January Trial Set for Driver Who Crashed Into Brooks Patterson
Anthony Prainito, 31, the driver of the Volkswagen Passat that Patterson's Chrysler 300 crashed into in Auburn Hills on Aug. 10, faces three misdemeanor charges.
Photos
The trial of a Royal Oak man charged with three misdemeanor counts in an August crash involving Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson was set for Jan. 11 after a hearing Thursday in 52-3 District Court.
Anthony Prainito, 31, the driver of the Volkswagen Passat that Patterson's Chrysler 300 crashed into at the intersection of Walton Boulevard and Opdyke Road in Auburn Hills, is charged with three counts of moving violation causing serious impairment of a bodily function in the crash. He pleaded not guilty in a Sept. 25 pre-trial hearing.
Prainito's Southfield-based attorney, Joshua Nucian, told Judge Lisa Asadoorian that he expects to call as many as 15-16 witnesses, including an eyewitness to the crash. Asadoorian granted a motion for discovery on evidence of all of the 911 calls made Aug. 10, the date of the crash, including one in which Nucian said that a witness saw Patterson's car run a red light at the intersection.
Nucian was also granted the chance to investigate background information on all of the people who called 911. Asadoorian denied Nucian's motion to hold an evidentiary hearing on the witnesses' statement; instead, it is expected to be offered as witness testimony.
Among other pieces of evidence the defense may use are the contents of a plastic bottle found in Patterson's car, which was recovered containing an unknown fluid after the crash. The defense will be allowed to inspect a sample of the fluid inside the bottle, which Patterson told Patch was mouthwash.
Asadoorian will investigate all medical records from those involved in the crash — including Patterson, his longtime driver James Cram, and Raymond Recchia, Prainito’s passenger — since the date of the crash. If relevant, Asadoorian will allow the defense to investigate.
Eric Johnson
4:58 pm on Thursday, October 25, 2012
So, if Patterson's car ran the red, why is this guy on trial?
Timothy Rath
6:42 pm on Thursday, October 25, 2012
Eric: Patch has reported in previous stories on the issue that Prainito failed to yield on a flashing yellow turn signal when he crashed into Patterson's car, according to police. Here's a link to an in-depth story: http://patch.com/A-wWSv
Lianne Mathie
8:30 pm on Thursday, October 25, 2012
You are correct Tim,
The problem with this is Patterson's driver was moving faster the the posted speed limit. I could be a simple misjudgment given the weather conditions. However that does not negate the fact that the driver was not taking proper care. I feel there is a little blame to be had on both sides. That's just my two cents.
mac
8:27 am on Friday, October 26, 2012
The article states 'investigate all medical records from those involved in the crash' however Anthony Prainito was not listed as one of those to be investigated. If they investigate one they should investigate all.
Dano
9:49 am on Friday, October 26, 2012
Aside from the serious injuries that occurred, Mr. Prainito was issued 3 traffic violations after the accident was investigated. Had there been any evidence that both car's were at fault, I doubt that Prainito would have received 3 tickets and found to be "at fault".
I know at the time this accident occured, visibilty was terrible and hard to see more than a few feet in front of you. I was driving home on M-59 at the same time this happened and it was scary.
Peter Everts
10:10 am on Friday, October 26, 2012
Brooks' driver was speeding.
Georgia
1:24 pm on Friday, October 26, 2012
it was Friday night and they were headed to their party grounds in Rochester.
Haulin T Male
7:53 pm on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
no one knows for sure he was speeding a speeding ticket can it be given on "hear say". a black box is what?, would you like to be ticketed on the say of some thing that has not been tested? same with radar tickets, scary drive? I found it not at all,that day, I guess it depends, I go to work before, 0530 there is no plowing or salting etc.
A closed bottle of ??? if you are over 21 you are allowed to carry ??? as long as it is closed and not in the front seat..... although with my tribe, I have ???? left over from a ski week end, it is in my ski bag in the trunk...... if there was any smell of ???? it would of been noted. if you do any court watching, you will notice the Judge, generally will appease both sides..... I feel the closed bottle ???? was allowed, cause the Judge knows that if there are open wounds the testing is not accurate, I would think some one would have to see one of them drinking from it, "do you hate him that much? to lie. I find it very hard for 19 people to have witness the accident
Remember "witnessing" is time before the impact, or at the time of impact, not hear a noise and look over.19 witnesses, 95% had to be along side or Behind, if it was red, most would be on cell phone talking or texting. turning the radio, etc. 19 - 911, really, so how many does it take ha ha, when some one turns off a light, does every body in the room go over and make sure it is the switch down.?
Neal Charness
10:17 am on Friday, October 26, 2012
The scary possibility here is that we might have a case of "might makes right." If there's substantial culpability by both drivers the prosecution seems one sided. A trial where the finder of fact determines which party was in the wrong (or both) would be a good thing. If there's this much question how can there be a finding "beyond a reasonable doubt." Perhaps this should be a civil, not criminal, matter. I would be upset if this costs the County money.
Haulin T Male
7:55 pm on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
a good point, but he can defend his tickets............. The ruling on the field...... was down by contact......... he can only get the tickets tossed out.......... if so then go another route