Nassau County (New York) District Attorney Kathleen Rice gets a temporary victory and a bully pulpit for her crusade against driving while Intoxicated with the conviction of Martin Heidgen for murder by depraved indifference. I wonder (again) how she will explain the waste of taxpayers money when the case is overturned on appeal.
I know this is difficult to understand. Depraved indifference to human life is a tough matter and the NY State Court of Appeals has made it as clear as they can. Here is the answer, yes the person who drives purposely the wrong way down a one way street at full speed not intending to kill anyone but not caring if he does and realizing he might is guilty of Depraved indifference. The person who either does not perceive the danger to others because he is intoxicated or metal ill, or lost, is not guilty of depraved indifference murder.See this decision
As written on a bulletin board service I am privileged to subscribe to, if a person goes up on top of a high rise and drops a bowling ball on a crowd below, that's depraved indifference. If he is so drunk that he goes to the top of the high rise and throws the ball down thinking he is in a bowling alley, he's not guilty. (A That Lawyer Dude thanks to Sufolk County criminal defense attorney John Powers for the example.)
Heidgen would have plead guilty to a offer of Manslaughter 2 which would have put him in for 5-15 years. It would have been the right solution to a really bad case, and saved the county taxpayers hundreds of thousands and maybe a million dollars.
Today Rice won, tomorrow taxpayers will lose. Politics as justice, Nassau's new standard.
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: The jury foreman claims she and another juror were coerced into finding the murder verdict. Another juror who voted for conviction says that the descriptions of violence in the jury room were correct but not coercive (yeah right) and he also admits those jurors who were for a Murder 2 conviction refused to debate (deliberate)the issue! You read it here, this verdict is getting overturned on appeal.
15 comments:
So basically, you can do anything you want but if your drunk, that makes it a lesser offense.
What a country we live in.
thinking he is in a bowling alley
Wonder how one can discern what the guy was thinking?
Ray: If intoxication is serious enough then yes it mitigates some crimes that require an intent. Murder always requires an intent. Manslaughter 2 does not require an intent.
There is never a need to put someone into a level of trouble more than is required to assure that the person will not commit another crime. The penal law in NY is not retributive it is corrective (Hence the term Correction law)part of that is punishing people for the correct intent. Which leads us to:
Anonymous: Intent is an element which must be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. They bring the charges, it is their burden to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. IF they cannot prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt then they need to bring a different charge. Manslaughter 2 for example.
Now for those that have a problem with the fact that a victim can die and do so violently and that a person responsible for such a death will not be charged with murder, I can only say that while a conviction for the highest count may make people feel better, it is a waste. I abhor waste especially in the criminal justice system. Precious money needed for incarceration, probation, rehabilitaion and early intervention programs. Hence in the case above, we are faced with a jury run amok, an appeal that will take a lot of money and a probable retrial. This case would be worth all of that had it fit the elements of Murder 2*. Since it does not, trying to fit the facts into a category tahat it doesn't belong in is a waste of taxpayers money. Doing it so you can say you are tough on crime when you run for higher office is a crime
First of all the taxpayers of Nassau County wanted this man convicted of murder and 12 of them voted to convict.
Second everyone seems to forget that this man was indicted under Denis Dillon.
Third voluntary intoxication is not a defense to depraved indifference murder. It is only a defense to specific intent crimes.
Fourth when you watch the video and listen to the testimony of the other drivers, you see that this man drove straight towards these people. He was TRYING to kill someone.
Does it matter who indicted the case? Moreover did you poll "the people of Nassau?" Most people would do away with the Bill of Rights if they had the chance, until it's their rights being "infringed"upon. The author is suggesting that the present Nassau DA is dispensing Justice by popularity contest rather than evaluating cases according to case law.
Finally, depraved indifference still requires that the defendant perceive the risk. Voluntary intoxication may not be a defense to depraved indifference murder but may be proof that the defendant couldn't perceive the risk, which is in part what the defense argued here.
Yes It does matter who indicted him. Everyone seems to make it out to be that this entire case, including the murder charge, are part of Kathleen Rice's crusade against drunk drivers when the fact is that it was Denis Dillon who made that choice. Although Ms. Rice claims that he was too soft on drunk drivers, Mr. Dillon made the choice to indict the defendant for murder. It was not just part of her "scheme" to "ruin" ever person who drinks and drives.
And depraved indifference does not so much as require that the defendant percieves the risk but more requires that the defendant disregards the obvious risk in his behavior - which is exactly what happened in this case. This man drove for over 2 miles, in the wrong direction, twice trying to crash into an oncoming car, not caring who he hurt or killed with 14 drinks in his system. This man was trying to hurt himself and didn't care who he took down with him. I find it very difficult to make an argument that that is NOT depraved indifference to human life. He might have been extremely intoxicated but any person who practices criminal law knows, its nearly impossible to get to a .28 without being a regular heavy drinker. A normal person is unconscious at a .28.
I am really suprised this post has gathered so much interest.
Anyway, I agree that Dillon's decision was "foisted" on Rice, but she did more than just proceed on it, she has embraced it and she has used it as I said in the post as a bully pulpit.
As for the .28, everyone reacts differently to alcohol. I have seen people who don't drink blow a .3 and still not appear really drunk and I have seen regular drinkers blow .08 and appear so drunk that they couldn't stand up. Anyone really familar with the concept of BAC knows that it is really bullshit. It is so fraught with bad science that it is scary, however it is one way for us to try to stem the drunk driving problem so we turn a blind eye to the issue much the way we used to accept blood matches of less than 5 percent error as ok in murder and rape cases. We are now learning thru DNA testing that while many of these convictions were correct,many others were not.
