Posted on 07/26/2011 4:27:43 AM PDT by Libloather
Mom faces prison for jaywalking during drunk hit-and-run that killed son; driver served 6 months
BY Philip Caulfield
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, July 25th 2011, 3:29 PM
The devastated mother of a 4-year-old boy who was killed in a drunken hit-and-run accident is facing more jail time than her son's killer because she was jaywalking during the accident.
Raquel Nelson, 30, could get up to three years behind bars after being convicted on July 12 of second-degree vehicular homicide, reckless conduct, and failure to use a crosswalk during the incident in April 2010.
Nelson and her three children had gotten off a bus in Marietta, Ga., after a shopping trip. They were hurrying across a four-lane highway when drunken ex-con Jerry Guy plowed into the family with his van, killing 4-year-old A.J.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Apparently no driver could have avoided the child. The child apparently darted out in front of the car in the middle of the street in the dark.
His charges are apparently unrelated to the death of the child.
He was charged solely with leaving the scene of an accident as far as I know.
Charges related to the child’s death were dropped after the investigation of the accident was finished.
It is all related.
Well he wasn’t charged with anything but leaving the scene as far as I can tell.
I don’t know what else to tell you.
She was given 12 months probation, or she can have a new trial if she chooses. The judge had common sense.
He couldn't be charged with vehicular homicide because there wasn't any evidence that anything he did caused the collision. A "child dart-out" case is not a basis for a VH charge. The fact that he had prior DUIs and may have had a drink or taken pain meds at some time during the day doesn't prove (1) he was DUI at the time or (2) if he was DUI, that it made any difference in this case.
Leaving the scene means, of course, that there was no opportunity to give him a breath or blood test or note any signs of impairment. Which is why that's a criminal charge. But since that didn't cause the child's death, it's irrelevant for purposes of a VH charge. We'll stipulate that he's a lowlife, but that's not a basis for prosecution . . .yet.
That seems pretty fair, given that she has no priors.
Tanksley.
Not sure how the judge can offer her a new trial, though.
Strange.
http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/mom-gets-probation-and-1042791.html
Gosh, I asked the admin to delete 2 of these, too, where are they??
In GA, a trial judge has the discretion to grant a new trial once for just about any reason. I'm sure she offered that because Nelson went to the media with all the 'not a jury of my peers', white middle class, etc. talk. That was primarily intended to put the judge on the hot seat over sentencing, though, so I think you'll see this case just fade away. She'd be a fool to ask for a new trial because she can't do better with this evidence.
No, I dont think you would cross a highway with toddlers!
There are still two posted. I got the WD 40 treatment way back when I was a noobie, so just decided to yank your chain for that.
I only said that he was impaired but the police had no evidence of his impairment so they could not charge him with it. I believe that the involuntary manslaughter staute could still cover his actions. I think the DA went after the mom harder than the driver.
See 51,
On the other hand, the mom put the kid in a position to dart out in the road and get run over. She's got 3 kids and only 2 hands, and that's if she's not carrying anything. It's near dark, speed limit's 45 or 50 on Austell Rd, drivers are moving at the limit nowhere near an intersection and a kid suddenly jumps off the median into traffic. A cold sober experienced driver would have no chance to react to that.
That's exactly the sort of conduct that merits a VH charge. And the fact that she's taking her case on the TV circuit tells me that she knows it and was just trying to reduce her sentence, which she probably did.
Unfortunately, losing a child is not the sort of punishment the court can take into consideration for leniency, since every child neglect and even child abuse defendant (at least the woman who stands by while her new boyfriend beats her child) would be pleading it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.