Maureen McCormick: On the Cutting Edge of Traffic Justice

Earlier this month Streetsblog talked with Leslie Crocker Snyder, candidate for Manhattan district attorney, about how she would approach pedestrian and cyclist fatalities as the borough’s top prosecutor. Today we will hear from a prosecutor who has made traffic justice the centerpiece of her career.

McCormick_Headshot.JPGFrom 1986 until 2005, Maureen McCormick served as an assistant district attorney in Brooklyn, where she headed the Kings County Vehicular Crimes Bureau. In that position, she was known as one official who didn’t take the deaths of New York City pedestrians and cyclists lightly. Specializing in vehicular crimes for 14 years, McCormick is also a contributing author of the New York State DWI Trial Manual and the Vehicular Homicide Manual, and is active in lobbying for changes in state law to toughen penalties for drivers who kill.

In her current job as chief of Vehicular Crimes in Nassau County, McCormick has continued her work under District Attorney Kathleen Rice, whose vigorous prosecution of drunk drivers was the subject of a recent "60 Minutes" profile. In part one of this interview, conducted via e-mail, McCormick explains the difficulties she and other New York prosecutors encounter in holding killer drivers accountable.

Brad Aaron: When a motorist hits and kills a pedestrian in New York State, and that motorist is found to have no drugs or alcohol in his/her system, how much discretion do prosecutors have in determining what charges to bring?

The criminal justice system can be plagued with “murder snobs” — people who think of these violent crimes as less important than intentional crimes. This remains true in spite of the fact that statistics consistently show that the average citizen is far more at risk from homicidal drivers on our roads than from criminals committing intentional homicides.

Maureen McCormick: I must first comment that vehicular crimes
prosecutors fight an uphill battle every day. The criminal justice
system does not always treat these violent crimes with the respect they
deserve. From statutes that undervalue these cases to some judges who
refuse to impose serious sentences, the criminal justice system can be
plagued with “murder snobs” — people who think of these violent crimes
as less important than intentional crimes. This remains true in spite
of the fact that statistics consistently show that the average citizen
is far more at risk from homicidal drivers on our roads than from
criminals committing intentional homicides. The culture is changing but
not as quickly as anyone who has been victimized by these crimes, or
who fights against them, would like.

Prosecutors are bound by the facts and by the laws as they exist. The laws are not always the way we want them to be. The laws consist of not only what is on the books but also how different fact patterns have been interpreted over the years by the courts. Whether we like it or not, a single act of negligence by a driver will not usually be enough to bring charges.

Civil negligence (for lawsuits) is defined in the Pattern Jury Instructions (that a judge would read to a jury in a civil negligence case) as a "…lack of ordinary care. It is a failure to use that degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would have used under the circumstances. Negligence may arise from doing an act that a reasonably prudent person would not have done under the same circumstances, or, on the other hand, from failing to do an act that a reasonably prudent person would have done under the same circumstances."

The definition of criminal negligence can be found in Penal Law section 15.05(4). The Criminal Jury Instructions (that a judge would read to the jury in a criminal case) state: "Criminal negligence is not the same as that type of negligence you may be familiar with that permits a person injured by ordinary negligence to obtain a monetary judgment in a civil law suit. The carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence. A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a death when that person engages in conduct which creates or contributes to a substantial and unjustifiable risk that another person’s death will occur, and when he or she fails to perceive that risk, and when that risk is of such nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."

BA: What if, in an instance like that described above, it is determined
that the motorist was speeding, ran a red light, or was violating some
other traffic law at the time of the collision? Does that open up
additional venues for prosecutors to pursue?

