Nick Adenhart’s parents didn’t attend the sentence. They sent a note instead, telling the judge, “There is no justice as long as Mr. Gallo is drawing a breath.” They are partially right. There is no such thing as justice.
The LA Times article recaps the story that ended yesterday when Orange County Superior Court Judge Richard Toohey imposed a sentence of 51 years in prison on 23-year-old Andrew Thomas Gallo. He is eligible for release after 49 years.
Toohey gave prosecutors what they sought: consecutive sentences on three second-degree murder charges and other felonies stemming from the April 2009 crash that killed Adenhart, 22, and friends Courtney Stewart, 20, and Henry Pearson, 25. Jon Wilhite, 24, survived the crash but sustained major injuries.
On the night Adenhart pitched six scoreless innings, Gallo was out drinking with his stepbrother. Just past midnight, he barreled through a red light in Fullerton at 65 mph and rammed his minivan into a vehicle carrying the four friends.
Gallo fled on foot and was captured two miles from the scene. His blood-alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit more than two hours after the crash.
“Not only was he driving under the influence, he was obliterated,” the judge said, noting that Gallo was on probation at the time for an earlier drunk driving conviction. “Mr. Gallo, you have devastated four families — really five families with your own.”
Ironically, Gallo’s brother was the designated driver. Except he got drunk too. Gallo made the horrible choice to drive home. Drunks make bad choices. He understood how bad a decision it was.
“You’re right — I am a horrible person, a drunk driver who took your beautiful kids away.”Gallo told Orange County Superior Court Judge Richard Toohey before sentencing. “They had big, bright futures ahead of them. And because of me, they’re gone.”
Treating a death caused by drunk driving the same as an intentional murder is all the rage. Pun intended. The family of the poor, wonderful young people who died were grief stricken, and think they will be comforted by Gallo’s imprisonment forever, if not the forfeiture of his life. They will come to realize that it doesn’t help some day, but that realization will bring them no comfort. Nothing will return the life of a lost child, no matter what caused the death. There is no comfort to be found. There is no justice.
In the face of a room filled with nothing but agony, Gallo’s lawyer, Jacqueline Goodman stood firm.
Everyone is pretending. Pretending that Andrew isn’t a good person, not an ordinary young man. Pretending that three sets of parents who held their babies in their arms and dreamed about their futures are any different from parents who, at that same time 23 years ago, on those very same days, held their first baby boy, Andrew, bounced him on their knee, and dreamed of his future, full of love and promise.
Pretending those innocent parents are not victims themselves. Pretending their pain is less relevant here.Pretending that the victims were not themselves human– beautiful and yes, flawed. Pretending that Courtney Stewart’s mistakes did not exist, and that Andrew Gallo’s mistakes were intent to kill. We’re pretending that Andrew is on par with those depraved killers who look into the eyes of their victims and determine wilfully to take their lives. We’re pretending that 51 years to life will have any impact on whether a different young man or woman drinks, and then foolishly gets behind the wheel, believing, as they do, in their omnipotence, their immortality. We’re pretending that here, today, that we are somehow not taking another life with cold intention, in response to the loss of lives in a tragic accident.
Well I will not pretend.
Andrew Gallo is a good and gentle soul who never set out to harm another person, and who does not deserve to lose his life.
He comes from a good family– a military family, his own brother a marine. A family who, in deference to the pain of the parents of the victims, and without thought of their own sorrow, every day gave up the front seats in their son’s own trial to the parents of the decedents here. They quietly sat in the back, entered and exited last, even as their son’s taking was on display in slow motion.
And it is absurd to think that we can summarize in a few sentences the infinite value of any of these lives or the depths of sorrow at these losses. But the only way we might spare a life or several lives from a similar fate is to allow Andrew the opportunity to share the lessons he’s learned at such great a cost.
