In order to be able to get an idea of what people are thinking in regards to various Massachusetts laws relating to repeat offenders, operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol, vehicular homicide, and concurrent sentencing I will be putting a few polls up, located just under Diane's picture at left.
Polls will generally last for 30 days or longer.
All votes are anonymous and while you can only vote once, you can go back and change that vote.
Please take the time to vote.
Within the week I will be putting up a link to an online petition too. Be sure to check back as we start phase two of this site. Now that Parker has been sentenced and sent to jail (too briefly in my opinion) I will Begin to work in earnest to bring our motor vehicle laws in line with most other states. At this time Massachusetts is losing out on Federal funding because the driving laws are not in line with federal guidelines - Lets do something to fix that!
Showing posts with label repeat offender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label repeat offender. Show all posts
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Convicted driver pleads guilty to fifth DUI - Cape Cod Times
The following article is in today's issue of Cape Cod Times, as well as on their website. I promise that I will write up exactly what happened at both dispositions, I've just been unbelievably busy the last couple of days.
By Aaron Gouvea Cape Cod Times
July 28, 2007
FALMOUTH — Different court room, same result.
Christopher Parker, 50, pleaded guilty in Falmouth District Court yesterday to operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs and received a 2 ½-year sentence, six months above the minimum mandatory sentence for a fifth offense. In addition, he also received a one-year sentence for operating a motor vehicle negligently for the incident last October while driving in Bourne.
The sentences will run concurrently with the 2 ½-year sentence Parker received on Wednesday in Barnstable Superior Court, where he pled guilty to vehicular homicide.
Parker, of Forestdale, killed Diane Carhart, 63, in March when he slammed his Honda Accord into her Chevy Tracker on Route 130 in Sandwich. Police said Parker looked down to adjust a portable radio, causing the crash.
Although the last six months of his sentence will be suspended, he will be on probation for a combined four years. Parker will also have to submit to random drug and alcohol testing both in and out of prison, as well as alcohol counseling.
Carhart's daughter, Susan Linhares of Mattapoisett, is hopeful the punishments will serve as a fresh start for Parker and his family.
"I really do wish the man could clean himself up for his family's sake," Linhares said yesterday after Parker's court appearance. "My mother and I have never been vindictive people and while we won't forgive, we don't wish anybody harm."
By Aaron Gouvea Cape Cod Times
July 28, 2007
FALMOUTH — Different court room, same result.
Christopher Parker, 50, pleaded guilty in Falmouth District Court yesterday to operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs and received a 2 ½-year sentence, six months above the minimum mandatory sentence for a fifth offense. In addition, he also received a one-year sentence for operating a motor vehicle negligently for the incident last October while driving in Bourne.
The sentences will run concurrently with the 2 ½-year sentence Parker received on Wednesday in Barnstable Superior Court, where he pled guilty to vehicular homicide.
Parker, of Forestdale, killed Diane Carhart, 63, in March when he slammed his Honda Accord into her Chevy Tracker on Route 130 in Sandwich. Police said Parker looked down to adjust a portable radio, causing the crash.
Although the last six months of his sentence will be suspended, he will be on probation for a combined four years. Parker will also have to submit to random drug and alcohol testing both in and out of prison, as well as alcohol counseling.
Carhart's daughter, Susan Linhares of Mattapoisett, is hopeful the punishments will serve as a fresh start for Parker and his family.
"I really do wish the man could clean himself up for his family's sake," Linhares said yesterday after Parker's court appearance. "My mother and I have never been vindictive people and while we won't forgive, we don't wish anybody harm."
Friday, July 27, 2007
Disposition on October DUI charge against Parker
I'm leaving now to go to the Falmouth District Court in Falmouth, MA in order to see what Parker receives for a sentence. I've been told there is a chance that any jail time in this charge could be served concurrently to his jail time he is serving in Diane's case. I really hope that is not the case since this case happened 5 months before the crash that Parker has been found guilty of where Diane died, it was in a different location, with the cases in two different courthouses. I just don't see how they could do that.
I'll be back around 11am as far as I know and will post the results of the case when I get back home so stop back by in a few hours.
I'll be back around 11am as far as I know and will post the results of the case when I get back home so stop back by in a few hours.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
My Victim Impact Statement
Below is my Victim Impact Statement that I read in the courtroom just before Christopher G. Parker was sentenced. While it is directed to the Judge, Parker was standing, looking at the ground with a red face as I read it. When I was done Judge Lynch thanked me for giving them an idea of who Diane, my Mom, was.
Good Afternoon your Honor,
Thank you for giving my brother and me this time to remember our Mother.
Diane Louise Kelsey Everett Carhart was more then just a name in the newspaper or local television news...the "Forestdale Woman Killed in Accident". She was a loving, caring person who always had a kind word or a helping hand for anyone she met. When asked to give one word to describe her the word "Friend" comes to our minds first, and quickly.
My mother was my best friend. When I was growing up we moved about every 12 to 18 months due to my father's work with the National Marine Fisheries Service. It seemed that I was always the new kid in school. My mother was my closest consistant friend during those years and on into my adulthood. She was my best friend until March 5, 2007 when she was tragically taken from us. While I didn't necessarily see her each and every day, I did speak to her daily. It is so hard for me to realize and comprehend that she is no longer there to answer the phone.
On the morning of March 5th my Mom called me to say what a great time she had had the night before when we had celebrated my Grandmother (Mom's mother)'s 87th birthday. As we talked we made plans to attend a field trial that my dogs were entered in the following weekend in Falmouth. My husband and I do not have children but Mom always enjoyed cheering on her "granddogs" at the events I participate in with them.. After a few minutes of our conversation she said "Goodbye" and hung up the phone, telling me she was going to run a few errands and swing by the Dunkin' Donuts down the road from her home, at Tradewinds Plaze on Route 130.
A short time later I received a very distraught phone call from my brother. "Sue, Mom's dead!" Those words are forever etched into my mind. I initially thought that he was playing a really bad joke on me...I had just talked to Mom, she wasn't dead. Unfortunately as he told me what had happened the awful truth began to sink in. My mother died while waiting to turn into Tradewinds plaza. She was on her way to Dunkin' Donuts to get a vanilla frosted donut with sprinkles and an ice coffee which she would then take down to the water along the Canal in Sandwich. It was her morning routine. She loved watching the boats come through the canal and meeting new people. She died the day after her mother's 87th birthday and was buried a few days later on her brother's 50th birthday. Instead of attending the field trial we had planned on going to the following weekend I was standing next to her closed coffin, greeting people at her wake and funeral.
As I mentioned, my mother was my friend. She was actually much more then that to me as she was my lifeline in many ways. While the death of a mother is one of the hardest things that we as human beings will experience I not only grieve her loss but I also need my mother!
One year ago, not to long after the death of my Mother's husband, my stepfather Lloyd Carhart, I began having problems with my vision. A MRI revealed that I had a meningioma, a benign but fast growing tumor in my head. Due to it's location it had to be removed. My mother changed her entire work schedule, she was manager of the Childrens Gift Shop at Plimoth Plantation, so that she would be able to take me to the many rounds of doctors appointments at Brigham and Woman's hospital. She was with me on August 17th, 2006 as I awoke in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit after undergoing a 9 hour surgery; a left frontal craniotomy with the removal of the bones in my left orbit which were then replaced by titanium mesh.
I stayed at Mom's house for several weeks after I was released from the hospital and she again stayed with me up in Boston when I was readmitted to the hospital due to complications and cognitive problems I was having as a result of the surgery. Mom had been helping me each week with my rehabilitation, relearning many of the things that we all seem to take for granted.
Last month I went back to Brigham and Woman's hospital for my latest 3 month follow-up MRI and then meeting to read the results with my NeuroSurgeon. This was the first time that I went up there without my Mom. To say that I was a bit nervous to go up there by myself is an understatement. You see, there is still a part of the tumor behind my left eye and eventually I will most likely need another craniotomy. My eyesight is getting worse almost daily so I'm nervous that the tumor is growing back faster then the neurosurgeons had hoped. I don't know how I'm going to be able to get through a second brain surgery without my Mom there to make sure that my meds are correct and otherwise see that I'm alright. My husband is a long-haul trucker so he is gone during the week. I NEED my mother and I am scared about life without her. I need her humor and guidence when I am depressed. Additionally, while it embarrasses me a bit to say it, my mother was helping us out financially by helping to pay the mortgage on our house, paying my numerous perscriptions and providing me with the use of my Stepfather's car due to the fact that I have been out of work for almost a year now because of my health. I don't know what I will do or how I will get through it all now.
Since my mother's death I've also had the return of the migraine headaches that preceeded my surgery. I can not sleep longer then two or three hours at a stretch. I have been diagnosed with fibromyalgia, an auto-immune disease that can be triggered by stress, major surgery or shock. I have frequent panic attacks, especially when I go to the phone to call my Mom and realize half way through dialing her number that she will not be there to answer, that I will never hear her voice again. All due to the thoughtless, irresponsible and selfish actions of Christopher G. Parker.
There are times that I have nightmares or moments during the day of where I can almost feel her thoughts as she realized that she was dying. One moment she is waiting to make a left turn with her blinker on, watching for the oncoming traffic to clear and the next she is dying. It is as if in her very last moments she is crying out "I don't want to die", "Please don't let me die", "Who will take care of Susie, she needs me! ?" "I want to watch my Grandchildren grow up, please, I don't want to leave them". I know my Mother's thoughts would not be of herself, but of those that she is leaving behind. I can't seem to get those thoughts out of my mind, they haunt me. I am now seeing a therapist and am on anti-depressants and anxiety medication for the first time in my life. There are now times that I am afraid of what the next day will bring.
My mother had just begun to get out of the depression that she had felt due to losing her husband Lloyd after a long illness. My being diagnosed with a brain tumor three months later really effected her also. She was finally starting to move on and live her life to the fullest. Beginning to travel and make plans for the future.
I wanted to be able to give this victim impact statement so that people in this courtroom would have a chance to better know my mother. While recently going through the difficult task of packing up 63 years of her memories and life my brother found an autobiography that our mother had written in 1987 when she was living in Annapolis, Maryland.. I was able to read it as part of an Eulogy during her funeral, which was attended by approximately 350 people. At this time I would like to read a small portion to you in the hope that you will come to know who Diane Louise Kelsey Everett Carhart was and what she meant to her family and friends.
I was born in New Bedford, Massachusetts on October 28, 1943. My parents were and still are a loving, caring couple. I grew up in a large 5 bedroom house in Newtonville, a suburb of Boston, Mass. My father was a college art professor and my mother was a housewife. In the summertime, during school vacation we would go to my grandparents home in Pocasset on Cape Cod.
My parents were pretty strict with my brother and I but never spanked or hit us. They believed in talking with us about a problem so that we would understand what we had done wrong and what our punishment would be. Discipline and punishment were a shared responsibility. They talked it over and decided together on the course of punishment, such as room restriction, no TV or no phone.
On a daily basis I was closest with my mother. She was always there to answer my questions and just talk. If I had a real problem or something bad happened I wanted my dad to be there. Fathers are supposed to be able to fix anything. I want to be like my parents in many ways - understanding, caring and able to talk about anything. As a parent I am fairly strict because one of the main jobs you do as a parent is teach responsibility.
During my school years from 9th grade through high school my favorite subjects were art, science, English and history. While in high school (Fairhaven High) I belonged to the art club, the theater club and was also a member of the junior volunteers at the local hospital. I was President of those volunteers.
During my teenage years I was a happy teenager. My family and friends were reasons to be very happy. It was during my last year in high school that I met my first husband, Dr. John Thomas Everett. We were married 1 year after graduation from high school. I helped him obtain 3 college degrees. During our marriage we moved several times due to his work. - Massachusetts 2 times, Florida 2 times, California once (2 locations), and Virginia 3 times. We had three children - Susan, John Philip (who died of SIDS at 8 months of age) and John Edward Philip. That marriage lasted 18 years.
I met my present husband in 1983 at a party after sailing. I really don’t know what attracted me to him at first. He was very articulate, knowledgeable and friendly. He had a very straight forward, honest approach. He was older than I and was caring and easy to talk to. We decided to marry after going together for two years. We had a small wedding with family and friends in Newport, RI on December 28, 1985. We have taken the time to talk and listen to each other.
There will be no problem that we cannot solve. Our marriage is based on friendship, respect, mutual admiration and love. Since our honeymoon period our relationship has become stronger because we take time to listen to each other.My husband and I share many interests - children, boating and the water (we have a power boat), travel and our home and pets. I am also interested in the foster care program in Maryland, I am on the Anne Arundel County Foster Care Review Board. This was an appointment by the Governor of Maryland. The strengths I bring to our marriage are sensitivity, patience, understanding and love. The only area of disagreement that I can think of is that I am more private about my inner thoughts while my husband is more outgoing.In 1985 I went back to school (business school). I never had the chance to go to college before that time. I graduated with a 3.9 average. I then became the Catering and Banquet Secretary at the Holiday Inn in Annapolis. In the past I’ve taken and completed courses in C.P.R., basic first aid, and passed the test to become an Emergency Medical Technician (E.M.T.) at a time when woman were not generally hired in that field.
There have been many strong influences in my life. The main ones being my parents and famly, religion and my husband Lloyd. My greatest personal achievement was going back to school at age 42 and doing so well academically. My greatest disappointments were the breakup of my first marriage...and of course the death of my first son was my biggest disappointment - his life was so very short.
I personally face all difficulties head on, talking, caring and looking ahead to a tomorrow that will be a little brighter for everyone. I have learned that I can face just about anything and I have a wonderful husband to share life with. My current goals are to better myself daily, help others and grow in my marriage.My life has had its up and downs but I wouldn’t change a moment of it. It has made me a more secure and understanding person.
Shortly after writing her autobiography in 1987 my mother and Lloyd moved to their house in Forestdale, just off of Route 130.
Christopher G. Parker was not merely negligent your honor, he knowingly got behind the wheel of a car leased to his wife. It is my understanding that he was uninsured to drive that car since his license had been revoked due to his being found a danger to the public. His actions prove that he has no regard or respect for the laws of this Commonwealth. When he got behind the wheel on March 5, 2007 he not only killed my Mother Diane Louise Kelsey Everett Carhart, but he irrrevokably changed the lives of Diane's many family members and friends. Not to mention the impact his actions have on his own family.
I sincerely thank you for giving my brother and me this opportunity to let you get to know our Mother and also for us to express a few of our thoughts and feelings in regards to her being taken from us suddenly due to the actions of Christopher G Parker.
Thank you.
Good Afternoon your Honor,
Thank you for giving my brother and me this time to remember our Mother.
Diane Louise Kelsey Everett Carhart was more then just a name in the newspaper or local television news...the "Forestdale Woman Killed in Accident". She was a loving, caring person who always had a kind word or a helping hand for anyone she met. When asked to give one word to describe her the word "Friend" comes to our minds first, and quickly.
My mother was my best friend. When I was growing up we moved about every 12 to 18 months due to my father's work with the National Marine Fisheries Service. It seemed that I was always the new kid in school. My mother was my closest consistant friend during those years and on into my adulthood. She was my best friend until March 5, 2007 when she was tragically taken from us. While I didn't necessarily see her each and every day, I did speak to her daily. It is so hard for me to realize and comprehend that she is no longer there to answer the phone.
On the morning of March 5th my Mom called me to say what a great time she had had the night before when we had celebrated my Grandmother (Mom's mother)'s 87th birthday. As we talked we made plans to attend a field trial that my dogs were entered in the following weekend in Falmouth. My husband and I do not have children but Mom always enjoyed cheering on her "granddogs" at the events I participate in with them.. After a few minutes of our conversation she said "Goodbye" and hung up the phone, telling me she was going to run a few errands and swing by the Dunkin' Donuts down the road from her home, at Tradewinds Plaze on Route 130.
A short time later I received a very distraught phone call from my brother. "Sue, Mom's dead!" Those words are forever etched into my mind. I initially thought that he was playing a really bad joke on me...I had just talked to Mom, she wasn't dead. Unfortunately as he told me what had happened the awful truth began to sink in. My mother died while waiting to turn into Tradewinds plaza. She was on her way to Dunkin' Donuts to get a vanilla frosted donut with sprinkles and an ice coffee which she would then take down to the water along the Canal in Sandwich. It was her morning routine. She loved watching the boats come through the canal and meeting new people. She died the day after her mother's 87th birthday and was buried a few days later on her brother's 50th birthday. Instead of attending the field trial we had planned on going to the following weekend I was standing next to her closed coffin, greeting people at her wake and funeral.
As I mentioned, my mother was my friend. She was actually much more then that to me as she was my lifeline in many ways. While the death of a mother is one of the hardest things that we as human beings will experience I not only grieve her loss but I also need my mother!
One year ago, not to long after the death of my Mother's husband, my stepfather Lloyd Carhart, I began having problems with my vision. A MRI revealed that I had a meningioma, a benign but fast growing tumor in my head. Due to it's location it had to be removed. My mother changed her entire work schedule, she was manager of the Childrens Gift Shop at Plimoth Plantation, so that she would be able to take me to the many rounds of doctors appointments at Brigham and Woman's hospital. She was with me on August 17th, 2006 as I awoke in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit after undergoing a 9 hour surgery; a left frontal craniotomy with the removal of the bones in my left orbit which were then replaced by titanium mesh.