MM: Generally a criminal case begins with some intentional act on the part of the driver: speeding, weaving in and out of traffic, getting drunk, etc., that creates a substantial risk of death to another person under the facts of the particular incident — but the facts have to establish a “gross deviation” from the normal standard of care. This is why 10 or even 20 mph over the speed limit will generally not suffice on its own for a criminal charge. However, if the particular circumstances make the 20 mph grossly risky — for instance when there is heavy pedestrian traffic in the area due to a street fair — then under the "totality" of those circumstances an argument could be made that the driving was criminally negligent. It is unsatisfying but there is no hard and fast rule. Each incident must be viewed under this "totality of the circumstances" analysis and the risk taken by the driver must be substantial enough that the driver’s failure to recognize the degree of risk is a gross deviation from what a "reasonable person" would recognize. (Criminal recklessness arises when the defendant can be shown to have recognized the substantial risk and consciously disregarded it.)  At the same time prosecutors are bound to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the negligence meets the court’s definition of what is criminal because according to case law "negligent conduct arising from carelessness, inadvertence, lack of skill, competence or foresight — would not be a sufficient."

A person driving 100 mph in front of the court on Centre Street in Manhattan at lunch time when the streets are flooded with pedestrians MUST be chargeable with a crime.

The courts have recognized that driving drunk meets the definition of criminal negligence. But as recently as May 2008, New York’s highest court held that a 17-year-old driver who violated his junior license by driving with four unrelated passengers, without seatbelts, and who also was speeding at 70-72 mph through a curve with a posted caution speed of 40 mph, and who lost control sending the car over an embankment and killing three of his passengers, could not be held criminally liable (People v. Cabrera, 10 NY3d 370 [2008]). This decision alone has resulted in numerous defense motions to have cases dismissed claiming that "speed alone" or any traffic infraction "alone" is not sufficient to sustain criminal negligence. Our position is that this is nonsense. A person driving 100 mph in front of the court on Centre Street in Manhattan at lunch time when the streets are flooded with pedestrians MUST be chargeable with a crime. Conversely, a person driving the same speed at 3 a.m. by the Gowanus warehouses in Brooklyn, while no other person was in the area, would be subject to much lesser violations.   

The same "totality of circumstances" analysis applies when the driver commits traffic infractions. Throughout my tenure as a prosecutor, I have heard police officers, judges, prosecutors and the news media refer to a "rule of two." It is believed that if a defendant commits two simultaneous traffic violations in the course of a collision, that automatically allows for a criminal charge because one violation would be considered "ordinary" or civil negligence. Two simultaneous violations are certainly evidence to be considered in the analysis. After all, there is a common sense argument that a reasonable person could not be speeding 20 mph over the speed limit AND miss a stop sign without being aware of the risk the driver is creating. But what if it is five mph over the speed limit, the stop sign is obstructed and the driver is from outside the area? This is a different set of circumstances and the prosecutor is required to consider them all before bringing charges that meet those complicated definitions.   

BA: There seem to be disparate standards for criminal negligence in New York State. That is, a crane operator whose rig falls into a building, killing its occupants, may be charged in those deaths, while a driver who kills the same number of equally innocent pedestrians may only receive a traffic summons, or incur no legal penalties whatsoever. Are such variations intrinsic in state law itself, or is it a matter of how the law is applied and/or case precedent?

MM: The same standards and the same analysis applies to all types of criminal negligence. I am aware of the crane operator case through the media but I do not have any information regarding the specific facts that were used to support a criminal charge. I regret to say I am personally aware of cases where innocent pedestrians have been killed and criminal charges have not been able to be sustained. There is nothing worse for a prosecutor than having to explain to a family whose loss is equal to any intentional or reckless homicide that we are not able to prosecute. No one could be complacent about these issues if they sat at my desk and met with these families and witnessed their raw pain. I am aware that time will not heal their wounds and that they have been victimized in the most random, arbitrary and violent way. The only thing worse is the circumstance when law enforcement strongly suspects that criminality was involved but there is no evidence to support it. For instance a driver with a terrible driving record for speeding and violating traffic signals strikes and kills a pedestrian at an intersection in the middle of the night. The driver stays. He is not drunk or impaired by drugs but there are no witnesses to the color of the traffic signal. A collision reconstruction is inconclusive regarding speed. After investigating every possible avenue, charges can not be brought — even though every part of you believes the suspect driver was speeding through the traffic light. It is awful but it is our constitutional obligation.

