Unlicensed Driver Who Hit Students Charged With DWI

Yesterday, the driver who struck two teens walking to high school in Brooklyn was he man who hit two teenagers as they were walking to school yesterday was charged with driving while intoxicated, vehicular assault, and driving without a license. And the judge at the arraignment seemed very disgusted with driver Oliver Black.

According to the Daily News, Black's lawyer was trying to get his client's bail lowered from $150,000, saying, "It doesn't say that he was speeding, that he blew any lights or anything like that. That would be seriously reckless. It is an accident." But Justice Devin Cohen noted, "Your client drank enough to blow a .132 [on a Breathalyzer test] and then got ... behind the wheel of a car - and that is not considered reckless? He was driving with a suspended license, allegedly driving drunk. The defendant has a felony and 26 misdemeanors."

Black's SUV also didn't have license plates or registration. The 17-year-olds teens who were struck, Brian Rosario and Elizabeth Lopez, were both injured: Rosario is recovering from surgery for a broken leg and Lopez, "suffered severe head trauma and a busted jaw," is in intensive care.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on December 12, 2009 9:36 AM

Comments [rss]

jaycjay

There is a crucial word missing here: "allegedly."

Read that bold part above again.

Everything there is simply a statement of fact.

non_sequitur

That statement made by the justice reflects a legal conclusion, which the court has not adequately made. It's not a legal fact until it's proven by the prosecution.

While the allegations and other considerations are appropriate for an arraignment, the way the justice phrased this sentence reflects either an inability to correctly pick his words (in which case, he should know better) or worse, a lack of respect for the system.

I honestly do not see what it so complicated about my position on this and the only thing I can come to think of is that none of you have had any legal training whatsoever, much less a civics class.

non_sequitur

I can't say I'm a huge fan of what the justice said here, even if it is just an arraignment. Pointing to alleged facts as if they are proven and using conclusory legal "analysis" doesn't give you the kind of confidence in the judiciary that you'd hope for.

Snoopy

"The defendant has a felony and 26 misdemeanors." I'm sure that Mr. Black was the kind of person you would want your daughter to date and go on long drives in the country.

How many felony arrests and misdemeanors do you have?

non_sequitur

That's the most ridiculous response ever to an incredibly noncontroversial statement. I'm not saying he didn't do it nor that he deserves to be out on the street. There is a crucial word missing here: "allegedly." I expect the prosecutor to say all of those things at the arraignment, I don't expect the justice to and that's not a controversial view.

And as to the other part of my comment, "reckless" is a term of art that has to be proven. The justice isn't using it in the normal sense of the word because it carries a specific legal meaning, which the prosecutor is required to prove. A justice that *presumes* the defendant's acts meet those requirements is not only doing a disservice to the defendant but to justice as well.