I stayed at Mom's house for several weeks after I was released from the hospital and she again stayed with me up in Boston when I was readmitted to the hospital due to complications and cognitive problems I was having as a result of the surgery. Mom had been helping me each week with my rehabilitation, relearning many of the things that we all seem to take for granted.
Last month I went back to Brigham and Woman's hospital for my latest 3 month follow-up MRI and then meeting to read the results with my NeuroSurgeon. This was the first time that I went up there without my Mom. To say that I was a bit nervous to go up there by myself is an understatement. You see, there is still a part of the tumor behind my left eye and eventually I will most likely need another craniotomy. My eyesight is getting worse almost daily so I'm nervous that the tumor is growing back faster then the neurosurgeons had hoped. I don't know how I'm going to be able to get through a second brain surgery without my Mom there to make sure that my meds are correct and otherwise see that I'm alright. My husband is a long-haul trucker so he is gone during the week. I NEED my mother and I am scared about life without her. I need her humor and guidence when I am depressed. Additionally, while it embarrasses me a bit to say it, my mother was helping us out financially by helping to pay the mortgage on our house, paying my numerous perscriptions and providing me with the use of my Stepfather's car due to the fact that I have been out of work for almost a year now because of my health. I don't know what I will do or how I will get through it all now.
Since my mother's death I've also had the return of the migraine headaches that preceeded my surgery. I can not sleep longer then two or three hours at a stretch. I have been diagnosed with fibromyalgia, an auto-immune disease that can be triggered by stress, major surgery or shock. I have frequent panic attacks, especially when I go to the phone to call my Mom and realize half way through dialing her number that she will not be there to answer, that I will never hear her voice again. All due to the thoughtless, irresponsible and selfish actions of Christopher G. Parker.
There are times that I have nightmares or moments during the day of where I can almost feel her thoughts as she realized that she was dying. One moment she is waiting to make a left turn with her blinker on, watching for the oncoming traffic to clear and the next she is dying. It is as if in her very last moments she is crying out "I don't want to die", "Please don't let me die", "Who will take care of Susie, she needs me! ?" "I want to watch my Grandchildren grow up, please, I don't want to leave them". I know my Mother's thoughts would not be of herself, but of those that she is leaving behind. I can't seem to get those thoughts out of my mind, they haunt me. I am now seeing a therapist and am on anti-depressants and anxiety medication for the first time in my life. There are now times that I am afraid of what the next day will bring.
My mother had just begun to get out of the depression that she had felt due to losing her husband Lloyd after a long illness. My being diagnosed with a brain tumor three months later really effected her also. She was finally starting to move on and live her life to the fullest. Beginning to travel and make plans for the future.
I wanted to be able to give this victim impact statement so that people in this courtroom would have a chance to better know my mother. While recently going through the difficult task of packing up 63 years of her memories and life my brother found an autobiography that our mother had written in 1987 when she was living in Annapolis, Maryland.. I was able to read it as part of an Eulogy during her funeral, which was attended by approximately 350 people. At this time I would like to read a small portion to you in the hope that you will come to know who Diane Louise Kelsey Everett Carhart was and what she meant to her family and friends.
My Autobiography by Diane Carhart
I was born in New Bedford, Massachusetts on October 28, 1943. My parents were and still are a loving, caring couple. I grew up in a large 5 bedroom house in Newtonville, a suburb of Boston, Mass. My father was a college art professor and my mother was a housewife. In the summertime, during school vacation we would go to my grandparents home in Pocasset on Cape Cod.
My parents were pretty strict with my brother and I but never spanked or hit us. They believed in talking with us about a problem so that we would understand what we had done wrong and what our punishment would be. Discipline and punishment were a shared responsibility. They talked it over and decided together on the course of punishment, such as room restriction, no TV or no phone.
On a daily basis I was closest with my mother. She was always there to answer my questions and just talk. If I had a real problem or something bad happened I wanted my dad to be there. Fathers are supposed to be able to fix anything. I want to be like my parents in many ways - understanding, caring and able to talk about anything. As a parent I am fairly strict because one of the main jobs you do as a parent is teach responsibility.
During my school years from 9th grade through high school my favorite subjects were art, science, English and history. While in high school (Fairhaven High) I belonged to the art club, the theater club and was also a member of the junior volunteers at the local hospital. I was President of those volunteers.
During my teenage years I was a happy teenager. My family and friends were reasons to be very happy. It was during my last year in high school that I met my first husband, Dr. John Thomas Everett. We were married 1 year after graduation from high school. I helped him obtain 3 college degrees. During our marriage we moved several times due to his work. - Massachusetts 2 times, Florida 2 times, California once (2 locations), and Virginia 3 times. We had three children - Susan, John Philip (who died of SIDS at 8 months of age) and John Edward Philip. That marriage lasted 18 years.
I met my present husband in 1983 at a party after sailing. I really don’t know what attracted me to him at first. He was very articulate, knowledgeable and friendly. He had a very straight forward, honest approach. He was older than I and was caring and easy to talk to. We decided to marry after going together for two years. We had a small wedding with family and friends in Newport, RI on December 28, 1985. We have taken the time to talk and listen to each other.
There will be no problem that we cannot solve. Our marriage is based on friendship, respect, mutual admiration and love. Since our honeymoon period our relationship has become stronger because we take time to listen to each other.My husband and I share many interests - children, boating and the water (we have a power boat), travel and our home and pets. I am also interested in the foster care program in Maryland, I am on the Anne Arundel County Foster Care Review Board. This was an appointment by the Governor of Maryland. The strengths I bring to our marriage are sensitivity, patience, understanding and love. The only area of disagreement that I can think of is that I am more private about my inner thoughts while my husband is more outgoing.In 1985 I went back to school (business school). I never had the chance to go to college before that time. I graduated with a 3.9 average. I then became the Catering and Banquet Secretary at the Holiday Inn in Annapolis. In the past I’ve taken and completed courses in C.P.R., basic first aid, and passed the test to become an Emergency Medical Technician (E.M.T.) at a time when woman were not generally hired in that field.
There have been many strong influences in my life. The main ones being my parents and famly, religion and my husband Lloyd. My greatest personal achievement was going back to school at age 42 and doing so well academically. My greatest disappointments were the breakup of my first marriage...and of course the death of my first son was my biggest disappointment - his life was so very short.
I personally face all difficulties head on, talking, caring and looking ahead to a tomorrow that will be a little brighter for everyone. I have learned that I can face just about anything and I have a wonderful husband to share life with. My current goals are to better myself daily, help others and grow in my marriage.My life has had its up and downs but I wouldn’t change a moment of it. It has made me a more secure and understanding person.
Shortly after writing her autobiography in 1987 my mother and Lloyd moved to their house in Forestdale, just off of Route 130.
Christopher G. Parker was not merely negligent your honor, he knowingly got behind the wheel of a car leased to his wife. It is my understanding that he was uninsured to drive that car since his license had been revoked due to his being found a danger to the public. His actions prove that he has no regard or respect for the laws of this Commonwealth. When he got behind the wheel on March 5, 2007 he not only killed my Mother Diane Louise Kelsey Everett Carhart, but he irrrevokably changed the lives of Diane's many family members and friends. Not to mention the impact his actions have on his own family.
I sincerely thank you for giving my brother and me this opportunity to let you get to know our Mother and also for us to express a few of our thoughts and feelings in regards to her being taken from us suddenly due to the actions of Christopher G Parker.
Thank you.
Parker pleads guilty to vehicular homicide - Cape Cod Times 7/26/07
This article appears in the Thursday edition of the Cape Cod Times. It has a bit more info and a different picture then the article I posted last evening.
The 63-year-old Forestdale grandmother was on Route 130 waiting to turn left into the Dunkin' Donuts parking lot at the Tradewinds Plaza in Sandwich when a Honda Accord slammed her Chevy Tracker from behind. Carhart's vehicle careened into the path of an on-coming NStar truck.
Carhart died shortly after.
Yesterday, Christopher G. Parker, 50, of Forestdale, the driver of the Honda, pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and was sentenced to two and a half years in the Barnstable County Correctional Facility, the maximum allowed. Parker's inattention as he bent down to adjust a portable radio caused the crash, according to police.
The last six months of his sentence will be suspended, and he will be on probation following his release from jail. He will also serve a 10-day concurrent sentence for driving with a suspended license at the time of the accident.
"I don't think the sentence fit the crime, but he got what the state laws were," said Carhart's daughter, Susan Linhares of Mattapoisett following yesterday's proceeding in Barnstable District Court.
"I would like to see him serve all two and half years, but I'm glad that this is over and my family can move on," Linhares said.
Reading from victim impact statements composed by herself and her brother, John Everett of Williams, Ariz., she told the court that her mother had been her best friend — standing by her through many difficult times, including a recent battle with a brain tumor.
"I need my mother, I'm scared of life without her," she read.
Francine Abbott, who was driving the NStar truck and received an ankle injury in the crash, also read a statement.
