Verdict Received in Car/Bus Collision Case
A truck and a bus engaged in a fatal collision on I-94 in late 2005, and a jury on the case has recently decided on a not-guilty verdict for the accused truck driver according to a Star Tribune article. The driver's trailer overturned, and the bus plowed into the trailer, killing students and the driver. People are divided on both sides of the issue, but the jury ruled not-guilty on the over 30 charges placed against the driver. Negligent homicide was the most prominent charge, though there were other misdemeanors and felonies. The jury would not comment on the deliberation process. The bus was carrying Chippewa High School band members. During the trial, prosecutors tried to show that the driver was too tired to perform his job. The community remains divided on the issue, with people supporting the driver and being disappointed in the end verdict.
The main pointo f the article is that a verdict was reached, so that's mentioned in the first graph. The rest of the article after a brief chronology of the incident, which doesn't take place til a little later so there is no clear when element, is primarily giving the opinions of those in the community about the outcome of the case. Lots of direct attribution is used, and it' clear a lot of reporting was done to gauge the overall reaction as split. In particular the article focuses on a band teacher paralysed by the incident, and how he recovers. There is an especially nice human-interest element to the piece, and I mean there was obviously a lot of potential but it's pretty nice how they interview the band instructor after the invident and focus on him and one of his classes.
And another element of the case is brought up in the Pioneer Press' treatment of the story. It presents a similar reconstruction of the events after the first few graphs, giving dates and describing the events, but rather than focusing specifically on the element of the community's reaction, it talks about lawsuits being filed against the courts as a result of the verdict of the jury to acquit the driver. There is then quite a bit of debate as to who is to blame, whether the driver can really be blamed, etc, and there's not as much of a human interest element but it's equally interesting and raises questons about the legal system. The case is difficult because there's really no way to tell what happened or who was responsible, so in this case the jury just had no real way to prove the negligence. There is direct attribution from defense attorneys about the incident.
Both articles are adequate, and complementary because together they give a broader spectrum of information about the story. One has information and viewpoints that the other does not cover, and they appeal to different interests. One article is more concerned with the humanity, while the other focuses on the lgality issues and what could be done in the case. The two papers each picked a different angle for the story, and while the Star Tribune's is obviously the more compelling one ot read, I'd say they're both essential for a total comprehension of the story.