While DWI remains a misdemeanor, we continue to use this flawed science, however, it disgust me that we use it for felonies.
That of course is not the case in the Hiegden case. He admits to 14 drinks and the quiestion I believe is still did he percieve the risk his driving did when he was driving. I do not think that the prosecution will be able to prove that when he drove to the bar, he intended to drive his car into oncoming traffic. I am not sure that you could prove he decided that when he got into the car after drinking that night. This is then the problem. It is a horrible case, but it doesn't reduce or change the burden of proof. Each element must be met and I do not think that the case will stand.
On a different issue, I wonder what will happen to the sequestration issue and what effect that decision will have on the viability of the verdict.
I understand that it is popular among defense attorneys to believe the experts who criticize Breath Alcohol Content and the Blood to breath ratio but the fact is that in this case, there was no question. It was a blood test, with no issues as to "bad science". It is almost foolproof and is backed up by his admission to 14 drinks (which matches the commonly referred to .02 per drink formula).
I think at least 10 people were convinced that the people met their burden in this case and 12 voiced that opinion in their verdict. Unless the Court of Appeals really wants to overturn this verdict, i don't think they will interject themselves into this case.
I also have serious doubts as to whether the sequestration will even play any role, considering all reports indicated that LaMagna consented.
"Here is the answer, yes the person who drives purposely the wrong way down a one way street at full speed not intending to kill anyone but not caring if he does and realizing he might is guilty of Depraved indifference. The person who either does not perceive the danger to others because he is intoxicated or metal ill, or lost, is not guilty of depraved indifference murder."
Tell me something: is there actually a competent adult in this country who doesn't understand that drinking alcohol leads to drunkenness, and that driving in that state means you probably will commit any or all of those actions and kill someone? Depraved indifference proved. Here's another one: if the appropriate level of justice is not provided thru the courts, then the family is justified in making its' own. This potential juror surely won't vote to convict.
To Anonymous (Jan 14) thanks for joining the debate. Your argument that drinking alcohol leads to drunkeness falls flat. Many people, myself included drink and drive. The idea is to not drink and drive drunk. Drinking only leads to drunkeness when drinking is done to excess.
That drunkeness is arbitrarily set at .08 is a whole other problem. Most adults can safely operate a car at that level of breath test. The politicians however couldn't resist pandering to the advocacy groups who demanded federal legislation. The fix was a mandate by congress to withhold highway funds from states that didn't lower the BAC. (Which violates the 10th amendment if we had judges who actually would enforce the tenth amendment.) NY had a perfectly good answer to the .08 bac which was the violation of driving while ability is impaired.
Anyway I digress, the real problem with your post Anon. is the last line
" if the appropriate level of justice is not provided thru the courts, then the family is justified in making its' own. This potential juror surely won't vote to convict."
We are a nation of laws. The Criminal Justice system is not the answer for the victim of a crime. It is meant to bring justice between society and the accused. The civil justice system is the sword of the victim. That is where the victim is made "whole." If society is unhappy with the way Depraved Indifference is written, it can change the law or the state constitution. Not getting what you want at trial is never an excuse for taking the law into one's own hand. That you would not even consider that is somewhat scary, although the prosecution of a parent who is outraged by a courts unfairness (if we can call it that)is the kind of case many people would use to justify jury nullification.
Can anyone update me on the status of this case? I can find no record of this person on the NY State prison inmate search. Is he out on an appeal bond?
Thanks,
Bruce
There is no way Martin Heidgen is a murderer. You people make me sick who think he is. Because I am sure he really had the intent of killing a 7yr old girl and a driver that night. Do you people know what murder is? Yes he should be punished for drink driving and manslaughter, but this man is no murderer.
Your explanation to Ray has holes so big in it, Martin could drive his truck through them -- drunk or sober.
Ask even the most stupid, inchohate drunk if driving on the wrong side of the road at 70 miles an hour could result in striking an oncoming vehicle and possibly killing its occupants, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts they'd admit it could. Drunk doesn't mean you don't understand reality; it means to you don't care about it. There's a big difference. And that, my friend, spells intent.
Once again, Anonymous gets it wrong: Heidgen didn't intentionally drive on the wrong side of the road because he was drunk. That's what alcohol does—it impairs judgment. Because his judgment was impaired, the law says he can't be held to have fully appreciated the risk. If he wasn't aware of the risk, he can't be held to have disregarded it with depravity. Hence, no depraved indifference murder.
Depraved indifference requires a conscious decision on the part of the defendant, which any first-year law student could see is wholly lacking in the Heidgen case.
It really is amazing how many lawyers — the nitwit Nassau DA included — can't grasp a simple concept like mens rea that is taught within the first month of law school.
If you only know the basic facts of the case (Martin drank A LOT all night long and got behind the wheel of his pickup and somehow wound up going the wrong way on the parkway... and hit a car head on killing two ppl.. these facts alone are not sufficient for "depraved heart" murder. However, I think there were some additional facts that came out during the trial which indicated that Heidgen was in a depraved state of mind at the time he was drinking and at the time he got in his car. No one can know except for Heidgen what exactly was going through his mind at the time. But let's say hypothetically he was drinking because he was very upset after having a big fight with a girl he was seeing... and let's say that at the time he was driving late at night on a July 4th weekend he simply DID NOT CARE about anyone else but himself.
Also... would it matter if the facts indicated that he was familiar with the parkway he was driving on? How many ppl in an ultra intoxicated state would drive the wrong way on a road they were familiar with??
However, everyone is entitled to due process of law and an unbiased jury. If there was jury misconduct, than the ruling should certainly be overturned. That is the way of the legal system, and god forbid anyone finds themselves as a defendant in a criminal case we all would want the same thing... fairness.
Post a Comment