Murder in a Martini?
Martin Heidgen, the 25 year old who was convicted of Murder in the Second Degree for driving drunk the wrong way on the
Having been convicted of murder, Heidgen was subject to a minimum sentence of 15 years to life, and a maximum of 25 years to life. Why he received 18 years will never be clear. But there is a far bigger issue of law wrapped up in this case. And a uglier problem of jurisprudence that is demonstrated here.
I recently wrote on the subject of bad cases making bad law. The Heidgen case is probably a more significant example of the phenomenon. This was a drunk driving case. Though it ended in a tragedy that dwarfs most, it is still a drunk driving case. Yet it was the first drunk driving case ever in the State of
The rationale for the elevated charge is clearly the horrible outcome of the conduct. Two dead, one a 7 year old flower girl. There is no living, breathing person who can hear this and not shudder. You would have to be inhuman not to be moved by these deaths.
But the law does not vary by the horrific nature of the outcome, as much as we sometimes wish it would. The law must be dispassionate, as we know that the next case will not have such terrible consequences, but now that the dam has been broken, can be prosecuted as a murder. And murder, any way you turn it, is a different crime from manslaughter or vehicular homicide. It has an intent element, whether under the intentional murder subdivision, or the depraved indifference subdivision, as was used here. And drunk drivers, no matter how bad the result, do not have the intent necessary to commit murder. No matter how bad the result.
We must assume, for the sake of argument, that the Appellate Division, Second Department, will recognize and address this issue on appeal. Right? Perhaps, but there is a very real problem.
When I was chair of the Amicus committee for the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, I began looking for cases that involved important issues of law where the defense attorney was not (how to say this nicely) up to snuff. One critical historical problem with the law is that decisions were largely influenced by the quality of the lawyering, and if a lawyer represented the appellant who was not capable of making the point, we would frequently end up with very bad law that impacted everyone because of one lawyer’s ineffectiveness. Think about this. The ramifications are mind-boggling. And since the lawyer was chosen by the defendant (or his family), and limited by their financial resources or grasp of legal ability, the status of the law in the State of New York was dependent on how good a choice the defendant made.
Turning back to Heidgen, this case presents a fine example of the problem. Heidgen’s lawyer was way over his head on this case, but the opportunity to be the headliner in such a high profile case overwhelmed whatever good judgment he may have had. There are very few lawyers willing to give up the front page because they are not ready for prime time. A big win could make a career. Of course, a big loss could end one too, but nobody ever thinks of that when the TV lights are on them. They are SO important, if only for 15 minutes. Forget about the best interest of the client, it’s SHOWTIME!
This problems seems to be epidemic in
This bodes ill for the rest of us. This bodes ill for the people of the State of
Trackbacks
-
5/2/2008 11:58 AM
Simple Justice wrote:
For quite some time, the trend has been to find a crime when someone dies.
-
9/17/2008 9:11 AM
Simple Justice wrote:
First it was Robert Heidgen.
-
9/17/2008 9:12 AM
Simple Justice wrote:
First it was Robert Heidgen.
-
9/17/2008 10:00 AM
Simple Justice wrote:
First it was Robert Heidgen.
-
2/4/2009 9:38 AM
Simple Justice wrote:
In a seminal decision that may spell the end of
-
2/4/2009 9:38 AM
Simple Justice wrote:
In a seminal decision that may spell the end of








Has the appeal in this case been filed yet? Is the trial lawyer doing the appeal?
Reply to this
Good questions. No idea. Does anybody know?
Reply to this