"Because of you, my life and my family's life has been altered. Since that day, I've lived in pain and fear," she said. Abbott sobbed quietly as attorneys went over the details of the accident, and embraced Carhart's daughter after the sentence was read.
Parker apologized for the pain he caused Carhart's family. "If I could change anything it would be that day," said. Parker, who is already serving time on an unrelated matter. "I know my incarceration's going to be nothing compared to the loss of a human life."
Parker has a lengthy driving infraction record, which includes four drunken driving convictions, dating back to 1982. He also has a case pending in Falmouth District Court on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs in October in Bourne.
He is due back in court for this charge tomorrow.
Stephanie Vosk can be reached at svosk@capecodonline.com.
Christopher Parker stands in Barnstable District Court yesterday as he receives his sentence for motor vehicle homicide.
-Cape Cod Times /Paul Blackmore
BARNSTABLE — The morning of March 5 was a typical one for Diane Carhart.
After hanging up the phone with her daughter, she was off to get her vanilla-frosted doughnut with sprinkles and an iced coffee.
After hanging up the phone with her daughter, she was off to get her vanilla-frosted doughnut with sprinkles and an iced coffee.
The 63-year-old Forestdale grandmother was on Route 130 waiting to turn left into the Dunkin' Donuts parking lot at the Tradewinds Plaza in Sandwich when a Honda Accord slammed her Chevy Tracker from behind. Carhart's vehicle careened into the path of an on-coming NStar truck.
Carhart died shortly after.
Yesterday, Christopher G. Parker, 50, of Forestdale, the driver of the Honda, pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and was sentenced to two and a half years in the Barnstable County Correctional Facility, the maximum allowed. Parker's inattention as he bent down to adjust a portable radio caused the crash, according to police.
The last six months of his sentence will be suspended, and he will be on probation following his release from jail. He will also serve a 10-day concurrent sentence for driving with a suspended license at the time of the accident.
"I don't think the sentence fit the crime, but he got what the state laws were," said Carhart's daughter, Susan Linhares of Mattapoisett following yesterday's proceeding in Barnstable District Court.
"I would like to see him serve all two and half years, but I'm glad that this is over and my family can move on," Linhares said.
Reading from victim impact statements composed by herself and her brother, John Everett of Williams, Ariz., she told the court that her mother had been her best friend — standing by her through many difficult times, including a recent battle with a brain tumor.
"I need my mother, I'm scared of life without her," she read.
Francine Abbott, who was driving the NStar truck and received an ankle injury in the crash, also read a statement.
"Because of you, my life and my family's life has been altered. Since that day, I've lived in pain and fear," she said. Abbott sobbed quietly as attorneys went over the details of the accident, and embraced Carhart's daughter after the sentence was read.
Parker apologized for the pain he caused Carhart's family. "If I could change anything it would be that day," said. Parker, who is already serving time on an unrelated matter. "I know my incarceration's going to be nothing compared to the loss of a human life."
Parker has a lengthy driving infraction record, which includes four drunken driving convictions, dating back to 1982. He also has a case pending in Falmouth District Court on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs in October in Bourne.
He is due back in court for this charge tomorrow.
Stephanie Vosk can be reached at svosk@capecodonline.com.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Parker pleads guilty to motor vehicle homicide
I still have to make a few more phone calls to family and friends so I will post more about Parker pleading guilty in an hour or so. In the meantime I noticed that the Cape Cod Times has a brief article on their website with a picture of Parker in court today. If more is printed tomorrow I will update this post.
Christopher Parker, 50, receives his sentence today in Barnstable District Court.
Photo by Paul Blackmore/Cape Cod Times
By Stephanie Vosk Cape Cod Times
July 25, 2007
Christopher Parker was sentenced to two and a half years in the Barnstable County Correctional Facility after pleading guilty to motor vehicle homicide today in Barnstable District Court.
The last six months of his sentence will be suspended, and he will submit to two years of probation upon his release.
Parker was charged in the March 5 death of Diane Carhart, 63, of Forestdale.
He will also serve 10 days in prison, concurrently, for driving with a suspended license at the time of the accident.
Parker was traveling southbound down Route 130 in Sandwich when his Honda Accord slammed into the back of Carhart’s Chevy Tracker, sending her careening into an oncoming NStar truck. She was taken to the Forestdale School to await flight to Boston when it was determined she had died.
Parker’s inattention as he bent down to adjust a portable radio caused the crash, police determined.
Carhart’s daughter, Susan Linhares of Mattapoisett, read impact statements from herself and her brother, John Everett of Williams, Ariz., in court yesterday.
Francine Abbott, who was driving the NStar truck, also read a statement.
“Because of you, my life and my family’s life has been altered. Since that day, I’ve lived in pain and fear,” Abbott read to Parker. “What should have been a typical work day for me turned into a nightmare.”
Parker has a lengthy driving infraction record, which includes four drunken driving convictions, dating back to 1982. He also has a case pending in Falmouth District Court on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs in October in Bourne.
Read more on this story in tomorrow’s Cape Cod Times.
Christopher Parker, 50, receives his sentence today in Barnstable District Court.
Photo by Paul Blackmore/Cape Cod Times
By Stephanie Vosk Cape Cod Times
July 25, 2007
Christopher Parker was sentenced to two and a half years in the Barnstable County Correctional Facility after pleading guilty to motor vehicle homicide today in Barnstable District Court.
The last six months of his sentence will be suspended, and he will submit to two years of probation upon his release.
Parker was charged in the March 5 death of Diane Carhart, 63, of Forestdale.
He will also serve 10 days in prison, concurrently, for driving with a suspended license at the time of the accident.
Parker was traveling southbound down Route 130 in Sandwich when his Honda Accord slammed into the back of Carhart’s Chevy Tracker, sending her careening into an oncoming NStar truck. She was taken to the Forestdale School to await flight to Boston when it was determined she had died.
Parker’s inattention as he bent down to adjust a portable radio caused the crash, police determined.
Carhart’s daughter, Susan Linhares of Mattapoisett, read impact statements from herself and her brother, John Everett of Williams, Ariz., in court yesterday.
Francine Abbott, who was driving the NStar truck, also read a statement.
“Because of you, my life and my family’s life has been altered. Since that day, I’ve lived in pain and fear,” Abbott read to Parker. “What should have been a typical work day for me turned into a nightmare.”
Parker has a lengthy driving infraction record, which includes four drunken driving convictions, dating back to 1982. He also has a case pending in Falmouth District Court on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs in October in Bourne.
Read more on this story in tomorrow’s Cape Cod Times.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Possible Disposition Tomorrow on Charges Against Parker in Diane Carhart's Death
As the title of this entry suggests, tomorrow there is a good chance that Christopher G. Parker will be pleading guilty to charges of Vehicular Homicide and Driving With A Revoked License in connection with Diane's death on March 5, 2007.
He is due in Barnstable District Court tomorrow, July 25, 2007 at 2:00pm 3195 Main St. Barnstable, MA. Since Parker is still in custody he will be brought to the courthouse by the Sheriff and should appear in the courthouse in handcuffs.
If Parker does plead guilty I will be able to read the Victim Impact Statements that my brother Johnny and I have written. The statements are to be addressed to the Judge and not to Parker, he will be able to hear me read them. I have been waiting for a chance to let Parker know what his irresponsible, selfish acts have done to our family.
I will post what happens at court tomorrow as soon as I get home. Well, actually I have to call my brother and other family members first...but I can type while I talk! Please send prayers and thoughts that Parker will receive the maximum penalty allowed (only 2.5 years!) so that he won't be able to harm anyone else for at least a little while.
He is due in Barnstable District Court tomorrow, July 25, 2007 at 2:00pm 3195 Main St. Barnstable, MA. Since Parker is still in custody he will be brought to the courthouse by the Sheriff and should appear in the courthouse in handcuffs.
If Parker does plead guilty I will be able to read the Victim Impact Statements that my brother Johnny and I have written. The statements are to be addressed to the Judge and not to Parker, he will be able to hear me read them. I have been waiting for a chance to let Parker know what his irresponsible, selfish acts have done to our family.
I will post what happens at court tomorrow as soon as I get home. Well, actually I have to call my brother and other family members first...but I can type while I talk! Please send prayers and thoughts that Parker will receive the maximum penalty allowed (only 2.5 years!) so that he won't be able to harm anyone else for at least a little while.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
June 28th Pre-Trial Hearing in Falmouth
Today, at the Falmouth District Courthouse, Christopher G. Parker was to appear for a Pre-Trial Hearing. Since he is still in custody at the Barnstable County Correctional Facility I'm not sure if he actually was brought to the Courthouse by the Sheriff as he didn't appear in the courtroom.
I met up with George Brennan from the Cape Cod Times after checking in with the Victim/Witness Advocate's office and we proceeded into the first session courtroom. Once again I was surprised at how small the courtrooms in Falmouth are. The first session room was about twice the size of the second session room which I have previously mentioned - still very small, with all seats taken.
