Whiteside County judge lifts stay in wrongful death suit – SaukValley.com

MORRISON A hold put on proceedings in a wrongful death suit filed against a woman who hit and killed a motorcyclist more than 5 years ago is coming to an end.

Theresa Ruf, 47, is charged with reckless homicide and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident in the June 5, 2012, death of Samuel L. Munz, 53, of rural Sterling. Ruf rear-ended Munz as he was waiting to make a left turn into his driveway.

Munzs family also sued Ruf on Aug. 15, 2012.

On March 12, 2013, Rufs attorney, James Pignatelli, argued that a stay should be granted because information that would be made public in the civil suit might incriminate her in her criminal case.

Ruf was granted an indefinite stay, meaning evidence involving her, including a deposition, could not be obtained by Jim Mertes, the familys attorney, until the court allowed it. The stay did not apply to any other discovery in the civil case.

On March 29, Mertes filed a motion to lift the stay. Among his arguments:

Ruf never asserted her Fifth Amendment rights when she was answering interrogatories in the criminal case, nor did she invoke when she answered the complaint in the civil suit. In fact, she admitted driving the SUV that struck Munz, that she had no insurance at the time, and that she had a drink at Kellys 2 hours before the crash.

Rufs waivers to date have dramatically reduced the extent to which she would be burdened by any further invocation of Fifth Amendment privilege, he wrote.

In terms of self-incrimination, it would be up to Ruf to decide if and what to say in either case it may be a difficult choice, but its still a choice; shes not being compelled to incriminate herself, and therefore lifting the stay would not violate her Fifth Amendment protection.

Illinois appellate courts routinely have denied requests for stays of civil proceedings when there is a related criminal case.

Perhaps Mertes most compelling argument, though:

At the time he filed his motion to lift the stay, Ruf had been granted 36 motions to continue the criminal case, causing a delay of nearly 5 years since the civil suit was filed. That timeline is unfairly affecting Munzs wife, Vicky, who relied on him for his income, is impairing the resolution of his estate, and is an unreasonable delay in the familys attempt to seek justice, shifting the balance from Rufs right not to self-incriminate to the familys right to seek redress, Mertes argued.

Whiteside County Judge Stanley Steines agreed, and on June 5 5 years to the day since the crash ordered that the stay be lifted, either 30 days after the conclusion of the criminal case, or on Sept. 1, whichever comes first.

The trial in the criminal case is scheduled for July 18, but that date may change. Ruf has a pretrial conference Wednesday.

In addition, Sauk Valley Medias request to be allowed to photograph and to use electronic devices to report the proceedings in Rufs criminal case was granted, with one restriction.

On May 8, Pignatelli filed an objection to SVMs request, in which he cited his clients unspecified medical condition and said allowing news cameras would substantially impair her ability to defend herself.

He later modified his objection, asking that video cameras only not be allowed at the hearings. The judge agreed to the terms on June 8.

Under a program launched 5 years ago by the Illinois Supreme Court, enhanced, or extended, media coverage is allowed at those hearings and trials that are open to the public.

Among other things, media are allowed to use a limited number of still and video cameras, audio equipment and cellphones from which reporters can tweet or text developments, to broaden coverage of proceedings. Pooling the information with other media that request it is a main requirement.

Shooting images of jurors and recording discussions between attorneys and their clients, opposing attorneys, or sidebars with the judge, are prohibited.

While the presumption is such access should be granted, witnesses or attorneys and their clients can object to the extended coverage.

It is up to the presiding judge to decide whether the basis for the objections has merit, either by ruling on submitted, written arguments or by holding hearings and listening to testimony, or both.

Judges are given wide latitude in determining whether to restrict extended coverage.