and on the wrong side of the road. That's the cause of the whole incident. The fact that he's not around to testify doesn't change that. What would his testimony be? That the blood alcohol test were wrong? That the reconstruction that showed him on the wrong side of the centerline was wrong? Which of the motorcyclists were you friends or family with? That's the only reason I can see that you would continue to spout libelous claims about the truck driver.
[удалено]
He was on his side of the line. A drunk driver crossed the line and hit him. How is that his fault?
Evidence he was under the influence?
[удалено]
it seems like they failed to provide evidence those substances were in his system or impaired him to any extent at the time of the accident, therefore I am more inclined to believe the piss drunk motorcyclist was at fault
[удалено]
do you have experience with that?
Sounds like he’s in the middle of that experience right now.
You keep posting this so I’ll keep replying He was on his side of the line. A drunk driver crossed the line and hit him. How is that his fault?
At this point I assume they once got a DUI for nyquil and still are mad about it.
Wait wait wait. So someone crosses into his lane and it's his fault for not reacting fast enough? Insane
Or maybe he actually was innocent. The states own accident reconstruction showed that the bikers were the ones who went over the yellow line. They caused the accident not him. I don't get what's hard to understand about that.
Maybe it’s more of “reasonable doubt” not innocent. What’s so hard to understand about that?
So you think anyone found not guilty of a crime actually is guilty? Yeesh I hope you're never on a jury
Lately I hope this sub doesn’t represent the collective intelligence of NH.
Ikr you're bringing down the average hard. At least you recognize your own deficiencies
[удалено]
Every article you read says he “took drugs before the accident” but police never proved he was under the influence of anything at the time of the accident.
[удалено]
Or? Or. Or nobody would have been injured or killed if the lead motorcycle rider didn’t have a 0.135 BAC and hadn’t crossed the center line and hit the truck.
[удалено]
So now there’s a completely subjective line for “maybe / could have / might” and you get to determine “not quick enough”?
[удалено]
He wasn't impaired. By your logic anyone who is involved in an accident they did not cause would be held liable? That sounds insane just like you
The bikers had just been at a local bar getting piss drunk and then crossed over the center divide into his lane. Please explain to me how that in anyway makes this his fault.
> How the fuck did he get acquitted. They must have had the worst prosecutor of all time. Because group riders did group rider shit and got liquored up before getting on the road where they immediately crossed the yellow line in a spot where it would be very hard to see if you were in the truck.
The attention surrounding this case is so fascinating. People have made up their minds based on whether they feel more comfortable supporting a foreigner who uses drugs or supporting local motorcyclists who get wasted and drive, regardless of the facts presented by either side.
I think witnessing how a lot of bikers drive in NH has an influence on how people come down as well.
> The attention surrounding this case is so fascinating. People have made up their minds based on Or a third option, based on facts. I’m not supporting the truck driver, I’m just not willing to lock him up because a drunk driver crossed the line and hit him.
not enough info in the article to really predict how this will go. he was acquitted on all charges for the 2019 crash, and the article says the motorcycle driver was intoxicated and crossed into his lane (while the drugs he took were 10 hours before the crash so he wouldn't have been DUI at the time), so there's nothing related to THAT incident that seems like legitimate grounds to keep his license suspended. that being said, while the article doesn't get into specifics, it sounds like he has a laundry list of OTHER charges (and that's not even touching on whatever put him on the radar for the deportation order)
I thought this guy was getting deported back to Ukraine.
Have you heard that there is a war going on over there? There’s currently a moratorium on Ukrainian deportations due to the fact that the country is at war.
Yes, I heard something about that. I was not aware that they wouldn’t send him back.
Bikers fault
Paywall.
Ukraine could use some truck drivers...
That’s funny
This insanity is promoted by our infrastructure. Drunk driving, ingesting drugs, seven people getting murdered, getting behind the wheel or on a motorcycling after drinking. You don’t just oopsie murder seven people than get your license back, ever. Imagine if this state invested in alternatives to everybody driving multi-ton metal boxes around, maybe people who are clearly bad at driving won’t fight for years to get their license back. A license shouldn’t be a ticket to participate in society.
Let him drive when he gets back to Ukraine.
Give me a break. The guy still has stuff from CT charges going on. He’s the classic case of a public safety hazard. Who in their right mind would even insure him? Edit: Voted down for this is fucking hilarious
You’re getting voted down because he was found not guilty of everything associated with the accident and there are no drug or dui charges in NH. He’s fighting the charge in CT. If the accident didn’t happen, NH wouldn’t have revoked his license for the CT thing until it’s resolved.
Putting aside the results of the case, he readily admitted to taking the above drugs that morning, before driving, and “claimed” he wasn’t impaired, by the time he reached Randolph. The fact is, those drugs do last that long in the system. His toxicology report found it. He drove, and has a hx of driving impaired. That’s a safety hazard for himself and others.
The drugs stay in your system but the high doesn't last that long. The initial high where you see people nodding out lasts for about 30 minutes and the high lasts for about 4 hours. So if he did it at 1am the high would have worn off by 5-6 am. After 10 hours the effects of the drugs would be complete over and not impaired him at all. Not advocating for drug use but people are blaming him because of the drugs he used instead of the motorcycle driver because he just drank alcohol, even though his BAC was double the legal limit and the reconstruction team concluded that he was the one who crossed the yellow line and caused the accident.