We listened to the arraignments and probation matters and eventually Denise from the Victim/Witness office came to let me know that the case has been continued yet again, this time to July 18, 2007 at 9:ooam.
I'm getting the idea that Parker's two attorneys (Arnold Lett for the DWI in Oct. 2006 and Woodrow Brown for the Vehicular Homicide and Driving With a Revoked License in regards to Diane's death) are not too sure which case they would like to go to trial or disposition first. Would it be worse for Parker if he was convicted of his fifth or sixth DWI before going up on the charges resulting from Diane's death or would it be worse if he had a charge of Vehicular Homicide and driving on a revoked license before going up on the DWI?
To me it seems that it wouldn't make much difference, either way these are serious charges. Additionaly it is my hope that the two cases will be tried seperately with the punishments being served consecutively and not concurrantly. I'm getting the feeling that the delay tactics that Parker's Attorneys have been using are because they want the possible sentences in each case to be as lenient as possible and that they be served concurrantly.
While the job of the defense attorney is to make sure that the defendant's rights are upheld it seems that they take that even further in a type of game in which they are the winner if they can get as little as possible or no jail time for their clients. They hit the jackpot if they can get the case dismissed. I have more that I'd like to say but will save it for a later topic. As an eye opener try searching the internet for the terms DWI, DUI, OUI, or drunk driving. You will find a mulitude of defense lawyers and their websites which tell you how they can help you either get the charges dismissed, what to do when you are pulled over and the police suspect that you are under the influence of alchohol or drugs, and in the event that you are found guilty they state that they will get you the least possible sentence. In my personal opinion these lawyers are as much to blame as the defendants themselves for the repeat offenders that are epidemic on our roadways.
I met up with George Brennan from the Cape Cod Times after checking in with the Victim/Witness Advocate's office and we proceeded into the first session courtroom. Once again I was surprised at how small the courtrooms in Falmouth are. The first session room was about twice the size of the second session room which I have previously mentioned - still very small, with all seats taken.
We listened to the arraignments and probation matters and eventually Denise from the Victim/Witness office came to let me know that the case has been continued yet again, this time to July 18, 2007 at 9:ooam.
I'm getting the idea that Parker's two attorneys (Arnold Lett for the DWI in Oct. 2006 and Woodrow Brown for the Vehicular Homicide and Driving With a Revoked License in regards to Diane's death) are not too sure which case they would like to go to trial or disposition first. Would it be worse for Parker if he was convicted of his fifth or sixth DWI before going up on the charges resulting from Diane's death or would it be worse if he had a charge of Vehicular Homicide and driving on a revoked license before going up on the DWI?
To me it seems that it wouldn't make much difference, either way these are serious charges. Additionaly it is my hope that the two cases will be tried seperately with the punishments being served consecutively and not concurrantly. I'm getting the feeling that the delay tactics that Parker's Attorneys have been using are because they want the possible sentences in each case to be as lenient as possible and that they be served concurrantly.
While the job of the defense attorney is to make sure that the defendant's rights are upheld it seems that they take that even further in a type of game in which they are the winner if they can get as little as possible or no jail time for their clients. They hit the jackpot if they can get the case dismissed. I have more that I'd like to say but will save it for a later topic. As an eye opener try searching the internet for the terms DWI, DUI, OUI, or drunk driving. You will find a mulitude of defense lawyers and their websites which tell you how they can help you either get the charges dismissed, what to do when you are pulled over and the police suspect that you are under the influence of alchohol or drugs, and in the event that you are found guilty they state that they will get you the least possible sentence. In my personal opinion these lawyers are as much to blame as the defendants themselves for the repeat offenders that are epidemic on our roadways.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Parker Being held on $10,000 Bail
Today is the last day of Christopher G. Parker's sixty day sentence for violating his bail by being charged with Vehicular Homicide and Driving on a Revoked License. Boy, sixty days went by quickly!
Parker won't be getting out of jail however until he posts a $10,000 cash bail. If he is able to make bail I will be notifed by Kathleen Finnegan at the Barnstable County District Court's Victim Witness office.
Parker won't be getting out of jail however until he posts a $10,000 cash bail. If he is able to make bail I will be notifed by Kathleen Finnegan at the Barnstable County District Court's Victim Witness office.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Moment of impact: Lessons learned too late for many drunken drivers
This past week we have been moving all of Diane and Llyod's belongings out of their home so that it can be put up for sale. One of the days we were in Forestdale Brian Fraga, reporter for the New Bedford Standard Times, came out to talk with us. I had spoken to Brian previously in regards to Diane's death and he was now doing a larger article on repeat DWI offenders. The article appeared today in the Sunday edition and while I haven't seen the paper yet today I was told it is most of the front page of the paper and continues on page four, taking up the whole of that page also. I did find the article on the standard times website www.s-t.com.
Mr. Parker hit Ms. Carhart's car from behind, and sent her into the path of an oncoming NStar truck, which crashed into her at more than 50 miles per hour. Ms. Carhart, 63, a grandmother, was killed instantly. Mr. Parker is charged with vehicular homicide due to negligence and driving with a revoked license.
Ms. Carhart's death illustrates the reality that repeat drunken driving offenders are still on the road almost two years after the passage of Melanie's Law.
"These repeat offenders have no respect for the law," said Ms. Linhares, who lives in Mattapoisett.
Ms. Linhares and her brother, John Everett, packed up their late mother's home last week. They moved boxes containing decades of memories into a 28-foot trailer. On Saturday, they interred the ashes of their mother and her husband, Lloyd Carhart, who died in December after a long illness, at Riverside Cemetery in Fairhaven.
Ms. Linhares was visibly frustrated that a man with Mr. Parker's record could still get behind the wheel of a car and endanger lives.
The passage of Melanie's Law in 2005 raised hopes that imposing mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders, revoking their licenses and requiring they use ignition interlock devices would keep them off the roads.
But police continue to arrest motorists with prior offenses who still drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Sheila Martines Pina, the former president of the Southeastern Massachusetts Convention and Visitors Bureau, was arrested May 29 on her fifth drunken driving charge. Mrs. Pina, who is now in jail awaiting trial, already had two pending cases for drunk driving and a suspended license when she was arrested.
Richard Arnold, 56, a Swansea man who is serving a 150-day sentence at the Dartmouth House of Corrections for his third impaired driving conviction, said he drove numerous times drunk and never got caught by police. He figured he could get away with it most of the time.
"You think you can get away with it. That's the illness of alcoholism," he said. "It's a game you play, but you will get caught eventually."
Law enforcement authorities and Mothers Against Drunk Driving say tactics such as sobriety checkpoints, ignition interlocks, revoking licenses and seizing vehicles help. But some offenders often find ways around the law, such as borrowing a car from someone who does not have an ignition interlock, or they just ignore the law and drive on a revoked license.
The state "can take away licenses, but even then, they're gonna drive if they want," said Walter Duquette, 62, a Taunton man serving a 150-day sentence for his third drunken driving offense.
State lawmakers sought to toughen Massachusetts' operating-under-the-influence statutes by passing Melanie's Law in 2005. The law, named for a 13-year-old girl killed by a repeat drunken driver, set longer mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders, allowed prosecutors to use certified court records to prove prior drunk driving incidents and mandated repeat offenders eligible for a license reinstatement to have ignition interlock devices in their cars.
But Melanie's Law does not punish repeat offenders the way a murder conviction can. And physically preventing someone with a tendency to drink and drive is another matter.
About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of operating under the influence of alcohol are repeat offenders, according to MADD. Fatally injured drivers with a blood alcohol content above the legal .08 limit are nine times as likely to have a prior drunken driving conviction.
Repeat offenders "pose a very serious threat to everyone's public safety on the highways," said David DeIuliis, a Massachusetts MADD spokesman.
"These are people with problems with alcohol. They continue to go out and make this very bad decision," Mr. DeIuliis said. "It's something I think all the provisions of Melanie's Law are targeted at, but it's still too early determine what the law's impact has been."
Under Massachusetts state law, a first-time offender receives a one-year probation and undergoes a driver alcohol education program.
A second offense results in a 12-day confined alcohol treatment program, two-year probation and license suspension for two years. An interlock device must be installed as a condition of any license reinstatement.
After a third offense, a defendant faces a 150-day mandatory jail sentence, a fine up to $25,000 and a suspended license for eight years. A district attorney may also seize, keep or sell the offender's vehicle.
Those who are arrested for a fourth or fifth offense face respective mandatory minimum jail sentences of one and two years, and can be sentenced up to five years in state prison.
A motorist's license is revoked for life with no possibility of a hardship license after a fifth offense.
Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter said his office is committed to enforcing the minimum sentences for repeat offenders. He said prosecutors consider longer sentences when there are "aggravating circumstances," such as speeding, reckless driving and serious injuries.