  • Takeaway quote: “The carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence.” I wonder if that means civil suits are a better strategy? Families of victims could sue either drivers, or sue the city for failing to provide bollards and other protections in places statistically proven to be dangerous. If someone were a recent law school grad, and looking for a way to make a difference, killer-car civil suits might become the basis for an outstanding career in public service. It would send two messages: To drivers, kill with your car, and we will mess you up. To cities: allow your citizens to be killed by cars, and you’ll have to answer to the taxpayers for one whopping judgment after another.

  • Glenn

    Most crashes are the result of several things going wrong and rarely have just one explanation. It seems that there is no sliding scale in automobile crashes – either they are guilty of a crime or not. I think there needs to be more intermediate outcomes that penalize drivers involved in serious crashes.

    Justice to the victim and families is the first order of business. Jail time would be the preferable outcome, but even suspending a person’s license for an appreciable length of time – 5-10 years – would feel like some type of justice.

    But the most important part of this is the deterrant aspect. Ordinary drivers would think twice about speeding or turning into crosswalks aggressively if they knew they could face jail time or loss of driving rights for more than a few months.

    Civil lawsuits would be a good stop-gap, but ultimately this is something that law enforcement, auto-insurance companies and DMVs need to coordinate better.

  • Marty Barfowitz

    My wife’s driver’s license just came up for renewal. The State of New York sent her a form in the mail. She got an eye test, filled out the form and sent it all back to Albany with a check. That was that. She can now legally operate a motor vehicle on New York City streets. The New York State DMV was utterly and completely uninterested in her driving skills and abilities. Is it any wonder that we have so many murderous drivers on our streets?

  • I hear that in Mexico cars are treated as weapons. So if you hit someone with your car it’s as bad as pulling a gun or a knife on them.

    Not that I feel any safer crossing the street when I’m in Mexico, but perhaps we could learn a few things from them.

    Oh, and how about gun (car) control? 🙂

  • > The State of New York sent her a form in the mail.

    It’s interesting to note that non-driver ID’s canNOT be renewed by mail. One must do it in person. This ID is also NOT valid proof of anything when trying to get a passport, despite requiring the exact same proofs as a driver’s licenese.

  • Eileen

    This was a really interesting interview and she seems like a thoughtful person, but I do wonder what, if any, recommendations she has for reforming the law (or if she even thinks it’s possible)? For example, why not just prescribe a jail sentence for anyone who fails to stop for a pedestrian, regardless of what their intent was with the respect to the pedestrian or whether they were criminally negligent? They intentionally drove into the crosswalk; if they intentionally didn’t pay attention (or if they did and didn’t care), there should be consequences beyond a fine. Let’s put them in jail and take away their license *before* they actually have the chance to kill someone.

  • While People v. Cabrera, 10 NY3d 370 [2008], ruled that way, a later case (November 08) in the Appellate Division, 2nd Department (People v. James McGrantham, 868 N.Y.S.2d 219) went the other way, refuting Cabrera. Furthermore, the Court actually takes a wide swipe at what it thinks is years of misreading the case that started it all, Senisi.

  • Ramona Agricola

    First I would like to say that Maureen McCormick is a wonderful, kind and caring person. We had meeting with her last year to discuss the case against the driver who killed my son. She sat and spoke to us and with tears in her eyes she promised to do all that she could to help us find justice.
    In Oct. 07 our 18 yr old son, Charlie, was killed while walking on the sidewalk at 7pm. A women had made an illegal left turn from a commercial driveway across 3 lanes, at the exact same time a van was barreling up the road at a high rate of speed. The SUV and the van collided, the van jumped the curb and took down a parking meter, a tree, the cable that was attached to the telephone pole and hit my son into a parked car that hit another car that hit another car that ended up on a side street. No charges filed, no tickets issued at the scene. Of the five people involved in the accident only my son sustained injury that led to his immediate death. He was not a passenger, he was not driving, he wasn’t even in the road.
    Here is where I would like to make my point…six weeks later it comes to light that the van driver had taken 15 Vicoden before he got behind the wheel and he and his passenger were passing a bong while driving down the road. There wasn’t any arrest because he didn’t “appear” to be intoxicated.
    Before anyone could notice he managed to get a Snapple and a candy bar to raise his blood sugar and mask his intoxication. His demeanor was considered normal because of the circumstances. No blood or urine test, no proof.
    We are still in litigation but the drug usage can not be brought up at trial, we only have the speed to work with. We need mandatory blood testing at the scene of all fatal accidents. Maine has determined that it is not unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment in these circumstances:

    http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=me_mandatory_blood_testing_in_fatal_acci&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

