Based upon my own experience, I'd say a few weeks. Depending on the outcome, they may or may not make an announcement. If they decide to prosecute, they definitely won't make an announcement before presenting the case to the Grand Jury. They may also decline to prosecute at this time, but reserve the right to continue the investigation and file charges closer to the statute of limitations. In that case, they may not make an announcement either.

If they do decide to prosecute, then it's up to the Grand Jury. Grand Juries are highly unpredictable. They may No Bill a case for any number of reasons-some quite logical and others much less so. If they No Bill a case, that's it, so it's entirely possible that if the facts appear to be weak, the County Attorney may delay their decision in hopes of turning up additional facts that would improve the likelihood that the Grand Jury will return a True Bill.

According to this May 2nd Hollywood Reporter article, 'Midnight Rider': Gregg Allman Files Lawsuit Against Producers, Greg Allman filed a lawsuit to stop production of the film. The article is interesting because it hints at pressure the movie producers may have been under - Allman alleged that the producers' option on his life story has lapsed because they failed to commence principal photography by February 28, 2014.

Yesterday (May 12), there was a hearing to consider a temporary restraining order:
'I didn't expect a train': Gregg Allman biopic director describes fatal accident during filming

The hearing was the first time the director has publicly commented since the crash:

This morning, the AP is reporting that the lawsuit has been dropped:
'Midnight Rider': Gregg Allman Agrees to Drop Lawsuit Against Movie Producers

If Miller did not know it was live trackage, why did he place people along the tracks to watch out and warn of approaching trains? How could he not know that it was live trackage after being told by Rayonier to expect two trains that Rayonier knew were coming?

Queue the attorneys and let the litigation begin. That director is toast. The union is going to have a field day with this. He's basically admitted under oath that he was negligent in his assumption that they had permission to be on the railroad without verifying that they had permission to do so.

I am not surprised at the news of a settlement here. Why on earth did he even try to contest Mr Allman's decision to end the project??

The First Rule of Holes is (and attorneys sometimes cannot say this to their clients enough!!) is that when you are in one, STOP DIGGING (or talking).

He was in the hole the moment he walked into the courtroom. From the articles posted the Allman's attorney appears to have one a very skillful job of walking Mr Miller (the director and apparently the owner of the production company) into an admission of negligence which seems to be teetering right on the edge of manifesting a reckless disregard for the safety of the film crew. While I am not conversant in the fine points of Georgia criminal law, under common law this testimony comes very close to having made the case for manslaughter/criminally negligent homicide.

There were a couple points which stood out. First were the the multiple statements that something was not his responsibility. If he is the owner of the company and it is not his responsibility then whose responsibility is it? The second point was the claim that they had only picked the site a week before. That almost proves by itself that CSX had not granted the necessary licenses - the process just does not work that fast. If it is in fact the case that no license was granted (and that does seem to be the case here) then the crew's presence on the track was a trespass and the young lady's death can be be treated as a reasonably foreseeable result of an illegal act. Again while I am not conversant in Georgia criminal law this can in some states elevate the charge to (felony) murder.

Bringing those charges would not be easy because of the overlapping property rights, easements, regulatory schemes, and chains of responsibility. I would not even try to predict what a criminal jury would do in this one. Their heads would be spinning.

One of the considerations in bringing criminal charges may well have been the potential impact on civil litigation. Had Mr Miller already been charged criminally he could have refused to testify and respond to subpoenas on 5th amendment grounds. That would have dragged everything out even further than it will be anyway. Criminal charges will not restore Miss Jones to life nor will they repair any of the physical damage done to any of the other crew members. The civil actions should at least be able to provide some compensation to the victims and that may really be more important than State retribution.

GME

Because he didn't believe the First Rule of Holes applied to him. When you are in the Defendant's seat, your goal should be to mitigate any potential claim that the Plaintiff attempts to make, not to attempt to do anything more or else.

As for criminal prosecution, pressure's off the county attorney for now. They can wait and build up evidence up to the statute of limitations now that the folks that would be pressuring them to prosecute are (for the moment) sating themselves with getting every piece of Mr. Miller that they can through the civil law. Given the regulatory overlap, there may be other parties waiting in the wings for their piece of this guy-want to bet he's never heard of OSHA?

Of course, his 5th Amendment rights are pretty much moot now as he's admitted guilt. He's an easy target for the county attorney now if they do decide to have a go at him.

