Director of Advocacy Programs Jules Epstein, a national authority on Criminal Procedure and the Law of Evidence, has been an influential voice in the unfolding story of whether charges will be brought against Amtrak engineer Brandon Bostian in the 2015 derailment that killed eight and injured hundreds.
Prosecutors reverse course and file charges against engineer in 2015 Amtrak crash
Washington Post, May 15, 2017
“Relatives of a victim of the deadly 2015 Amtrak crash have used a little-known provision of Pennsylvania law to push state prosecutors to file charges against the engineer–an abrupt turn of events in the high-profile case that last week had appeared to reach its end…Jules Epstein, director of advocacy programs at the Temple University Beasley School of Law, said the law allowing privately initiated complaints has been around for years, but is generally used in small disputes between individuals. He said, however, that even though the engineer now faces charges, there is no guarantee he will face trial. ‘There was nothing in the judge’s order that preordains the outcome,’ Epstein said. ‘The prosecution may later move to dismiss, offer pretrial probation, negotiate a deal for probation or prosecute and seek jail time.'”
Train driver charged in connection with derailment that killed eight
Belfast Telegraph, May 13, 2017
“A speeding Amtrak train driver has been charged with causing a catastrophe, involuntary manslaughter, and other crimes in a 2015 derailment after the family of a woman killed in the crash sought a private criminal complaint…Private criminal complaints are occasionally used in low-level crimes not witnessed by police or, sometimes, when charges are not filed for political reasons, experts said. ‘The private complaint mechanism exists for cases where the police can’t make an arrest and, arguably, for cases where they won’t but they should,’ said Jules Epstein, a Temple University law professor.”
Complaint lays out case against Amtrak engineer
Philadelphia Inquirer, May 13, 2017
“Even as the criminal case against the Amtrak engineer involved in a 2015 derailment was revived, voices emerged that track closely with the district attorney’s original rationale for not prosecuting the case: There was no evidence that the engineer, possibly distracted by reports of rocks being thrown at a nearby SEPTA train, knew he was approaching the curve that caused the derailment. ‘You need a conscious disregard’ of the risk that your actions pose, said Temple University law professor Jules Epstein. He points to a 2003 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Huggins requiring prosecutors to show that a defendant charged with involuntary manslaughter was aware that his or her actions posed a risk, and that the defendant consciously disregarded the risk.”
Private criminal complaint led to order reversal in deadly Amtrak case
WHYY Newsworks, May 12, 2017
Two days after the Philadelphia district attorney’s office concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against the engineer involved in the May 2015 derailment of Amtrak Train 188 in Philadelphia, a city municipal court judge Thursday ordered prosecutors to instead bring charges against Brandon Bostian in the crash that killed eight and injured hundreds of other. To make sense of the twists and turns, Temple University law professor Jules Epstein joined NewsWorks Tonight host Dave Heller.
Pa. attorney general announces charges against Amtrak engineer
Philadelphia Inquirer, May 12, 2017
Municipal Court President Judge Marsha Neifield ordered the District Attorney’s Office to charge the engineer involved in an Amtrak derailment. “Neifield’s order that the Amtrak case be reopened set off a tumult of media coverage, with the decision drawing national attention. Neifield, a Temple University Law School graduate, is highly regarded, said Temple law professor Jules Epstein. As president judge of Municipal Court, she is responsible for judicial scheduling and supervision, and oversees the administrative operations of the civil and criminal divisions.”
Judge orders Philly DA’s Office to charge Amtrak engineer Bostian
Philadelphia Inquirer, May 11, 2017
A Philadelphia Municipal Court judge ordered the city District Attorney’s Office to charge an Amtrak engineer involved in a fatal train derailment. “There is a basis in Pennsylvania law for the judiciary to step in and essentially take control of a criminal investigation, said Temple University law professor Jules Epstein. The hurdles for such action typically are high, he said, because of the separation-of-powers doctrine, which grants each branch of government wide discretion within its own sphere of authority. But Epstein said case law in Pennsylvania lays down guidelines for when a judge can compel a prosecutor to accept a citizen’s criminal complaint, the scenario that played out before Neifield on Thursday. Courts are more inclined to hear such requests when there is a dispute over the legal basis for bringing charges, Epstein said.”
No charges against Amtrak engineer who derailed train, killing 8
Philadelphia Inquirer, May 9, 2017 (Update)
“The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office will not file criminal charges against an Amtrak engineer who was operating a train that derailed north of 30th Street Station in 2015, killing eight…A Temple University expert in criminal law, Jules Epstein, agreed prosecutors made the right decision. ‘That’s a mistake, and although it had deadly consequences,’ he said, ‘it wasn’t a reckless mistake as that term is defined by law.’ He compared it to a tragic car crash where a driver strikes a person after turning around to check on a crying infant in a backseat. ‘In plain English, getting distracted by news of rocks being thrown at a train and as a result not realizing you’re before the curve instead of after it is not reckless under the law,’ Epstein said.”
No charges against Amtrak engineer who derailed train, killing 8
Philadelphia Inquirer, May 5, 2017
The deadline to bring reckless endangerment charges against the engineer at the center of an Amtrak derailment is this approaching. “Prosecutors typically do prefer to have a wide menu of offenses on an indictment, said Jules Epstein, a Temple University law professor. He added, though, that losing the opportunity to charge a lesser offense does not rule out the possibility of filing more serious offenses, ‘if they have evidence to back it up.'”