    It is essential to have these samples to prosecute these offenders after the fact. Breath-o-lizers are not enough today, drug impairment is much more difficult to detect and drug users know this.
    I intend to support Maureen in her efforts to enact a law that makes this possible. She has been working on getting this bill passed for over 10 years. If she could have gotten it passed can you imagine how many lives could have been saved? Can you imagine how many families could have had justice sure and swift and not be dragged through a long trial to re-live the brutal death of their loved one over and over? We need to make the laws more astringent, we need to get it right the first time and we need the tools to help make that possible.

  • I’m confused. You say that a woman made an illegal left turn, yet the focus of you post is on the van driver. It’s almost as if you’re blaming the van driver just because he was intoxicated, even though, from your description, the woman making the illegal turn was at fault. But that can’t be. That wouldn’t make sense.

  • Ramona Agricola

    My emphasis was mainly on the need for mandatory blood testing however I will explain further.
    It was determined that the woman was already in lane and going straight. Because of the van driver’s rate of speed he came upon her vehicle very fast. The road was rain soaked thereby making the speeding even more dangerous. A defensive, unimpaired driver aware of the dangerous road conditions, would have easily avoided the collision. The van driver’s perception and judgment were skewed, he overreacted and lost control of his vehicle. She was wrong but this accident could have been avoided, the impairment is the main cause of the van drivers inability to respond appropriately & effectively.

  • Indeed world hunger has to be solved. ,

  • Morg4163

    She’s not tough on criminals at all.  All she’s worried about is about her win/lose ratio.  A reckless driver that KILLED a police officer was fined only $500? WTF?  I can only hope one of her family members is killed and the person who murdered them is fined only $500.  Maureen it is time you and the DAs office stand up for victims not just your record.

  • Fenres7

    She is a disgrace who is more worried about her win loass record then doing what is right

  • Someone who has a spine

    Great record when a Police Officer is murdered on your streets by a truck driver and shes only worried about her record. $500 fine? You are a joke

  • Charles Newman

    Maureen McCormick is disillusion and self-serving. But it’s NY.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Maureen McCormick: How Nassau Got Serious About Traffic Crime

|
In part our interview with veteran vehicular crimes prosecutor Maureen McCormick, the former Brooklyn ADA, now with Nassau County, offers insight into the state of traffic justice in New York State, and describes how she and others in the prosecutorial community are working to strengthen laws that deal with negligent drivers.

Top to Bottom, NY Legal System Fails the Vulnerable on Our Streets

|
The unidentified driver of this car, who injured six when he slammed into a Queens bus stop this month, is one of thousands of city motorists who harm and endanger others without consequence. Safe streets advocates are understandably excited by the prospect of a Manhattan district attorney with an interest in holding dangerous drivers accountable […]

Vance Renews Traffic Safety Pledge at Meeting of Legal Minds

|
Cy Vance, far right, joined by (l-r) Oregon attorney Raymond F. Thomas, TA’s Peter Goldwasser, New York attorney Scott Glen Cerbin, and Nassau County prosecutor Maureen McCormick. Photo: Brad Aaron Judged by statistics on violent crime, New York may be the safest big city in America. But its amazingly low murder rate masks a less […]

Is Manhattan DA Cy Vance Delivering on Traffic Justice?

|
The 2009 race for Manhattan district attorney presented a rare opportunity for proponents of safer streets. After decades of indifference toward victims of vehicular violence from Robert Morgenthau, advocates succeeded in making traffic justice a prominent campaign issue for his would-be successors. Contenders for the office pledged to take definitive action to reduce the carnage […]