"In those cases, such as an accident that is particularly troubling with respect to the defendant's behavior, we may well ask for something more than the mandatory minimum," Mr. Sutter said.
However, Ms. Linhares is not satisfied with that approach. She wants prosecutors to aggressively seek longer sentences as often as possible. "A good start would be to enforce the laws that we have," she said. "I think there's a lackadaisical attitude among prosecutors. It seems they don't want to do the extra work involved."
Law enforcement officials point to additional measures besides prison sentences to keep drunk drivers off the road, such as sobriety checkpoints. New Bedford Police Chief Ronald Teachman said local police will be conducting a roadside checkpoint with state police troopers in the near future.
Chief Teachman said police will monitor the impact that ignition interlock devices have on deterring repeat offenders. He also suggested the state's current criminal records law could be amended to allow for public notification of repeat drunken driving offenders.
"We should also consider the vehicle impoundment when there is a violation subsequent to the ignition interlock device requirement," he said.
In addition to license suspensions, jail sentences and restitution, MADD recommends repeat offenders be assessed and receive treatment at a licensed substance abuse treatment agency. MADD also suggests they meet with a case officer during probation and attend a victim impact panel.
"You're not going to keep them in jail forever," Mr. DeIuliis said. "When they get out, if you haven't done anything to address their problem, they're going to continue their past behaviors."
Ms. Linhares said that many repeat offenders have an "illness," but said she is perturbed that many of them do not spend enough time behind bars.
"I think what they did with (Melanie's Law) was wonderful, but we need to pick up where they left off," she said Wednesday while moving another box of her mother's belongings to her car.
Ms. Linhares has spoken with state lawmakers to lobby them to pass even tougher penalties than Melanie's Law. She also set up a Web site, JusticeForDiane.com, to highlight the problem of repeat offenders in the hope that people like Christopher Parker are never allowed on the road again.
"This is something I was never aware of before because nobody in my family drinks," she said. "And then this happened. ... It's just appalling."
Moment of impact: Lessons learned too late for many drunken drivers
By Brian Fraga -Standard-Times staff writer
June 10, 2007 6:00 AM
June 10, 2007 6:00 AM
Diane Kelsey Carhart, a New Bedford native who lived most of her life in Mattapoisett, was driving on Route 130 near her Forestdale home the morning of March 5.
Driving carefully in her Chevrolet Tracker, Ms. Carhart stopped to make a left turn into a shopping plaza. Ten minutes earlier, she had spoken to her daughter, Susan Linhares, who said her mother was probably getting a cup of coffee at the time.
Ms. Carhart did not see him, but coming up behind her was Christopher Parker, a Sandwich man with four previous convictions for impaired driving. 
He was driving with a revoked license and speeding down Route 130, police said. It is not known whether he was driving impaired, because a blood alcohol content test was never conducted.
He was driving with a revoked license and speeding down Route 130, police said. It is not known whether he was driving impaired, because a blood alcohol content test was never conducted.Mr. Parker hit Ms. Carhart's car from behind, and sent her into the path of an oncoming NStar truck, which crashed into her at more than 50 miles per hour. Ms. Carhart, 63, a grandmother, was killed instantly. Mr. Parker is charged with vehicular homicide due to negligence and driving with a revoked license.
Ms. Carhart's death illustrates the reality that repeat drunken driving offenders are still on the road almost two years after the passage of Melanie's Law.
"These repeat offenders have no respect for the law," said Ms. Linhares, who lives in Mattapoisett.
Ms. Linhares and her brother, John Everett, packed up their late mother's home last week. They moved boxes containing decades of memories into a 28-foot trailer. On Saturday, they interred the ashes of their mother and her husband, Lloyd Carhart, who died in December after a long illness, at Riverside Cemetery in Fairhaven.
"I had just talked to my mom 10 minutes before she died," Ms. Linhares said. "She was just coming out of the funk from losing her husband. She was getting ready to fix up the house, and then this."
Ms. Linhares was visibly frustrated that a man with Mr. Parker's record could still get behind the wheel of a car and endanger lives.
"Two times is bad enough, but three, four, five times?" she said. "Especially those caught on an additional offense, and they're still driving on a revoked or suspended license? Nothing is going to stop these people. It's an addiction."
The passage of Melanie's Law in 2005 raised hopes that imposing mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders, revoking their licenses and requiring they use ignition interlock devices would keep them off the roads.
But police continue to arrest motorists with prior offenses who still drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Sheila Martines Pina, the former president of the Southeastern Massachusetts Convention and Visitors Bureau, was arrested May 29 on her fifth drunken driving charge. Mrs. Pina, who is now in jail awaiting trial, already had two pending cases for drunk driving and a suspended license when she was arrested.
That behavior is not unique among alcoholics or addicts.
Richard Arnold, 56, a Swansea man who is serving a 150-day sentence at the Dartmouth House of Corrections for his third impaired driving conviction, said he drove numerous times drunk and never got caught by police. He figured he could get away with it most of the time.
"You think you can get away with it. That's the illness of alcoholism," he said. "It's a game you play, but you will get caught eventually."
Law enforcement authorities and Mothers Against Drunk Driving say tactics such as sobriety checkpoints, ignition interlocks, revoking licenses and seizing vehicles help. But some offenders often find ways around the law, such as borrowing a car from someone who does not have an ignition interlock, or they just ignore the law and drive on a revoked license.
The state "can take away licenses, but even then, they're gonna drive if they want," said Walter Duquette, 62, a Taunton man serving a 150-day sentence for his third drunken driving offense.
State lawmakers sought to toughen Massachusetts' operating-under-the-influence statutes by passing Melanie's Law in 2005. The law, named for a 13-year-old girl killed by a repeat drunken driver, set longer mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders, allowed prosecutors to use certified court records to prove prior drunk driving incidents and mandated repeat offenders eligible for a license reinstatement to have ignition interlock devices in their cars.
But Melanie's Law does not punish repeat offenders the way a murder conviction can. And physically preventing someone with a tendency to drink and drive is another matter.
About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of operating under the influence of alcohol are repeat offenders, according to MADD. Fatally injured drivers with a blood alcohol content above the legal .08 limit are nine times as likely to have a prior drunken driving conviction.
Repeat offenders "pose a very serious threat to everyone's public safety on the highways," said David DeIuliis, a Massachusetts MADD spokesman.
"These are people with problems with alcohol. They continue to go out and make this very bad decision," Mr. DeIuliis said. "It's something I think all the provisions of Melanie's Law are targeted at, but it's still too early determine what the law's impact has been."
Under Massachusetts state law, a first-time offender receives a one-year probation and undergoes a driver alcohol education program.
A second offense results in a 12-day confined alcohol treatment program, two-year probation and license suspension for two years. An interlock device must be installed as a condition of any license reinstatement.
After a third offense, a defendant faces a 150-day mandatory jail sentence, a fine up to $25,000 and a suspended license for eight years. A district attorney may also seize, keep or sell the offender's vehicle.
Those who are arrested for a fourth or fifth offense face respective mandatory minimum jail sentences of one and two years, and can be sentenced up to five years in state prison.
A motorist's license is revoked for life with no possibility of a hardship license after a fifth offense.
Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter said his office is committed to enforcing the minimum sentences for repeat offenders. He said prosecutors consider longer sentences when there are "aggravating circumstances," such as speeding, reckless driving and serious injuries.
"In those cases, such as an accident that is particularly troubling with respect to the defendant's behavior, we may well ask for something more than the mandatory minimum," Mr. Sutter said.
However, Ms. Linhares is not satisfied with that approach. She wants prosecutors to aggressively seek longer sentences as often as possible. "A good start would be to enforce the laws that we have," she said. "I think there's a lackadaisical attitude among prosecutors. It seems they don't want to do the extra work involved."
Law enforcement officials point to additional measures besides prison sentences to keep drunk drivers off the road, such as sobriety checkpoints. New Bedford Police Chief Ronald Teachman said local police will be conducting a roadside checkpoint with state police troopers in the near future.
Chief Teachman said police will monitor the impact that ignition interlock devices have on deterring repeat offenders. He also suggested the state's current criminal records law could be amended to allow for public notification of repeat drunken driving offenders.
"We should also consider the vehicle impoundment when there is a violation subsequent to the ignition interlock device requirement," he said.
In addition to license suspensions, jail sentences and restitution, MADD recommends repeat offenders be assessed and receive treatment at a licensed substance abuse treatment agency. MADD also suggests they meet with a case officer during probation and attend a victim impact panel.
"You're not going to keep them in jail forever," Mr. DeIuliis said. "When they get out, if you haven't done anything to address their problem, they're going to continue their past behaviors."
Ms. Linhares said that many repeat offenders have an "illness," but said she is perturbed that many of them do not spend enough time behind bars.
"I think what they did with (Melanie's Law) was wonderful, but we need to pick up where they left off," she said Wednesday while moving another box of her mother's belongings to her car.
Ms. Linhares has spoken with state lawmakers to lobby them to pass even tougher penalties than Melanie's Law. She also set up a Web site, JusticeForDiane.com, to highlight the problem of repeat offenders in the hope that people like Christopher Parker are never allowed on the road again.
"This is something I was never aware of before because nobody in my family drinks," she said. "And then this happened. ... It's just appalling."
Contact Brian Fraga at bfraga@s-t.com
Monday, June 4, 2007
Parker's Pre-Trial Hearing
On Monday, June 4th Christopher Parker was due back at the Barnstable District Courthouse for a pre-trial hearing on the charges he received in connection to Diane's death. I was not able to attend but my brother Johnny and my dad, Dr John Everett did go. I was told that Parker's defense attorney and Brian Shea the prosecuting District Attorney met and seem to be reaching an aggreement on Parker pleading out in exchange for a lessor sentence. Parker's next court appearence will be June 21, 2007 at 2PM where he is expected to act on that aggreement.
This is not acceptable to me! When the maximum sentence that Parker will receive is only 2.5 years how can you allow him to plead out to a lessor amount of jail time? Isn't Diane's life worth more then that? If you kill someone you should go to jail...period! No chance to get a lessor sentence, or time off for good behavior. It seems like these attorneys find it too difificult to do there jobs to the fullest extent and so they do the easy thing and jump at the first offer either side could come up with. There is much more I could say but I will wait a bit and see what transpires on June 21.
This is not acceptable to me! When the maximum sentence that Parker will receive is only 2.5 years how can you allow him to plead out to a lessor amount of jail time? Isn't Diane's life worth more then that? If you kill someone you should go to jail...period! No chance to get a lessor sentence, or time off for good behavior. It seems like these attorneys find it too difificult to do there jobs to the fullest extent and so they do the easy thing and jump at the first offer either side could come up with. There is much more I could say but I will wait a bit and see what transpires on June 21.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Cape Cod man faces vehicular homicide charges - Boston Herald Article
Well it seems that Parker's $10,000 cash bail/$100,000 surety has been noticed by the Associated Press, and because of that Parker's arraignment yesterday is receiving new media attention. So far in a brief search I've found mention in the Cape Cod Times, the Boston Herald, and on WLNE channel 6's website. I'll continue to post the articles as I find more. Some of the stories are similar with only minor changes since the media uses the articles from the AP.
Updated: 06:27 AM EST
BARNSTABLE - A Cape Cod man who has been convicted of impaired driving four times pleaded not guilty to vehicular homicide on Wednesday.
Christopher Parker, 50, faces the charge in connection with a three-vehicle crash in March that resulted in the death of a Sandwich woman.
Parker was taken into custody on the homicide charge after a Falmouth District Court judge revoked his bail in an unrelated case in which he is charged with driving under the influence of drugs.
Parker pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in Barnstable District Court on Wednesday and was ordered held on $10,000 cash bail. He was also charged with driving with a revoked license.
Diane Carhart, 63, was killed March 5 when her vehicle was struck from behind on Route 130 by Parker’s car and pushed into the path of an oncoming NStar [NST] pickup truck, according to police. Parker suffered minor injuries.
"It’s been really hard leading up to Mother’s Day," Carhart’s daughter, Susan Linhares, told The Cape Cod Times. "Everywhere you turn, there are reminders and it’s very difficult."
Parker’s driving record includes four operating under the influence convictions.
© Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Cape Cod man faces vehicular homicide charges
By Associated Press Thursday, May 10, 2007
Updated: 06:27 AM EST
BARNSTABLE - A Cape Cod man who has been convicted of impaired driving four times pleaded not guilty to vehicular homicide on Wednesday.
Christopher Parker, 50, faces the charge in connection with a three-vehicle crash in March that resulted in the death of a Sandwich woman.
Parker was taken into custody on the homicide charge after a Falmouth District Court judge revoked his bail in an unrelated case in which he is charged with driving under the influence of drugs.
Parker pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in Barnstable District Court on Wednesday and was ordered held on $10,000 cash bail. He was also charged with driving with a revoked license.
Diane Carhart, 63, was killed March 5 when her vehicle was struck from behind on Route 130 by Parker’s car and pushed into the path of an oncoming NStar [NST] pickup truck, according to police. Parker suffered minor injuries.
"It’s been really hard leading up to Mother’s Day," Carhart’s daughter, Susan Linhares, told The Cape Cod Times. "Everywhere you turn, there are reminders and it’s very difficult."
Parker’s driving record includes four operating under the influence convictions.
© Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Driver pleads not guilty in fatal crash - Cape Cod Times Article
Driver pleads not guilty in fatal crash
By GEORGE BRENNAN STAFF WRITER
May 10, 2007
BARNSTABLE — Christopher Parker, who has been convicted of impaired driving four times, pleaded not guilty yesterday to vehicular homicide. He faces the charge in connection with a three-car crash that killed a Forestdale grandmother in March.
Parker, 50, was taken into custody on the homicide charge two weeks ago after a Falmouth District Court judge revoked his bail in an unrelated case. He is charged in that case with operating under the influence of drugs.
The law allows a judge to send a defendant to jail for up to 60 days if he is charged with another crime while out on bail. Parker is still being held at the Barnstable County Correctional Facility in Bourne on that bail revocation.
Barnstable District Court Judge W. James O'Neill yesterday imposed bail of $10,000 cash, $1,000 surety, Cape and Islands First Assistant District Attorney Michael Trudeau said. Prosecutors had requested Parker be held on $20,000 cash bail. Even if he can post that bail, he can't be released until his current 60-day sentence is served.
Diane Carhart, 63, was killed March 5 when her Chevrolet Tracker was struck from behind on Route 130 by Parker's car and pushed into the lane of an oncoming NStar pickup truck, according to police.
"It's been really hard leading up to Mother's Day," Susan Linhares, Carhart's daughter, said. "Everywhere you turn, there are reminders and it's very difficult."
Linhares and two of Carhart's brothers were in the court when Parker was arraigned.
Parker was also charged with driving while his license was revoked. Trudeau said the investigation is ongoing, but declined to say if he expects more charges against Parker.
Yesterday's arraignment has been a long time coming for Carhart's family. Parker was taken to Falmouth Hospital with minor injuries he suffered in the crash, so rather than being arrested he was issued a summons on the charges. The family then had to wait until a clerk magistrate issued a criminal complaint against Parker.
Parker has an extensive poor driving record that includes the four operating under the influence convictions. His license was revoked at the time of the Sandwich crash by the registry because police considered him an immediate danger to the public.
"We're thankful he's behind bars where he can't hurt anyone else," Linhares said. "I was talking to my uncle and we're hopeful he gets the treatment he needs."
George Brennan can be reached at gbrennan@capecodonline.com.
ABC Channel 6 Article - Cape Cod man faces vehicular homicide charges
Cape Cod man faces vehicular homicide charges
A Cape Cod man has been ordered held on $10,000 bail after pleading not guilty to a vehicular homicide charge in a crash that killed a Sandwich woman.
50-year-old Christopher Parker was also charged with driving with a revoked license. He's been convicted of impaired driving four times in the past.
63-year-old Diane Carhart died in the March 5th accident. Police said her vehicle was struck from behind on Route 130 by Parker's car and pushed into the path of an oncoming pick-up.
Parker was taken into custody after a Falmouth District Court judge revoked his bail in an unrelated case in which he was charged with driving under the influence of drugs.
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Are felony DWI offenders getting away with murder?
The article below is from Houston, TX, KHOU channel 11's website. The story sounds all to familiar, and is actually what my family and I have been saying from the moment that we learned about Christopher Parker's extensive DWI/OUI arrest record. I've also mentioned that it seemed as if Parker knew how to work the system. It seems that each and every day repeat offenders are picked up for driving while intoxicated. Unfortunately those offenders do not go to jail each and everyday, but are allowed out on bail or probation...with promises of doing a couple of hours of community service. While this story below is based in Texas I thought it was very appropriate for our site.
Are felony DWI offenders getting away with murder?
11:57 AM CDT on Sunday, April 29, 2007
By Dave Fehling / 11 News
In the past two years, police in Harris County charged over 1,900 drivers with felony DWI, but some say chronic offenders have learned to work the system and never pay the price.
For example, an allegedly very drunk driver was accused last month of killing a mother and daughter in a horrific smash-up on the Eastex Freeway.
Police said he’d already had three previous DWI convictions.
“They’re not following through on penalties,” said Ruth Tijerina, who lost her daughter in a drunk driving crash in 2004.
Texas has the three strikes DWI law: The third arrest means a felony charge. Felony as in prison, loss of voting rights and public humiliation.
But when 11 News asked the county to provide us with records showing what really happens, what we discovered was disturbing.