Not sure this is such a problem. A competent attorney will bring the jury back to familiar territory... what they already know... that no matter how many layers of ownership, leases, and easements are involved, the TRACKS belong to the railroad, and if you want to be on the TRACKS, you need permission from the railroad, since they are the only one who can keep the trains from coming.

The article says: “A major question in the tragedy is whether producers had permission to shoot on the CSX tracks.”

Since we know that CSX denied permission, and Miller cannot show any evidence of having permission from CSX, it is hard to understand why there would be a “major question” as to whether Miler had permission to shoot on CSX tracks.

I think the answer to that mystery is that the article is sloppily written and thus erroneously misstates the issue. What it should say is this:

“A major question in the tragedy is whether producers knew they did not have permission to shoot on CSX tracks.”

From all of the convoluted statements from Miller about receiving permission and advice about trains from Rayonier, I think it is quite possible that he did not know that he did not have permission to film on CSX property.

If it cannot be shown that Miller knew he did not have permission, I think there is a good chance that no criminal charges will be filed against him.

So, Allman is being sued as well, even though he apparently had nothing to do with the incident itself. Always go for the deep pockets, I guess: http://www.theolympian.com/2014/05/21/3142752/singer-allman-filmmakers-sued.html#
You'd think that some lawyers must advise survivors against doing stuff like this, because it only makes them look like they're out for a pay day and not justice...

Here is the complaint against several defendants, including CSX:

http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-con ... 234456.pdf

I am surprised to learn (according to the complaint) that CSX knew the movie cast and crew were on the tracks and trestle on the day of the accident.

Quote from the filing:

“76. Moreover, despite its actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew were on and around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on February 20, CSX never sent a representative to the location to secure the removal of individuals and equipment form the railroad tracks.”

Claims against CSX:

Defendant CSX is required by its own safety guidelines to take reasonable precautions when unauthorized individuals are present on the railroad tracks it operates.

Defendant CSX had actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew would be around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on or around February 20, 2014.

Despite the fact that multiple CSX trains passed the Midnight Rider cast and crew on February 20, with those individuals in view of the trains' operators, no warning was given to the subsequent train that ultimately caused Sarah's death.

Moreover, despite its actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew were on and around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on February 20, CSX never sent a representative to the location to secure the removal of individuals and equipment from the railroad tracks.

Additionally, the train thai caused Sarah's death on February 20 did not take reasonable precautions to avoid the Midnight Rider cast and crew, such as blowing the horn and/or slowing the train's speed.

My own non lawyer opinion:

The last item seems pretty bogus. As though a crew is just going to plow through people and obstructions without so much as a toot of the horn and big hole-ing it. The event recorder will confirm this.

As for the other points, they'd have to prove that prior trains witnessed individuals on the RoW. The railroad can't send out special agents just because some train crew sees people on adjacent property. Video from the prior train could help prove that there was nothing suspicious going on that would warrant "a representative" be sent nor other trains warned. Someone on TO pointed out that there is a road and quite a bit of space from where other filming activity was taking place and the CSX main & bridge. So all CSX needs to show is that there was nothing going on when prior trains passed that warranted any action on their part.

Steve

That last claim contradicts all of the media/law enforcement reports.

This lawsuit will go nowhere against CSX; unless they decide to settle out of court to avoid the cost of a trial.

The question everyone has been asking is finally answered on pp 9-10 of the lawsuit:

If CSX can prove that the film crew was not on CSX property when the two trains passed, I think they would be vindicated. However, the complaint says the film crew was on CXS property near the time of the accident, and that CSX knew this, apparently due to the fact that they were observed by the crews of the two trains that passed.

I would like to know the source of the information posted on T.O. saying where the film company was supposed to be filming on Rayonier property. All I have ever read in the news is that the film company had permission to be on Rayonier property. It has never been reported what the crew intended to do on Rayonier property. I speculate that the intent of being on Rayonier property may have just been to access the CSX trestle with vehicles and equipment.

CSX denied permission for the film company to work on CSX property. So on the day of the accident, CSX was at least aware of the fact that the film company had once planned to work on CSX property.

The complaint does not state that the CSX crews saw the film crew merely on Rayonier property as they passed. I know of no evidence of that being the case. The complaint says that CSX crews saw the film crew on CSX property.

Working for the courts, it's pretty obvious that CSX will deny the allegations made in the Complaint against them. Odds are that they'll negotiate a settlement and pose the possibility of a counterclaim against the plaintiffs if they do not settle. They'll most likely file a cross claim against Rayonier as well.

Either way, Rayonier is in deep doo doo for what their representative said. There will likely be many cross claims filed against them.