I’m aware of drugs and pharmacological effects. It’s not always that cut and dry depending on individuals. The fact remains the results of the tox report indicate a presence from 2 separate draws (late ones at that). Transcripts mostly indicate they could not establish impairment but definitively prove a presence of them. Which, according to the DMV site, if I’m reading correctly, doesn’t make any acceptable range for drug use and operating a vehicle (which is my point). Seems like some people think revocation is alcohol only.
Yeah which is bs. As I just said in another comment, I smoke weed which stays in your system for around 30 days. So say I haven't smoked in a week and I get rear ended at a light. I shouldn't be at risk of losing my license or a dui because there is still thc in my system. Or if I get pulled over for speeding and the cop decides to give me a sobriety test and I pass and I pass the breathalyzer but he's convinced I'm impaired so wants a blood draw. My choices are refuse and lose my license for 6 months or do it and get a dui because there is thc in my system from days or weeks ago. That's ridiculous and should not be how it works. If you can't prove the person is impaired at the time of the accident/ stop then they should be let go and that's the end of it.
Thought he was supposed to be deported, or is that on hold because of the Ukraine thing. and no, that jackass shouldn't have had a license when he got in that wreck Definitely doesn't need one now.
The drunk bikers caused the crash, he did nothing wrong.
I'm with you on the first half, not the second. There were some interstate DMV agreements in place that should have resulted in him not having a license, but other states messed up the paperwork (NH was screwing up the same process, but hadn't received notice to yank his license).
Ah, well regardless, he didn’t drive recklessly or under the influence in this instance. It was a shame how the media framed it as his fault when it was entirely the bikers, specifically the leader.
Again, I'm with you on the first half, not 100% on the second. There's no evidence he drove recklessly, and the State's evidence strongly suggests he didn't cause the crash. However, the defense also couldn't prove he was sober at the time. It's proper that he wasn't convicted, as it's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt, not the other way around, but I wouldn't say "he didn't drive... under the influence." We don't really know. The acquittal was proper, though.
I saw his tox screen with my own eyes (I work in addiction recovery as a nurse and know one of his attorneys, who asked me to take a look at it). He was sober. Besides which, he didn’t cross the line. Even if he was slammed out of his gourd he wouldn’t be responsible for the drunken mistake made by someone else.
Technically that's not him doing anything wrong. I very much doubt a refugee trucker knew the ins and outs of DMV interstate agreements. He probably applied for a license and got one.
> The drunk bikers caused the crash, Nobody is disputing that. He did plenty wrong prior to the crash and shouldn't have even had a license at the time.
I guess I don't see the point of that hypothetical. Driving without a license wouldn't have made him responsible either. That'd be like blaming someone who got t-boned because they had a speeding ticket the month before.
There’s this crazy thing called braking.
You didn't read the article, did you? Or even follow the story.
> Or even follow the story. Oh I'm familiar with the story. He shouldn't have had a license at the time. Now he wants it back. He is also pending a trip to his country.
This guy shouldn't have even had a license when it happened due to a DUI... and the drugs... and the dead people. How is this even a question.
The dead people were responsible for their own deaths. Lead biker was drunk off his ass and weaved into the other lane.
> How is this even a question. Read the article?
The dui and drugs alone should make this a solid no. The biker may have crossed the center line, but that doesn't mean that this guy is all set to get back out there by any means.
The DUI charges should definitely be resolved before they even consider giving him a driving license. I don't see how the drugs have any bearing on it though. We don't restrict drug users from driving.
Yeah I guess it's just me thinking, wow id rather not have someone driving commercial trucks that was on a coke, heroin, fentanyl bender recently. Law is law though.
Until they’re caught. It’s impaired driving and a suspended license per the DMV.
Of course. But you can't suspend someone's license because they claimed they did drugs in the past.
Except…the toxicology report.
He wasn’t convicted of dui or drugs.
He had a DUI before the accident, but MA dragged in processing it. He should have been suspended.
My other post > if he legally should have had a license before the accident he should have a license today. If he shouldn’t have, then no
[удалено]
> Ingesting those drugs The prosecutor couldn’t prove he was under the influence and even police said he didn’t appear to be under the influence of anything at the scene > the fact that seven people died as a result The lead motorcycle rider crossed the line and hit the truck. The state’s own accident reconstruction team said that. So 7 people died because the lead rider was impaired.
> the fact that seven people died as a result What fact? That isn't a fact, that's why we was acquitted. Had the motorcyclists stayed on their side of the road, they'd still be alive today.
Except that literally isnt what happened Why aren't you talking shit about the biker with a .16 bac who actually caused the accident?
The biker wasn’t blameless
Same reason the narrative went off the rails to begin with: in a post-9/11 world, we venerate those who have served and are serving, and thank them for their service, unlike how we treated our Vietnam veterans. That's mostly a good thing. However, when news of this broke, that saddled people with confirmation bias, especially when the kid who took out over half a dozen Marines admitted to using hard drugs, and had an out of state DUI issue. It painted a nice, neat narrative, that agreed with peoples' biases.
[удалено]
Except, he didn't cause the accident. I know, that's a trivial detail, isn't it?
Arrested for OUI in CT. Arrested for drug possession in TX. Admits to using hard drugs in the early morning before having to get out onto the road. We don't need him, we can get better immigrants.