Vance Serves Up Excuses for Failure to Prosecute Motorists Who Kill

On November 14, the same day that Transportation Alternatives convened a national Vision Zero symposium at Brooklyn Law School, Fordham Law School held a day-long event examining the legacy of “Bloomberg’s New York.” Among the speakers: Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, who sat on an afternoon panel on public safety.

Streetsblog founding editor Aaron Naparstek was in the audience and asked Vance why prosecutions of deadly driving haven’t kept up with the advances in safe street design that rapidly accelerated under Bloomberg. What is stopping the DA from holding reckless drivers accountable for killing people?

Here’s the response from Vance, lightly edited:

I think you are incorrect stating that our office has not indicted or prosecuted vehicular homicide [unintelligible]. In fact, we have on many occasions. There have also been cases, tragedies, when we have not prosecuted. Those are typically ones where after an investigation we believe we do not have a provable criminal offense.

Now what should be criminal and what shouldn’t be criminal is obviously subject to very subjective and emotional reactions. As a prosecutor I am often involved with injuries to innocent people and my instinct, and our instincts [as] prosecutors, is to work on behalf of victims, irrespective of the class of crime or the kind of crime.

But in the realm of vehicular cases, there are cases which are tragic, which are hard to understand, but may not have the facts to support a criminal prosecution and conviction. I think that was the belief of the [police] commissioner under Bloomberg, I think it’s a statement of the challenge that we have as prosecutors today. And our office is significantly following the challenges, difficulties, the successes, of vehicular prosecutions not only in NYC but across the state. It is something we will continue to work on, and continue to devote our resources to.

And I regret, and am saddened, as everybody is, when there is a tragedy that occurs. But sometimes, though others may not like it, or agree with it, a prosecution is not necessarily a following event after a tragic accident.

The vehicular prosecutions that Vance takes credit for, almost without exception, involve driving under the influence, fleeing the scene of a crash, or attempting to get away from the police after committing another crime. In the vast majority of cases when a sober driver kills someone and stays at the scene, the deterrent response from Vance’s office is either feeble or non-existent.

It’s a timid record on traffic violence and a far cry from what Vance promised as a first-time candidate for DA in 2009. During that campaign, Vance said he would take reckless driving seriously and that prosecutors should head off traffic deaths before they happen by issuing charges for “potentially tragic” behavior like speeding on city streets. On a section of his website that has since been removed, Vance challenged the “rule of two” — case law that has been interpreted to mean that drivers must be found guilty of two separate traffic violations to secure a criminal conviction:

There is no reason why two traffic violations are necessary in order to support a conviction of criminally negligent homicide. I view the “Rule of Two” as the result of case law which should be modified to reflect the reality that one vehicular crime is fully capable of killing. Although in recent years this notion has been applied by the courts in a less strict manner — it is indisputable that it does not take two violations to kill someone. Many violations — speeding, running a red light, or failing to stop at a stop sign are more than dangerous enough to take a life.

In the five years since then, however, it’s hard to discern any meaningful change compared to Vance’s predecessor Robert Morgenthau, who was notoriously reluctant to prosecute vehicular crimes. Among the cases that have elicited “subjective and very emotional reactions” but “may not have the facts to support a criminal prosecution and conviction” are several fatal crashes clearly caused by driver negligence or recklessness.

Vance failed to bring any charges against the cabbie who killed 9-year-old Cooper Stock, who was crossing the street with his father, obeying all the rules, when the turning driver failed to yield and fatally struck him.

Sui Leung, 82, was in a crosswalk with the signal when she was struck by a van driver turning from Kenmare Street onto Elizabeth Street. No charges were filed.

Renee Thompson, a 16-year-old high school student from the Bronx, had the right of way when a tractor-trailer driver turned into her path, dragging her under the rear wheels and killing her. The driver faced no charges from Vance’s office.

The driver who backed over and killed Yolanda Casal, 78, faced only a misdemeanor charge for driving without a license and paid a $500 penalty, a fine comparable to a garden-variety $278 red light running ticket.

This is the normal way of things — many more cases could be cited of deadly drivers facing no consequences. What’s exceptional is when Vance levies serious charges against a sober driver after hurting or killing someone. Such cases do exist — Vance has charged the driver who killed Charity Hicks with manslaughter. Evidence in that case includes video footage of the driver swerving onto the sidewalk, and phone records indicating that he was texting at the time. Update: The driver also fled the scene on foot.

Why did prosecutors feel justified pursuing charges in that case but not in so many others where drivers clearly broke the law? Have new measures like the city’s Right of Way Law changed the way prosecutors approach reckless driving cases? Good luck divining any answers from Vance’s response at Fordham.

  • Jonathan R

    If it’s difficult to “understand” such “tragic” vehicular cases, perhaps the DA’s office could do a better job of explaining why they do or do not prosecute. I’m not a lawyer (but I am a constituent) so I need his help to understand.

  • Mark Walker

    Is this the Ray Kelly sentiment Vance is referring to?: “We do have 8.4 million people here. We do have a daytime population that’s over 10 million people, so you’re going to have a lot of traffic. And you’re going to have accidents.” If so, Vance is clearly not taking Vision Zero seriously and we need a new DA.

  • guest

    I’m afraid you’re giving Vance too much credit… The killer of Charity Hicks did NOT stay at the scene! They caught him 2 months later. From your link: “Shanley fled the scene on foot, reports said, and was arrested in New Jersey on August 1.”

  • Amended. Thanks for the correction.

  • Emmily_Litella

    Heh, your government at work. At least he showed up, a form of fronting I dare say.

    From urban dictionary:

    fronting

    Acting like you are more, or you have more than what really exists.

    Casey drove around the rented car acting like it was hers. She was straight fronting.

  • Keegan Stephan

    Interesting to note that Vance blames, at least in part, the NYPD’s belief about what facts are needed in order to support a prosecution, for his own decision on which cases to prosecute:

    But in the realm of vehicular cases, there are cases which are tragic, which are hard to understand, but may not have the facts to support a criminal prosecution and conviction. I think that was the belief of the [police] commissioner under Bloomberg…

  • Mark Walker

    Key cause of lack of facts: lack of investigations.

  • Jon Webb

    Here’s the rule in this country: you’re not criminally charged unless you’re DUI, you flee, or you’re obviously driving recklessly (defined really broadly, like driving on the wrong side of the street). I think that standard is what Vance was referring to in his campaign quote. It would be great for that to change.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

DA Cy Vance: Most Manhattan Traffic Deaths Aren’t Crimes

|
All Cy Vance wanted to do was talk computer crime at the Yale Club, but Sofia Russo, who lost her daughter to traffic violence, wouldn’t let him stick to the script. At a Crain’s breakfast in Midtown today, the Manhattan district attorney assured the capacity crowd that his office is going after gangs, targeting terrorists, and […]

Cy Vance’s Office on Alleged DWI Pedestrian Death: No Comment

|
As we reported yesterday, we put in a message with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance regarding the death of Victor Felix, the 57-year-old pedestrian struck in Harlem Sunday night by alleged drunk driver Garry Kinlock. Since we learned that the assistant district attorneys who comprise Vance’s vehicular crimes unit don’t always attend […]

Reckless Drivers Aren’t Waiting for Vance Vehicular Crime Reforms

|
Two pedestrians were injured on the same Upper West Side block on Monday. Photo: Westside Indy Traffic safety advocates were heartened last month by news that Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance will make good on his campaign promise to devote more resources to investigating acts of vehicular violence. Vance has also pledged to get behind […]

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 […]

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 […]