« "For principle to be served, 22 worthy, long-term narcotics prisoners granted release needs to become 2,200 or more." | Main | Amnesty International reports on death penalty administration around the world »
April 2, 2015
You be the judge: what state sentence for unstable 1% whose reckless driving killed young family?
This AP story from Vermont, headlined "Victims' Family at Exec's Crash Sentencing: You're Heartless," reports on the first day of a dynamic sentencing hearing in a very sad case. Here are the details:
Family members of a Vermont couple killed in a car crash were unflinching during a sentencing hearing Wednesday as they poured out their anger toward a New Hampshire man who admitted causing the wreck, which also killed their unborn fetus.
Prosecutors have said Robert Dellinger told investigators he was trying to kill himself in December 2013 when he drove his pickup truck across an Interstate 89 median and smashed into an SUV carrying 24-year-old Amanda Murphy, who was 8 months pregnant, and her fiance, 29-year-old Jason Timmons.
The Valley News of West Lebanon reported that relatives of Murphy and Timmons tore into Dellinger during the first of the two-day sentencing hearing. "I have been robbed and violated. I will never see or touch my child ever again," the newspaper quoted Timmons' mother, Debbie Blanchard, as saying, reporting that she fought back tears. "How could you be so heartless? You still have a family; you have taken mine from me."
Dellinger appeared to be deeply remorseful during the hearing, the newspaper reported. "You have my deepest, most heartfelt apology, condolences and remorse for your loss. I am so sorry," the 54-year-old Dellinger said through sobs. "My guilt and remorse will be with me forever. I ask for your forgiveness, and I pray for your healing."
Dellinger, of Sunapee, New Hampshire, was a senior vice president and chief financial officer at PPG Industries Inc. when he left in 2011 because of health problems. He also held high-level posts at Sprint Corp., Delphi Corp. and General Electric Co. He pleaded guilty in February to negligent homicide for the deaths of the couple, who were from Wilder, Vermont, and to assault for the death of the fetus. He faces 12 to 24 years in prison when sentencing resumes Thursday....
Defense lawyers have said Dellinger was suffering from delirium due to a "toxic regime" of prescription medications for multiple sclerosis and depression. In asking for a shorter sentence, they also contend he was suffering from withdrawal of a sleeping aid. Attorney Steven Gordon wrote in a sentencing brief they now know "a medical event" was the main cause "of this accident."
Dellinger has been jailed since his arrest in December. His lawyers want a sentence that would see him serve only about eight months in prison after being given credit for time already served.
Investigators say Dellinger told them that on the day of the accident he "had a disagreement with his wife and went to Vermont to drive around. He said he was very depressed and gloomy and wanted to have a car wreck and kill himself." On Wednesday, Dellinger told the court: "I have never been suicidal."
Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey Ward said in court that Dellinger's truck reached 101 mph in the seconds before the crash and was going 87 mph one second before he hit the SUV. His truck sheared off the top of the SUV. The medical examiner's report compared the injuries suffered by Murphy and Timmons to those of plane crash victims. Dellinger suffered cuts and bruises.
April 2, 2015 at 08:44 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201b8d0fa70dd970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You be the judge: what state sentence for unstable 1% whose reckless driving killed young family?:
Comments
Eerily similar to the Germanwings mass murder situation, in that the state of mind based upon lack of / overdose of drugs is in play. Very difficult to diagnose, but EASY to judge and to litigate: Guilty. If such individuals are absolved of their actions, then depression will be treated as a disease worse than leprosy or pedophilia, in which the "patient" is segregrated from society.
Posted by: Eric Knight | Apr 2, 2015 11:44:50 AM
Is is fair to analogize this kind of case to the man who carries a large rock to the top of the empire state building and who fervently prays it won't hit anyone; and then who drops it killing five people?
Posted by: Dave from Texas | Apr 2, 2015 3:48:23 PM
If one is delirious, the driving is erratic, and slow. The speed and accuracy imply intent. He should get the death penalty. The defense lawyer putting up false arguments should get the lash. To deter.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 2, 2015 6:17:37 PM
Negligent homicide seems like a gift here. Seems like there is a solid basis for manslaughter at least, if not depraved indifference murder. He intentionally did something that any reasonable person would know created a massive risk of death to other people. Driving into another car, intentionally, at close to 100mph? That is not a car accident. That is no different than throwing a hatchet or a grenade at someone, or firing a gun randomly into a crowd. Sure, the targets might survive, but that doesn't mean it's not murder if they die.
I wonder if the plea decision would have been different if he had had a poor person's lawyer, instead of a 1% lawyer who would be skilled and resourced to put up a hell of a fight if it went to trial. I've seen plenty of guys go down for capital murder who were way more mentally messed-up than it sounds like this guy was. Juries don't tend to buy the "I voluntarily took too many drugs" or "I was really depressed" defenses, at least for poor people -- if you want any play from the jury on a mental-state defense like this, you better have a documented situation where you were delusional, like hallucinating the victims were aliens or giant cockroaches. (On the other hand, I don't know a lot about Vermont juries.)
Posted by: anon | Apr 3, 2015 10:02:00 AM
Anon and I rarely agree. His analysis is correct. I also agree that intoxication is not a valid legal excuse, nor should it ever become one. Indeed, I believe all serious common law crimes should carry strict liability.
That being said, the impaired driving excuse is a false one. If impaired one is all over the road, unable to control the car. As a result, the driving slows down to compensate and make driving easier. The facts described argue for an intentional homicide. The degree may be argued, but not its intentionality.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 3, 2015 1:08:04 PM