It’s been more than three years since an allegedly drunk, speeding driver took the life of Groupon employee Bobby Cann. The criminal case against driver Ryne San Hamel has been progressing slowly as the defense tries every possible strategy to have charges dropped and evidence ruled inadmissible, but there was a positive developments at yesterday’s court hearing.
On the evening of May 29, 2013, Cann, 26, was biking at the intersection of Clybourn Avenue and Larabee Street when San Hamel, 28, struck and killed him. San Hamel was charged with reckless homicide and aggravated DUI, as well as misdemeanor DUI, reckless driving, and failure to stay in the lane.
In July 2015, Judge William Hooks dismissed the reckless homicide charge at the behest of the defense team, but last April the Cook County state’s attorney’s office announced that they won an appeal to have the charge reinstated. Recently the defense, led by celebrity lawyer Sam Adam Jr., has tried to have the blood work that was done to test San Hamel’s blood alcohol content level ruled inadmissible.
Yesterday Judge Hooks affirmed that the search warrant used to have San Hamel’s blood drawn was admissible, meaning the blood work can stay in the case for now, according to Catherine Bullard, who was dating Cann at the time of his death and attended the hearing. Hooks will determine whether the blood work itself is admissible after the next motion is processed.
“We thought that yesterday the lawyers for each side would present oral arguments about whether the search warrant for the blood tests was constitutional, and we anticipated that Judge Hooks would rule on the matter at a following hearing,” she said. “The judge surprised us all by ruling yesterday.”
Adam immediately filed a motion to suppress the blood work itself due to alleged chain of custody violations at Northwestern Hospital, which Bullard says is a predictable next step for the defense. The next court date will be October 21, when the prosecution will file its written reply to this motion. Hooks won’t be present. “We expect the next significant hearing, at which oral arguments will be given on the matter and it’ll be good to have people present, to be sometime in January,” Bullard said.