By Catherine McKnight
Judge Stephen L. Mock expressed his thoughts on his verdict this Friday afternoon, with respect: “When I took this job, I took an oath to apply the law without any decision being affected by emotion. While it breaks my heart, that’s the law.”
This was following his verdict of ‘not guilty’ on counts 1-3 of vehicular manslaughter causing death due to gross negligence in People v. Gubani Roderico Rosales Quinteros.
The main problem for the court was defining gross negligence versus ordinary negligence. The defendant will be given the lesser violation of vehicular manslaughter causing death due to ordinary negligence.
Back in early February of this year, Judge Mock ruled a mistrial on the main charges against Gubani Roderico Rosales Quinteros when the jurors could not come to an agreement on the charges involving vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. The fatal crash on August 8, 2011, killed three individuals including a married couple and a 2-year-old girl.
Mr. Quinteros was convicted in February on counts 4 and 5: the use of personal identification of another for unlawful purpose and the false impersonation of Carlos Adrian Quinteros Hernandez.
Wednesday and Thursday of this week consisted of a court trial, as both of the attorneys waived the jury trial. Wednesday, July 10, was primarily Officer Cody’s testimony on issues of certain false identity counts against the defendant. The attorneys gave closing arguments on Thursday afternoon.
And then Friday arrived, when the verdict was finally given as Mr. Quinteros awaited his outcome in a packed courtroom where emotions ran high. There were members of some of the victims’ families and also members of Mr. Quintero’s family present.
Judge Mock began by saying that this case is very different from most cases he usually hears. That is, there are two completely different cases. On the one hand, counts 4-40 involve the use of a false identity. He noted that the evidence surrounding those counts is unemotional and dry.
Counts 1-3, on the other hand, involve a fatal crash. He went on to discuss how it is difficult to think of a more “emotional, gut-wrenching case.”
For this reason, he chose to discuss counts 4-40 first. The evidence, he said, is straightforward and there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant obtained identification to assume the identity of Carlos Adrian Quinteros Hernandez. He assumed this identity some time during the years of 1989-1994.
He proceeded to explain how the defendant used documents to obtain a driver’s license, social security card, and resident alien card. Based on the evidence, he found the defendant guilty on the counts surrounding these issues of false identity.
Judge Mock explained that part of the difficulty is how the law developed with gross negligence rather than ordinary negligence. He asked both attorneys to address the issue of whether the law contemplates levels of inattention when one is determining which type of negligence it is.
Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays first explained a simple definition of negligence and then what gross negligence is not. She said it is not an ordinary inattention and involves more than ordinary carelessness.
Ms. Hays argued that the length of inattention should be taken into consideration by the court.
Judge Mock proceeded by saying that Ms. Hays did not provide the court with any case law in order to quantify inattention when assessing gross versus ordinary negligence.
The defense attorney, Deputy Public Defender Allison Zuvella, said that she did research but they are all unpublished cases. She then raised the question, “Does mere inattention rise to the standard of gross negligence?” She submitted to the court that this case does not meet the level of gross negligence.
Judge Mock then began to explain his deliberation and said that the totality of evidence such as physical evidence and testimony all lead to the inescapable conclusion that the defendant was indeed negligent. His negligence “was the sole cause of the deaths of three human beings.”
He went on to say that the evidence plus the admissions of the defendant in interviews all prove that he violated basic speed law and, thus, he was negligent.
So the question stands: “Is he guilty of vehicular manslaughter caused by gross negligence or ordinary negligence?” He explained that the court could not look to what the defendant was thinking at the time on August 8, 2011, because it is impossible to know. For that reason, an objective standard must be used.
Judge Mock said that based on witness testimony, one would have to conclude that if the defendant would have recognized visual cues, he could have stopped. However, he did not pick up any of the cues and he continued to drive at a speed of 70 miles per hour during those 10 seconds of inattention.
“He never realized the trouble ahead of him. Even if he checked his mirrors,” he said.
He continued, “All that means, is that the defendant was inattentive. All I can say is that clearly he was inattentive.” He went on to describe how there was no distraction at hand and thus no reason for why the defendant’s focus should be distracted. He was not under the influence, he was not eating, he was not talking on the phone, and so on.
Therefore, the only explanation, Judge Mock concluded, is that of inattention. It is described as criminal inattentiveness. He said that, conceptually, he does not see how one can quantify inattention. “A failure itself is not something you can quantify. It either is a failure or it isn’t.”
Based on that, Judge Mock said that he did not see how inattention is subject to a theory of quantification. He explained that in the context of vehicular manslaughter, inattention means that the brain is not processing information at all.
For all of those reasons, he came to the conclusion that gross negligence involves more than inattention and that he is compelled to find that, while the defendant was guilty of vehicular manslaughter causing death with ordinary negligence, he cannot find that it was with gross negligence.
Judge Mock ruled that the defendant is not guilty on counts 1, 2, or 3 but will be given the lesser violation of vehicular manslaughter causing death with ordinary negligence.
He continued, “This trial was so emotional that I can understand why people would think that this verdict is not fair or not right.”
He expressed his position as Judge, and how emotions cannot affect his decision, no matter how tragic the case is. The defendant, he said, is still convicted with 40 criminal offenses.
The defendant will be sentenced on September 20 in Judge Stephen L. Mock’s courtroom at 1:30 p.m.
For a story on the juror who hung the original trial, click here.