That would be a far greater and more fitting legacy to Henry Pearson, Courtney Stewart, Nick Adenhart, and Jonathan Wilhite. That in their names was dealt mercy and temperance and understanding instead of vengeance and blame. That in their names, others were spared their own lives. This would be the most fitting tribute to these extraordinary people. They would stand for forgiveness over blame.
My own father is dying. He saw me in court one time, and that was here, in closing arguments. My father is a recovering alcoholic. He had about 30 years of life-affirming sobriety. But it took him about 40 years to reach it. Fate denied Andrew as much of a chance.
Today Andrew and I know that we come into this battle to lose. The victory, sometimes, is in showing up. The victory is speaking truth to power. It is in speaking love to hate.
At this moment, my father is dying. Because I am in this hearing today, I may not be by his side when he passes out of this life and into the next. But know this: That I am profoundly privileged to stand next to Andrew Gallo. And in my father’s name, I proudly stand on the side of honesty. Of hope and redemption over blame.
As she spoke these words, another man, Jeremie Cancel, was sentenced on the other side of the country for the strangulation murder of a Pace University student, Kevin Pravia. Cancel giggled as he was sentenced. He is eligible for release in 25 years.
The emotional desire to make the object of one’s pain feel it as well is understandable. But Andrew Gallo was stupid, not venal. Jeremie Cancel was venal, but an ordinary intentional murder isn’t the latest focus of society’s outrage, even when it’s so personal as by strangulation. And Cancel’s victim didn’t throw a baseball with great velocity.
There is no justice.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When my children were killed by a drunk driver, the offender was 17 and given 6 months probation. This was 30 years ago but the pain gets worse with the loss of grandchildren I will never see and adults I will never know. My children were 3 1/2 years old and 10 days old. Still, I suffer. I suffer for a careless decision, not a mistake. Still I suffer for a crime, not a mistake. Ignorance is no excuse. This man deserves his punishment; though harsh, he willingly did this. No accident here. However, ruining his family is on him, not the court. I feel sorry for him and his family but justice was served. Painfully, yes, but served. More victims? Yes, but justice. Taking his life would not bring back those he killed, but he should pay for the crime of premeditated murder. He knew the risk. Taking a loaded gun into a room without the safety on is a crime. He took the safety off of a deadly weapon when he started the car. Pity? Yes, I pity him and his family. Does not mean he should not get the maximum sentence? NO! He took lives and futures. It is sad, but it is justice. As an attorney, I am certain you see the man as a victim. I do, as well, but of a victim of choice. Not an innocent bystander.
Hear, hear.
That’s all I can say. Murder is not manslaughter. And family – even popular – outrage is not the law.
Jeff Deutsch
Powerful presentation by Ms. Goodman. It would serve us all well if those of our fellow citizens who characterize themselves as believers that our country was founded on christian principles could be made aware of what she said that day.
This is was not an accident. He didn’t accidentally get drunk, accidentally drive or accidentally speed. He made at least three decisions that he knew (or should have known from his last arrest) could cause serious injury or death. He. Did. Not. Care.
“share the lessons he’s learned at such great a cost” Ha. These kids didn’t sacrifice their lives so he could have a teaching moment. Perhaps that should have come after his first arrest also.
He got exactly what he deserved. He will live to make other mistakes and bury the memory of the lives he took with another bottle of Gin when he gets out. He took three lives unlawfully without a care in the world. I’d say that’s pretty damn close to being a murderer.
I’d agree that the sentence is too harsh. How much too harsh I’m not wise enough to arrive at a number. If I were wise enough I think I’d offer ten years without benefit of parole as an appropriate sentence for this crime.
The question occurs to me: what length sentence of sufficient length that fits this crime would not be so lengthy as to ruin the defendant’s life anyhow?
The sad and the angry views notwithstanding, the “crime” of drunk driving happens when an intoxicated person gets behind the wheel and drives. 99% of the time, they make it home safely and sleep it off. 0.007% of the time, they get caught by a cop and are arrested for ordinary DUI. 0.003% of the time, they get into an accident. 0.001% of the time, someone dies. The conduct of drinking and driving is the criminal conduct. The eventual outcome, whether sleep or death, is purely fortuitous.
So what is the length of sentence sufficient to serve legitimate purposes? Is it based on the crime or the unfortunate, exceptionally rare, result. Is the drunk who makes it home safely a better person than the drunk who kills? Is the drunk who kills a worse person than the one who sleeps it off?
“He will live to make other mistakes and bury the memory of the lives he took with another bottle of Gin when he gets out.” He’s not getting out.
When society starts taking Drunk Driving seriously, like they do other crimes, then maybe we can do something to stop accidents like this.
Until then, the carnage will not stop.
He was a victim of chance. I’ll wager that everyone reading this site has driven under the influence – which based on the “science” of drunk driving is just a couple of drinks.
Yet here we are…free birds screaming for death. That makes me wonder something.
When we drove after a couple of drinks but did not kill someone, were we evil?
You mourn the adults you’d never known. You could spend your hours serving others. There are living children and women and others who need comfort.
And yet all you do is focus on the dead.
What you will not admit and what people lack the courage to say is that your obsession over loss is petty, selfish, and ultimately centered on hate rather than love. It’s hateful.
It’s up to each person to decide how to live his life. Hating others never led anyone to a happy or fulfilled life. Maybe you’ll be the exception.
The crime is criminally negligent manslaughter. Mr. Gallos had a duty to not drive when he knew that he was intoxicated. The fact that a designated driver had been determined for this night of drinking is evidence that Mr. Gallos inebriated state was voluntary.
When this society takes drunk driving seriously, there’ll be much more sure punishment for the act, not the results. Back a few eons ago when I was studying criminology, the research was very clear: deterrence is achieved (imperfectly, of course) by the likelihood of credible punishment, not by the severity of rarely-imposed punishments. (Which is why, say, the death penalty for high-level drug dealers is only going to benefit a few CDLs and the War on Some Drugs industrial complex; it won’t have any effect even on the street price of coke.)
Bingo.
“… I’m not wise enough to arrive at a number.”
Fortunately for all of us, Henry Collier is.
(That was a hell of an argument by Ms. Goodman.)
Maybe we can take a balanced, adult view of such things? There’s got to be some middle ground between you can only drive when you’re in peak mental and physical condition, utterly undistracted and under no influence whatsoever and it’s okay to drive drunk as long as you don’t actually kill somebody.
I got an idea: for most folks, how about one (smallish) drink, at most? If you want to be sociable, have a gin and tonic, and then guzzle plain tonic water for the rest of the evening, unless you’re going to give up driving for that evening. No, it’s not perfect, but it’s entirely workable.
Hell, now that I’m inventing outre ideas, how about this one: if you want to drink more, designate somebody else who doesn’t as your driver for the evening. You could even call him or her a, err, “designated driver.”
I am humbled by the inclusion of my comments here. I’ve thought of things I wanted to say to this forum in particular, and that hesitation has brought me merely to this: That beyond the ways I failed Andrew Gallo (and I do rightly struggle with that), I am simply grateful. Grateful to be the one who had the opportunity to stand with Andrew in affirmation of the sanctity of life. Grateful to be the last friend to the most reviled. Grateful to stand with one against the angry mob. And grateful to share a profession with those, like Scott Greenfield, who so graciously reprinted (and Lee Stonum who submitted) my comments here, who inspire me to take the more difficult road, because it leads, ultimately, to peace.
Thank you, Jacqui, and Lee for offering me your argument. While most of us are part of the same fight, some fight better, harder and under more difficult circumstances than others. It’s all we can do to engage in the fight.
Gallo was indeed reviled, and yet you stood there, standing between him and the mob. Even the mob from your own side. That the effort may have proven futile doesn’t diminish the effort. It was a great effort, and that’s the best we can do. If the mob came after me, I would want you standing next to me.
As an attorney I realize that the element of intent is what is at the heart of the murder charge and that these cases were always charged in the past as manslaughter but society makes value judgments as to what is or is not a crime or as to the seriousness of a particular crime all the time and these judgments often reflect the changing views toward the defendant’s conduct, the value of the victim’s position, and the overall harm to society. After all it was once widely held that a man could not legally rape his wife. It should be noted that the murder charges are the result not only of the Watson case from many years ago, but an evolving practice of including the “murder acknowledgment” statement in DUI plea agreements in which the defendant signs a statement where he/she states that further drunken driving is inherently dangerous to human life, and that if another person dies as a result of the defendant’s driving while intoxicated, that defendant can be charged with murder. That takes care of implied malice right there. It is not specific intent or premeditation. Implied malice or general intent have always been keystones of 2nd degree murder charges where specific intent cannot be proven. If I get drunk and shoot up a church and people die I’ll be charged with murder, not manslaughter. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to general intent crimes. Cynically speaking, I do believe that if more drunk drivers got killed in these collisions that you would not have this movement to murder charges, but they always seem to walk away unscathed, at least in most cases. This is intolerable to the general public, who do not see ten years in prison for three deaths as an equitable result. I happen to agree.
Ms. Goodman I don’t believe you failed Mr. Gallo and you should not believe that either. You did your job and you did it to the best of your ability. I am on record here as to my views on the trend in the charging of murder in these cases but that is not to say you or any of us does not have a duty to stand and fight on every available issue presented during the litigation process. In your statement you reflected on the losing nature of the fight you were engaged in and I’m certain both you and your client knew the result was a foregone conclusion in this atmosphere, but he will always know that at the very least his rights were protected and take comfort in that. You did the profession proud.
Texting is as dangerous as driving drunk. As is having a deep conversation with a passenger. As is talking on the cell phone.
How many of the sanctimonious talk on their cell phones while driving? Or have a deep conversation? Or maybe drive after too little sleep?
By your own standards, you’re evil. Are your own standards an accurate reflection of your character? Or perhaps those standards should incorporate intellectual honesty, and an accurate reflection of risk?
Don’t be ridiculous Mike. People killed by texting drivers aren’t nearly as dead as the ones killed by drunk drivers. Even when the drunk driver wasn’t at fault. It’s entirely different.
I have been told that some people think that the “Rick” commenting here might be me.
It is not.
The easiest way to spot this is that I always sign my name “Rick Horowitz” (because there are lots of people named “Rick” in the world) and unless I’m forbidden to do so, I always link my name to my blog.
Thank you.
Well, more accurately, driving while moderately drunk is less dangerous than driving in moderately bad weather. We know this intuitively. And from experience. But there’s no powerful lobby of Mothers Against Rainy Day Drivers. So when there’s an accident, we don’t ask “Did you really have to go to the movies and risk the lives of innocent victims?”
As to implied malice murder, statistically speaking, it is highly IMPROBABLE that a DUI driver will kill someone. So there is no analogizing this to taking a gun and shooting it at a crowd. The latter does, while the former does not, illustrate an act so likely to produce death that you might as well have intended it if you didn’t actually intend it.
The bigger issue is that as a civilized society we ought to punish the conduct, not the result. And even where we do not hold fast to that tenet, where a death does occur, we should not treat all killings– reckless, grossly negligent, intentional or premeditated killings– the same.
Don’t blame me. I never thought it was you.
But if it were, Jacqueline Goodman (who’s now one of my heroes) should have succeeded in setting you straight, though I imagine you (if it were you) would have been ineducable, as that other Rick strikes me as being.
A poorly considered generalization based on a cursory reading of one paragraph which you probably didn’t bother to think through is hardly damaging to my psyche. If you can make a counter-argument then make it. If not then remain silent. I also respect Ms. Rubio but her analogy to an accident resulting from bad weather is disingenuous. Look I’m simply playing devil’s advocate here. If these overcharged cases are to be effectively challenged then we need to come up with something better than “we don’t charge people for murder when rain causes an accident”. People cannot control the weather. That’s all a D.A. has to say. See how easy that is? So what is the answer? It’s simple. Restructure the sentencing guidelines for gross vehicular manslaughter to reflect the results of this conduct. Instead of 7 years make it 10-15 per death and base consecutive sentences vs. concurrent on the number of prior convictions for DUI mitigated by demonstrated adherence to the law such as 1) not driving on suspended license, 2) completion of alcohol program, 3) number of years between convictions, etc. Then maybe Ms. Rubio won’t have to go in the next battle “to lose”, Gallo may have 20 years instead of 51, society gets it’s pound of flesh and Gamso remains as “educable” as ever. You strike me as very rigid in your thinking Gamso….not exactly a good negotiating stance when the system is already stacked against you. I prefer to acknowledge the playing field and work through the problems in a way that can succeed. You want to stand in the gallery and jeer the judge, jury, public and the lobbying groups then go ahead. See where that gets you, or your client. If this is just an echo chamber then I’ll respectfully leave you to it.
I agree. My point was mainly to point out the acknowledgment that the defendant is forced to sign in the previous plea agreement. You know all too well that we have lost the battle over the legal points you raise due to the fact that there is no lobby for drunk drivers. I agree that it is political. I believe the approach to take is a pragmatic one not one that appeals only to interpretation of accident data because dead bodies trump spreadsheets every time. I’d bee interested to hear what you think of my suggestion below. I’m a fan Ms. Rubio so please don’t misunderstand. I’m trying to search out an alternative that has potential for success, because what the system is doing now is capricious, arbitrary and without cross jurisdictional cohesion.
Whoa. Slow down there, buckaroo.
You are a guest in my house, and don’t have the right to be offensive to anyone else. That’s my job. I’m happy to have differing views, which is why your comments appeared in the first place. My courtesy to you. Don’t push me, though. The reason others didn’t jump on your bandwagon wasn’t because SJ is an echo chamber, but your analysis was simplistic and weak and they disagreed.
I didn’t bother addressing it because it’s flaws were obvious to anyone for whom it mattered. I suspect far more disagreed but, like me, didn’t find it worth their while to explain. Jacqui Goodman was kind enough to show you the courtesy of a response. You repaid her poorly. And if you didn’t grasp her analogy, don’t blame her. I did. Gamso did (and he’s a very smart guy).
You’re welcome to comment, and disagree all you want. You can even post your analyses, even if they are stupid and even though we don’t really know whether you’re a lawyer or a 12 year old. Bear in mind that nobody comes here wondering, “what does Rick think about this?”
Now have fun and play nice.
Well I am an attorney and the reason I don’t post the website is because the SP here has a policy against it unless he approves.
[Edit. Note: You can always put your website in the little box “website” below where you input your email address. Links are prohibited in the body of comments.]
And I really don’t see how the analysis is simplistic. All I’m saying is that arguing intent seems to be a losing argument in today’s setting. I also don’t see how I treated Jacqui poorly. I’ve commended her at every turn. I’m not making a legal theory based argument, I’m trying to ask those with more practical knowledge (I only have 4 years) what they think of trying a different and perhaps more successful tactic given the current public mood. Simplistic is exactly how the public and juries specifically see these cases and the judiciary seems to be right on board. So I’m not trying to insult anyone I just happen to know that Jacqui wasn’t even permitted to argue manslaughter to the jury, so where is that getting us? Maybe I phrased it inelegantly but I was just trying to see what you guys thought about ways to get these defendants less time. Thank you for the opportunity.
OK. I just noticed that user’s names linked to their blogs or office websites and I don’t want someone linking over to his site then calling him and mentioning it. It’s his office, not mine. Thanks.
“the value of the victim’s position”
Although likely realistic in practice, that irks me.
I’m aware you’ve stated you’re playing the Devils Advocate.
Does society seek punishment or vengeance, or is it that society isn’t aware that there’s a distinction? We have given this young man 51 years for the crime; he might as well have been sentenced to death. That’s vengeance, not punishment.
Currently, I have a very simple view of crime and punishment. Concerning murder, we ought not punish people that had no specific intent to commit a murder to the equivalent of a life sentence. Conversely, we should give all premeditated murderers life sentences with no benefit of parole – except for those we execute because of a particularly horrendous murder.
If a sentence is not a life sentence then the maximum sentence should be ten years – or 11, maybe 12 at the outside. The point is that punishment should not be so severe in other than cases of premeditated murder that we effectively cancel a defendant’s possibility of re-entering society and being successful.
Joe Smith’s websites raises some interesting questions. First, his self-promotion:
Why only about his work as a prosecutor, with no mention whatsoever about his skills, ability, integrity or experience as a criminal defense lawyer. What is he trying to suggest?
Second, his motto: “Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, Demand Proof“
By “deny everything,” is he urging potential clients to lie to federal agents and prosecutors in violation of 18 USC 1001?
Well to be fair he does go into his success as a defense attorney as well, but I think his purpose is to sell himself as an inside player with experience on both sides. As far as making false statements I see your point, probably would have been best to just keep it simple as in “say nothing”. Now you see my dilemma? If Ms. Rubio sees this she’s going to mention it to Joe the next time she sees him! But I am humbled by your resume sir and will bother you no further. Thank you for taking the time to put me in my place!
Amazing how everything changes when you’re no longer hiding behind the curtain. No need to leave, but you might want to be a bit more circumspect in the future.
No denials are necessary if they invoke. Making denials is just another way of asking for trouble.
Sounds like someone is giving bad advice!
I completely agree with you and my first comment came out very inarticulately as I was rushing it. I agree that manslaughter is the correct charge and that given the judge’s discretion he could have been sentenced to consecutive terms if that’s what the judge wanted to do. It would have amounted to a little more than 21 years which is much closer to appropriate in my humble view, and I think it is a waste of life to throw Gallo in prison forever. I believe that as Ms. Rubio has stated the politics of this area are toxic to defendants. Look, I’m four years of experience and compared to you guys I’m an illiterate but what I meant to suggest is to fight in appellate court on at least a couple of fronts: The “murder acknowledgment” is coercive and basically an offering of proof provided to the state which should be struck down on self incrimination grounds. (The DUI defendant dismissively signs it and then it is used against them in charging them with murder), and 2) On the ridiculous discretion judges have in imposing consecutive sentences resulting from the same act. I was asking Ms. Rubio if she had thought of challenging this practice (the acknowledgment) because I think someone should. But in the meantime I also was trying to offer some suggestions on how to placate the vultures out there by giving them a pound of flesh in sentencing for vehicular homicide without abdicating the legal arguments made here on intent and “inherently dangerous behavior” (which are all spot on) so that murder would not be the next best alternative. I agree with you on sentencing for unintentional homicide, the problem seems to be that the cases that get highlighted in public are the ones where, without getting all the facts, the people are told “so and so got 2 years for running over victim “y”. MADD makes some commercials and scares some legislators and game over. That’s what I meant by “victims position”. That’s the point I was trying to make, and that was the only one. I think Ms. Rubio argued for 15 to life for Mr. Gallo and that should have been considered although I’m sure Toohey dismissed it outright. So I am agreeing on the principle but just didn’t include my rationale so I came off like a reactionary. Basically I was stating that the acknowledgment gives the state all the bullets it needs but I failed to make it clear that I think the practice is crap, and amounts to holding a gun to someone’s head and then calling their next action “voluntary”. If the sentences for manslaughter were consistently imposed as you suggest(10-12 years) I would hope that the state would have not had the political backing necessary to push the bounds of legal reasoning, but I could be wrong, they would still do it more than likely if it was popular. So now I hope I’m not the bad guy anymore! I just think it’s an uphill battle once the charge is filed. Bottom line I made a political argument on a legal blog which was stupid but I hope that states it more cogently.
Much, much better. One additional thought: use paragraph breaks and it makes your writing far more readable. Few people will bother to read large blocks of print. Smaller paragraphs are far more palatable, and even makes it easier for you to look back and make sure you’ve written what you mean to say.
Personally, I’m a huge fan of the credit card pictures at the bottom on the page.
I had to make a screen-capture of the site. The pointing-at-the-reader thing is rich. Absolutely rich. I think it was intended for use with 3D glasses.
Um, excuse me, ladies. Rick, rest assured that I am not so much of an arse as to “out” you to Joe who, poor guy, is getting the crap beat outta him in a fight he isn’t part of here. Not a fight. A scuffle. A pissing contest. Yes, I think Joe could piss himself proud. For the record. (Although the 3D glasses thing slayed me.)
He’d blow you out of the courthouse pal.
That’s the bravado of a child in a school yard. To advise clients to lie is bad advice. Better to urge him to correct it than make it sound as if he’s hiring children to work for him.
I’m not sure why he’d want to blow me out of the courthouse. I’m a defense attorney. So, for one thing, blowing me out of the courthouse would mean hurting a defendant.
If you were just trying to create a pissing match for someone who perhaps didn’t ask you to do so, then I’ll just ignore you.
To advise someone to “deny” when the correct approach is simply to invoke is a mistake.
Somewhere, you may have heard these words before: “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” The only exception (and even that is ignored sometimes) is that the prosecution may not comment on the fact that one has invoked his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Thus, the best thing is to not say anything.
I stand by what I said earlier. It’s not a competition; it’s doing what the Sixth (that follows the Fifth) Amendment requires of us.
If I offended you, something’s wrong with you. Maybe you need more training.
Justice, like a black hole, is something that most people have heard of…few people understand…and the only people who really care about it should also be intelligent enough to know that they will never actually see it. I try to remind myself that (although I am an athiest) if “Jesus” walked into Orange County and wanted to be a Judge or District Attorney, no politician would appoint him to a Judicial position, the Christian voters would not elect him and if he managed to make it past the interview, a DA supervisor would fire him before he was through his probationary period. Our country has been headed in the wrong direction for as long as I have known what a wrong direction was and 2011 Orange County reminds me of Athens circa 399 b.c. that I read about in college Philosophy classes. (399 b.c. was the year they decided that Socrates had to die). All the masses want is blood because that is all that they understand. So we sacrifice the life of a 23 year old to attone for the sins of every Angels fan who has ever driven from the stadium after paying the player’s salaries through beer consumption…no fear of a sobriety checkpoint at Angels Stadium as there has never been one, right? It is a beer distribution center surrounded by a 35,000 car parking lot but it feels so much better to pretend it would remain open without Drunk Driving, doesn’t it? Exacting vengeance makes the idiots feel better about the risks that they have personally taken and Americans…well, we always need someone to blame! Someone other than us, I mean. In Orange County, where Ms. Goodman’s client was railroaded, the courts refer to themselves as “Justice” centers. On motions I file my heading refers to it as “Central Division” rather than “Central Justice Center” because I was taught as a youngster to be truthful…maybe if I said the words “Central Justice Center” to myself enough times it would seem real. Perhaps if Walt Disney had just bought more land in the 50’s he could have annexed the OC courthouses and made the “Justice” centers a new attraction in Fantasyland.
First of all let me state for the record that I am not an attorney. I came to this site by shear accident (thanks Bing…should have used Google).
Jacqueline Goodman, you are a credit to your profession.
When you take emotion out of this case, the punishment clearly doesn’t fit the crime. I’m sure the Judge and DA will reep political rewards for it, but as an average Joe from the right coast, I disagree.
Is there an appeal?