Evening star., 1947-06-14
JUDGES, Juries and Leniency

Municipal Court Judge George D. Neil
sons evaporation over the acquittal by a
jury of driver who twice has been charged
with fsxal accidents is understandable.
This is but the latest chapter in the
discouragtng story of the Districts efforts
to enforce'the Negligent Homicide Act. The
purpose of that act was to make 1t easier
to convict drivers whose recklessness had
caused traffic fatalities. JurieS had been
reluctant to convict motorists of the more
serious manslaughter charge except in
extreme cases. Sponsors of the law hoped
to meet this problem by creating the lesser
charge of negligent homicide, misde-
meanor punishable by year in prison, or
q thousand dollar fine, or both.
But some juries still seem to be loath
to find their fellow citizens and fellow
motorists guilty of even the lesser charge
Judge Nelson pointed out that in the
latest case the evidence to convict had
been we'll prepared and presented. Expert
testimony was introduced to show that
the defendant was intoxicated, that the
victim was crossing at designated cross
walk, that the street was virtually clear
of traffic and that the weather was bright.
The fatal accident was witnessed by
policeman who had stopped his car at
the intersection. But the jury lost little
time in returning an acquittal. The driver
is vet to be tried on charges of drunken
driving and operating his truck after
suspension of his permit. In fairness to
the jury it should be noted that the
prosecution was prevented from bringing
out that this was the second fatal accident
in which the driver had been involved.
The records show that juries have re-
turned convictions in only four out OF
nearly a score of negligent homicide cases
since January, 1946 Not all of these cases
went to the jury, however. Seven were
ol-prossed two guilty pleas were entered,
four defendants were acquitted and the
other cases are still pending.
But the judges cannot fairly place all
the blame for leniency in traffic cases upon
turies. Another Municipal Court case
Yesterday indicates that something is
wrong with the handling of some traffic
cases by the judges themselves. The case
In question concerned motorist who was
under arrest for the fourth time in fve
years on drunken driving charges. Inc
first time in 1912 the charge was dis
missed In 1943 he was fined s100 on con-
viction of the offense, in 1914 he was con-
victed again but got off with $75 fine
and last wear he Jared even better, with
only a $50 fine Judge Nelson properly
decided 1t was high time this persistent
offender receive the maximum sentence
for drunken driving He not only imposed
q fine of $500 and sentenced the defendant
to six months in Jail, but also sentenced
him to pay an additional $500 fine or serve
a year in Jail for driving after his permit
had been revoked.
Why a man who has been convicted
three times of drunken driving should not
only have escaped Jail until now but have
been favored by progressively lower fines
wear after year is something that needs
explanation Judges, no less than 1uries
must do their part if the problem OF the
intoxicated or otherwise irresponsible
driver il To be met effectively.