Local court and law enforcement officials are trying to deal with a whirlwind of misinformation surrounding the hit-and-run death of Daniela Trejo Mendiola, 17, which occurred on the night of August 20 in southern Alamance County.
District attorney Sean Boone tried to address some of the most notable aspects of misinformation that have been stirred up about the accident, largely on social media, in an exclusive interview with The Alamance News on Thursday, after the print edition of the newspaper had already been printed and distributed.
Thursday’s edition of the newspaper has reported the arrest of Joshua Thomas Brown, 38, white, male, 8963-B Pleasant Hill Church Road, Liberty, who was charged on Wednesday with felony hit-and-run causing serious bodily injury or death; an additional infraction was added for a “window tint violation”.
In the intervening two weeks between the fatal accident and formal charges, more than a dozen or so demonstrators took to Court Square in Graham prior to Brown’s arrest with signs and banners, protesting the absence of charges in the teenage girl’s death.
Among the most serious accusations made by some of the protesters, and on social media, has been that the Highway Patrol was showing favoritism, or involved in a “cover up,” in not issuing charges, ostensibly because Brown was “the son” of a former or retired highway patrolman.
In fact, according to Boone, “We have found no relation [of the driver] to any person in law enforcement.” Not the Highway Patrol, not the Alamance County sheriff’s office, nor any other law enforcement agency.
Some of the other egregious social media posts had misidentified the law enforcement agency that investigated the accident as being the Alamance County sheriff’s office, rather than the Highway Patrol.
The sheriff’s office had no role in the investigation whatsoever, according to the department’s public information officer Byron Tucker. Tucker acknowledged that he and other officials, including the sheriff, have continued to receive calls and emails questioning the department’s failure to file charges in the case – even though it wasn’t their case in the first place.
Another dimension of the swirl of social media misinformation has been an assertion or allegation that the driver was drunk and/or had a history of drunk driving.
D.A. Boone says his investigation has revealed, “There is no evidence the driver was impaired – or had any history” of previous episodes or arrests for driving while impaired.
In fact, there is no evidence of speeding or any other moving violation, Boone says, based on information gathered by the Highway Patrol.
Boone acknowledged that a history of impaired driving could have had an impact on the type of charges filed – but only if such a history existed – since a pattern of dangerous driving could have added the key element of “malice,” which might have substantiated a higher, more serious charge, such as second degree manslaughter. Some of the girl’s supporters have pressed for more serious charges, even after the hit-and-run charge was filed against Brown.
“It was a tragic accident,” Boone concluded.
The actions that resulted in criminal charges were due to Brown’s actions after the collision, Boone stressed.
During his interview with the newspaper, Boone read from the applicable North Carolina felony statute (N.C.G.S. 20-166(a)) for a hit-and-run charge, stressing that it applies to a driver who is involved in a crash causing serious bodily injury or death.
Other key elements are that the driver “knows or reasonably should know that the vehicles is involved in a crash that has caused serious bodily injury or death,;” “fails to immediately stop at the scene of the crash;” “fails to remain with the vehicle at the scene until a law enforcement officer completes an investigation of the crash or authorizes the person to leave and the vehicle to be removed;” “facilitates, allows, or agrees to the removal of the vehicle before the completion of an investigation of the crash by a law enforcement officer or before receiving consent by the officer to leave.”
Boone would not confirm or comment on the sequence of events after the accident, but the Highway Patrol’s warrant says after hitting something in the roadway, “[Brown] then drove the vehicle to his parents’ house…assessed the damages on the vehicle and decided to get his parents to drive him back to the scene because the damage did not appear to be from a deer.”
Brown is said to have consented to having his cell phone downloaded, and there was no indication of apps being used, his texting, or doing anything else that might suggest he was distracted while driving.
Brown’s 2011 Volkswagen sedan shows damage to the front left side of the body and to the left side of the windshield. That damage suggested to investigators that the teen was struck near the center line of the road, Oak Grove Church Road, where the accident occurred.
Boone said most of the evidence gathered by the Highway Patrol has been shared with the victim’s family, but still rumors and misinformation continue to circulate, despite law enforcement’s best efforts to provide a factual account of the circumstances of the accident and the girl’s death.
As to why such misinformation continues to spread, Boone relayed two theories: “some well-meaning people repeating things without having all the facts,” being the innocent interpretation. But, he suggested another, more nefarious possibility: that others may have an agenda to “stir things up” or may even “hope to profit off of this.”
Read more details on the case in this week’s (September 5) edition of The Alamance News: https://alamancenews.com/court-square-demonstrators-protest-highway-patrols-initial-decision-not-to-charge-hit-and-run-driver-charges-filed-wednesday-afternoon/
TO GET THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE NEWS – IN PRINT ONCE A WEEK, ONLINE EVERY DAY, SUBSCRIBE TODAY:
