« Finding a silver lining in new report on Prez Trump's disappointing nominees to US Sentencing Commission | Main | "Public opinion and the politics of collateral consequence policies" »

September 17, 2020

At re-re-re-sentencing, Amy Locane gets eight years in New Jersey state prison for drunk driving vehicular manslaughter

Because it is such an interesting case (and perhaps because I watched Melrose Place way back when), I have blogged repeatedly about the sentencings saga of Amy Locane after her conviction in a tragic and deadly drunk driving case.  Today, Locane was sentenced for the fourth time in this matter, and this Fox News piece provides the details:

Amy Locane has been resentenced to eight years in state prison for a fatal 2010 drunk driving crash that occurred in New Jersey. The former “Melrose Place” actress, 48, has already served a prison sentence but a judge agreed with prosecutors Thursday that her initial sentence was too lenient.

State Superior Court Judge Angela Borkowski said Locane still refuses to fully acknowledge her culpability in the crash that killed 60-year-old Helene Seeman and severely injured Seeman's husband.  State law requires her to serve more than six years before being eligible for parole.  Locane apologized to the Seeman family in a brief statement.  She was placed in handcuffs and taken into custody by court deputies after the proceeding in state court in Somerville.

It was a startling development in a case that has bounced around the New Jersey court system for nearly a decade and has now featured four sentencings in front of three judges, plus numerous appeals.

Locane — who acted in 13 episodes of the popular 1990s Fox series and has also appeared in several movies — was convicted on several counts including vehicular manslaughter, and faced a sentencing range of five to 10 years on the most serious count. The state initially sought a seven-year sentence, but a trial judge sentenced her to three years in 2013.  An appeals court ruled he misapplied the law, but at a resentencing, the same judge declined to give her additional time.

Last year, a different judge sentenced her to five years, but an appeals court ruled he didn't follow guidelines it had set and ordered yet another sentencing.  Locane's attorney, James Wronko, had argued unsuccessfully that sentencing her again would violate double jeopardy protections since she had already completed her initial sentence and parole term.

According to witnesses, Locane had consumed several drinks before she headed home on the night of the accident and slammed into the Seemans' car as it turned into their driveway in Montgomery Township, near Princeton.  The actress contended a third motorist, whose car Locane had bumped into at a traffic light minutes earlier, distracted her by honking at and chasing her.  Locane wasn't indicted for drunken driving, but a state expert testified her blood alcohol level was likely about three times the legal limit and that she was driving roughly 53 mph (85 kmh) in a 35-mph (56-kmh) zone at the time of the crash.

Fred Seeman, who nearly died from his injuries suffered in the crash, attended Thursday's proceeding and said Locane's shifting of blame "shows contempt for this court and the jury that rendered the verdict.”  The judge took a similar view, and said Locane's past alcohol abuse makes her a risk for reoffending.

“You made a conscious decision to drink that day and continued to drink, recognizing at the onset that you needed a ride but didn’t obtain one," Borkowski said.  "If you hadn’t gotten behind the wheel of your vehicle on this night, the incident never would have happened.” Wronko called the sentence “outrageous.  She has always taken full responsibility," and criticized the judge for not taking into account Locane's current sobriety and her work counseling others against alcohol abuse.

Locane has 45 days to appeal her sentence. Wronko said he is waiting to see if the state Supreme Court decides to hear his appeal on the double jeopardy question.

Prior related posts:

September 17, 2020 at 04:31 PM | Permalink

Comments

What a joke. Just how many times does the state get a do over. Especially when when this illegal sentence was handed dow the original one she was give had already been completed in total including the parole on the end.

Sorry it's not her fault the state can't get its crap together. It's also not her fault they took a decade to make up their minds.

Sorry but i would consider this new time an illegal imprisonment and feel legally and morally bound to leave no matter how many of the goon squads i had to hurt or kill to do it. Then it would be time to render my verdict to the two-faced judge that did it.

Before you go nuts. That opinion is based on our constitution. This is plainly coveted via its total ban on bills of attainer. Its illegal to go back and chance and increase a punishment. That means the judge and the court officers as well as anyone in doc enforcing the illegal sentence are operating outside the law and an no better than any other kidnappers. The victim has every legal and moral right to escape no matter what they have to do to the kidnappers and those who conspired to arrange it. I.E. the court.

Posted by: Rodsmith3510 | Sep 19, 2020 2:55:48 AM

this is a question for the supreme of the untid state

Posted by: daniel deering | Sep 24, 2020 10:39:25 PM

can a constitutional lawyer answer my question i fell it is double jeopardy ad is against her civil rights as i understand to be as guarantied by our constitution

Posted by: daniel deering | Sep 24, 2020 10:45:46 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB