You be the Judge: What is the appropiate punishment for something like this?

DinoDoc · June 25, 2003, 12:07

Quote:

Texas Jury Sees Bloody Car Parts in Windshield Case
Tue June 24, 2003 05:34 PM ET
By Jon Herskovitz
FORT WORTH, Texas (Reuters) - Texas jurors on Tuesday saw bloodied parts of a car belonging to a nurse's aide accused of hitting a homeless man with her automobile and leaving him wedged in the windshield until he bled to death.

Chante Mallard, 27, is accused of murdering Greg Biggs, a homeless man, by striking him with her car in 2001 after a night of drinking and drug use. Prosecutors say she left Biggs, 37, to bleed to death in her garage while she plotted with friends for two days about how to dispose of the body.

A forensics expert called by prosecutors in the case before State District Judge James Wilson's court speculated the head of the victim struck part of the car just inches from the driver, while the victim's cut left hand dripped blood into a pocket of the passenger's side door.

Max Courtney, the forensics expert, showed jurors a center console cut from the interior of Mallard's car and pointed out blood stains on the piece, which he said may have come from the victim wheezing or coughing up blood.

After pointing at one, Courtney said: "The only explanation I could come up with is expirated blood from a person's mouth."

Dressed in a light green jacket and white blouse, Mallard, who has pleaded not guilty to murder, stared down expressionlessly at a table while pieces of her blood-stained car were brought into court.

James Sowder, a paramedic and captain in the Ft. Worth Fire Department, later testified that the injuries Biggs suffered would not have been life-threatening had they been treated.

"My opinion is there is not a member of the Fort Worth Fire Department that could not have saved Mr. Biggs' life with basic life support care," Sowder said under questioning from prosecutors, who argue Mallard had several chances to seek medical aid but refused to do so.

Sowder said a person who suffered injuries similar to Biggs' had a "zero-percent" chance of survival without medical assistance.

If convicted of murder, Mallard could get five to 99 years in prison, or a life sentence, which in Texas is at least 40 years without parole. At the start of the trial on Monday, Mallard pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of altering evidence, which brings a sentence of two to 10 years.

Defense attorneys on Monday said the incident left Mallard hysterical and confused. They said she cried and continually apologized to Biggs who was groaning while lodged in her car, and she left it to friends to dispose of the body, which was dumped in a city park.

Mallard was accused of striking Biggs as she drove home in October 2001 after a night out during which she drank 69-cent bar drinks, took ecstasy and smoked marijuana.

Police have said Biggs was hurled head-first through the windshield of Mallard's car, with his broken legs lying across the car's hood.

Mallard told investigators she panicked as she drove less than 2 miles with Biggs stuck in her windshield and parked the car in her garage.

Urban Ranger · June 25, 2003, 12:13

I can't see that as murder. Manslaughter, yeah, but how can this be murder?

Japher · June 25, 2003, 12:15

This was on CSI, don't remember what they did... Yet, she commited manslaughter, but the minute you try to hide it I believe it should be murder.

My Wife Hates CIV · June 25, 2003, 12:15

Murder. She let him die in the car. Refused to get him medical attention only to protect herself.

Velociryx · June 25, 2003, 12:17

So....instead of driving home....why not just drive to the hospital? She had the chance to save this guy, and she made the conscious decsion not to (drove home instead, and made plans to dispose of the body after he finally croaked).

That's calculated.

Murder gets my vote, and Texas is a baaaad state to get caught in....

-=Vel=-

Shi Huangdi · June 25, 2003, 12:18

I suppose murder comes in somehow in that she left homeless man on her windshield to bleed to death. Very sad in any case, and shows a grave indifference to human life on that part of that woman's part, I think she should be punished with the maximum possible sentence.

Q Classic · June 25, 2003, 13:10

...

she kept driving, even after the guy was wedged in her winshield?

lock her up. i don't care what the charge is, so long as she a) never drives again, and b) gets stuck in a cell for at least thirty years.

SlowwHand · June 25, 2003, 13:12

How can it be murder???
WTF is wrong with you?
She left him there in the windshield dying, not dead, then dumped the body.
What do you want?

I only wish we could execute her.
Had she simply hit the guy, no.
Her friend told her to call 911.
So give her life.

DaShi · June 25, 2003, 13:21

Murder, but not 1st degree, though it could be argued.

Boris Godunov · June 25, 2003, 13:23

2nd degree murder. 10-15 years in jail before being elligible for parole seems suitable enough.

EDIT: Nah, strike that. 1st Degree murder applies. She knew the guy was going to die and didn't do anything to help. That's de facto intent. Intent need not be malicious. She then got accomplices to hide the corpse.

On top of that, she was under the influence when she hit him.

Velociryx · June 25, 2003, 13:25

Well, it's doubtful in the extreme that she started her evening out with the intention of killing this guy. The hit was almost assuredly accidental, but her behavior after the fact is what makes it murder. That's cold-blooded. (of course, she'll say she "panicked" but c'mon...she's a nurse, yes? Sight of blood should be nothing new, and she obviously knew WHERE the hospital was--being that she worked there and all.

Nope. I hope they hit her with max.

-=Vel=-

Japher · June 25, 2003, 13:26

If I were the attorny I would go for 2nd degree, even though I think it is 1st degree offense (the hidding of the crime, not the crime itself)... Mainly because a jury may not convince her of 1st, and then I'd be screwed... She needs to serve at least 15 years, you got it Boris..

Cruddy · June 25, 2003, 13:27

I'd say 2nd degree murder - not premeditated, more of a panic reaction to a situation.

Had she been driving around looking for a homeless person, that would be different - but she had an accident and panicked - then when sober tried to get away with it.

She made no attempt to take her licks the first time around and is STILL DENYING RESPONSIBILITY.

Still worth 30+ years in my book - nurses just aren't supposed to behave like that with injured people.

(Bear in mind, UK sentences are generally third short for time off for good behaviour - so a 30 year sentence means you get out in maybe 20).

Boris Godunov · June 25, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
I'd say 2nd degree murder - not premeditated, more of a panic reaction to a situation.

I disagree, the death of the man WAS premeditated. Her hitting him was an accident, but as was testified by experts in court, his injuries would not have been life-threatening had he gotten medical attention.

She deliberately left him to die, and she had plenty of time to snap out of her panic and do the right thing. Hiding the body is further proof that all of her actions were motivated by self-preservation rather than any concern for the victim.

The woman let a guy die so she wouldn't get busted on driving under the influence.

oedo · June 25, 2003, 13:40

Let me see, if I get the facts right:

Chante Mallard caused the death of Greg Biggs by acting first (hitting him with her car) and being passive later (doing nothing that would have saved his life). so she set the cause of Greg Biggs´ death.

but did she act with an intend?

when she hit the man with her car, being influenced by drugs, she acted unintentionally but negligently. if Biggs would have died immediately through the accident, it wouldn´t have been murder but manslaughter (through culpable negligence) only.

but Greg Biggs did survive. nevertheless she neither decided to help him herself nor to call an ambulance. she took him to her instead and let him bleed to death in her garage. by doing this she intentionally killed him.

but maybe she believed, there wouldn´t have been any way to save Biggs´ life right after the accident. if so, then in her imagination she would have acted with no killing intend, since she would have thought that Biggs would have died anyway - no matter how she´d have acted.
I doubt this was the case here. Chante Mallard is a nurse´s aid. she probably knew better. even if she didn´t, she appearantly did nothing to find out, how bad Biggs was actually injured. That´s the least thing one could have expected from her. but she simply didn´t care.

Miss Mallard did everything wrong, what one can do wrong in a situation like this. she finally killed Greg Biggs with an intend - not by the accident, but by her acting after that. and that´s why she murdered him.
I guess she will get a life sentence.

TCO · June 25, 2003, 13:43

Insert TEd Kennedy taking several hours to report the Mary Joe death remark.

Boris Godunov · June 25, 2003, 13:44

Any argument that she didn't intend for the guy to die must consider that she conspired with her friends before he died about how to dispose of the body.

oedo · June 25, 2003, 13:46

oh and btw., I know about 3 degrees of intend:

wanting that someone gets killed (1st degree=dolus directus I)
knowing that someone gets killed (2nd degree=dolus directus II)
not wanting and not knowing for sure, but approving that someone gets killed (3rd dregree= dolus eventualis)

Velociryx · June 25, 2003, 13:50

Then it's 1st degree. She wanted him to croak so she'd not get charged with driving stoned and drunk. As Boris pointed out above, she even planned with her buddies what to do after.

I say we give her some money and send her into a gravel lot where the Sweeney kid's "friends" are waiting.

-=Vel=-

C0ckney · June 25, 2003, 13:50

i read about this a while ago, what sick kind of person can leave someone to die trapped in their windscreen, and she's a nurse as well for ****s sake. lock her up and throw away the key.

SlowwHand · June 25, 2003, 13:56

Left him in the windshield, in her garage.

Sandman · June 25, 2003, 13:58

It's first degree murder. She wounded him, and then to cover this up, she killed him by actively denying him treatment, by keeping him captive in her garage.

It is a lot like that CSI episode, wonder if it's life imitating art?

oedo · June 25, 2003, 14:05

I´d say it´s dolus directus II.
by definition of American law that would be 1st degree, right?

Firelad · June 25, 2003, 14:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Then it's 1st degree. She wanted him to croak so she'd not get charged with driving stoned and drunk. As Boris pointed out above, she even planned with her buddies what to do after.

I say we give her some money and send her into a gravel lot where the Sweeney kid's "friends" are waiting.

-=Vel=-

what he said.

Sava · June 25, 2003, 14:28

They should hit her with a car and let her bleed to death.

Japher · June 25, 2003, 14:29

I agree with Sava

that's odd

Sava · June 25, 2003, 14:31

Quote:

I agree with Sava

welcome to the dark side

Velociryx · June 25, 2003, 14:32

Yeah, but doing that, you'd miss out on the group hug after it was all over.

-=Vel=-

chequita guevara · June 25, 2003, 14:43

Actually, I'm not sure the actions sustain a murder charge. Murder requires intent. Waiting for someone to die and wondering how to dispose of the body does not show intent to kill, but intent to let someone die. As far as I know, it's not against the law to let someone die, unless you deliberately set up a situation which makes death likely.

Manslaughter, yes.
Leaving the scene of an accident, yes.
Tampering with evidence, yes.

You might be able to sustain 2nd degree murder by saying that by driving to her garage, she intended to create a situation in which she knew someone had a strong likelyhood of dyng, except she was under the influence of drugs, and so her reasoning can easily be called into question. I don't know if a charge of depraved indifference can legally be sustained.

Velociryx · June 25, 2003, 14:48

As far as I know, it's not against the law to let someone die, unless you deliberately set up a situation which makes death likely.

I would argue that driving home, and leaving the (obviously injured) man bleeding on the front-end of her car in her garage while she went inside to talk with her buds about what to do with his body after he kicked off fits the definition of deliberately setting up a situation that makes death likely.

-=Vel=-