In the past two years in Harris County alone, 492 of the more than 1,900 felony DWI cases were reduced to misdeameanor charges.
“At some point, they need to be locked away,” said John Bradley, the Williamson County D.A. known for its tough stance on DWI.
So why aren’t they?
“Your chronic DWI offender, the person who has two or more prior arrests for DWI, has completely learned how to work the system,” said Bradley.
Are felony DWI offenders getting away with murder?
11:57 AM CDT on Sunday, April 29, 2007
By Dave Fehling / 11 News
In the past two years, police in Harris County charged over 1,900 drivers with felony DWI, but some say chronic offenders have learned to work the system and never pay the price.
For example, an allegedly very drunk driver was accused last month of killing a mother and daughter in a horrific smash-up on the Eastex Freeway.
Police said he’d already had three previous DWI convictions.
“They’re not following through on penalties,” said Ruth Tijerina, who lost her daughter in a drunk driving crash in 2004.
Texas has the three strikes DWI law: The third arrest means a felony charge. Felony as in prison, loss of voting rights and public humiliation.
But when 11 News asked the county to provide us with records showing what really happens, what we discovered was disturbing.
In the past two years in Harris County alone, 492 of the more than 1,900 felony DWI cases were reduced to misdeameanor charges.
“At some point, they need to be locked away,” said John Bradley, the Williamson County D.A. known for its tough stance on DWI.
So why aren’t they?
“Your chronic DWI offender, the person who has two or more prior arrests for DWI, has completely learned how to work the system,” said Bradley.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Barnstable County House of Correction
Several of us were wondering what exactly happens when someone is taken to the Barnstable County House of Correction. A quick search of the internet found the following information and photos from the Barnstable County Sheriff's office website.....
The Barnstable County House of Corrections Facility (BCCF) is located at the Massachusetts Military Reservation in the Town of Bourne. A formal ground-breaking ceremony was held in September 2002 for the new BCCF, a forty million dollar facility located on the Massachusetts Military Reservation in Bourne. The new three hundred cell BCCF is a state of the art, direct supervision facility.
Booking Procedures
Booking Procedures
The Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office services a daily inmate population of approximately 300 individuals. All of these individuals must go through the booking intake process. Each individual received is processed in the same manner:
- Searched
- All property taken-logged and bagged
- Processed through the identification-fingerprints, photos, etc.
- Medically screened for obvious injuries-medical treatment given if needed at time of booking
- Booked in and advised of their charges and means of release if any.
If unable to secure release they are placed in appropriate facility attire and given the following items:
- Starter Hygiene Kit
- 2 Sheets
- Blanket
- Pillow
- Pillow Case
- 2 Jumpsuits
- Towel
- Sneakers (1 pair)
After the initial booking process is completed, the individuals are then classified into one of several classifications. The initial classifications are as follows:
- High Risk
- Medium Risk
- Low Risk
From the above, individuals are placed into the appropriate section.
Telephone Calls
Every section within the facility has access to their own telephone. Phones are not turned on before 9:00 a.m. for security reasons. Shut off time may vary depending on the section individuals are housed in and could be as late as 10:00 p.m. All calls are collect calls only. An individual is only allowed to call seven (7) different phone numbers. The initial numbers entered determine whom that individual can call for the remainder of their stay.
If you do not wish to accept phone calls from an individual at the Barnstable County Correctional Facility, the phone system will prompt you through the process to eliminate any further unwanted calls.
Inmates in our Discipline Unit are only allowed one fifteen-minute phone call per ten days. The phone system will not allow call forwarding or three-way calling.
Inmate Mail
Inmates may write and receive unlimited correspondence. Postage paid envelopes and writing paper are available for inmates to purchase through the Canteen.
Inmates are authorized to receive books (paperback only, no hard covers) and magazines that meet our criteria, only if they are purchased and sent from a publisher. Examples that do not meet our criteria are:
- Any sexually explicit material; or any material that may cause sexual arousal or encourage sexual behavior.
- Any material that contains instructions for manufacturing explosives, drugs, weapons or other unlawful materials.
- Any material that advocates violence or disruption within a facility.
- Any material that advocates any racial, religious or national hatred in such a way to create violence in the facility.
Books and magazines or other types of periodicals that are received from any source other than directly from a publisher will be returned to sender.No correspondence will be accepted from any other correctional facility or secure treatment facility.All outgoing mail is stamped as coming from our institution.Outgoing and Incoming mail will be inspected for contraband or security breaches with the exception of legal mail. When necessary, legal mail will be opened in the presence of staff.
Acceptance of Inmate Funds
Inmates are not allowed to have any monies in their possession. Under NO circumstances will an inmate while in court accept any monies from family, friends or attorney.During the booking process, all monies will be deposited in the inmate’s canteen account.Inmate receipt of funds can only take place during regular business hours or through the U.S. Postal Service. The following are the only accepted forms of currency:Postal Money Order, Bank Check, or Cash at the BCCF, no cash through the mail.
Clothing Exchange/Court Clothing
Inmates will be allowed to exchange their clothing received at the time of booking for court clothes only. The exchange process takes place Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. only. All exchanges are made item for item.Court clothing should be clean and pressed. Jeans, sneakers, shorts, sweat suits, or flip-flops are not considered acceptable court clothing.
General Rules and Regulations Regarding Visits
A complete listing of rules and regulations can be found posted in the visiting waiting area in the Lobby area of the BCCF. All inmates are required to fill out a Visitor Pre-Approval form during the intake process. This form allows for all inmates to have a maximum of five (5) visitors pre-approved through our Special Operations department to visit within the facility. Any visitor not listed on this form at the time of a visit will not be allowed to visit. If you are visiting the facility for the first time you are required to fill out a Request to Visit Inmate card which can be obtained in the Visiting Lobby of the BCCF.
All visitors shall produce a current photographic I.D. (i.e. State Driver’s License). Exceptions may be made by the Sheriff, Special Sheriff, Superintendent Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Deputy Superintendents or the Director of Security.
Two (2) adults, with one (1) child or one (1) adult with two children may visit an inmate at the same time, provided they register together with the Visit Reception Officer. Persons under eighteen (18) years of age will not be allowed to visit unless they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian and meet the following provisions:
- Proof of the minor’s relationship to the inmate. A birth certificate or adoption papers must be presented at each visit.
- In the absence of a parent or legal guardian, a visit for a minor child or sibling may be granted. Minors are allowed to visit their parent, step-parent, grandparent, legal guardian, or sibling. Prior to a visit being granted, an approved permission to visit form, available in the Visits Lobby area, from the parent or legal guardian must be submitted to the Superintendent or his/her designee. The form must specify the child’s name, the person authorized to bring the minor into the facility, the inmate’s name and the signature of the parent or legal guardian submitting the form. The form must be notarized by a Notary Public commissioned by the state of Massachusetts . This notarized letter must be presented by the visitor at each time of visit.
All inmates, male and female, shall be allowed 2 visiting periods, (one hour per visit) plus Thanksgiving and Christmas. A maximum of four visitors may visit per day per inmate, no more than two visits at any one time, in the one hour span.
Visitor Guidelines for the Visiting Room
- Disruptive Behavior – Loud or abusive language will not be tolerated
- Physical Contact – No physical contact is allowed
- Fighting or Disruptive Conduct – Actions which disrupt the visiting room will not be tolerated and will result in the termination of the visit.
- Contraband – Nothing shall be passed or given to the inmate by the visitor without permission of the Lobby Officer or his/her designee.
- Under the influence – Visitors who appear under the influence of alcohol or drugs will not be allowed to visit.
- Children– Visitors shall be responsible for their children at all times.
- Dress Code – Any persons wearing inappropriate clothing and/or outfits will not be allowed to visit. The following clothing items are not allowed:
No halter tops
No sleeveless shirts
No spandex
No bare midriff
No suggestive clothing
No bare feet
Visitors must wear undergarments
Friday, April 27, 2007
Parker Goes To Jail!
As I wrote previously Christopher Parker was taken to jail on Friday April 27, 2007 when judge Tobey Mooney revoked Parker's bail. A BIG "Thank You!" to Cape Cod Times reporter George Brennan for posting an article about Parker being sent to the House of Correction so quickly on the Cape Cod Times website. You will find that article in the post before this one (below).
The weather this morning was horrible with wind and torrential rains. The sky was dark grey and fog had settled along the coast as I drove over the Bourne Bridge on my way to the Falmouth District Courthouse. I had been waiting for this day, hoping and even praying that today would find a bit of justice for my mother by having Christopher G. Parker's bail revoked.
If you have been following along on this blog you may have seen that Parker had been arrested yet again on charges of driving under the influence of drugs in October of 2006 in Bourne, MA. The day, March 5, that he allegedly drove his car into the back of my mother's Chevrolet Tracker he was not only out on bail for the Oct offense but was also driving on a revoked and suspended license. His license having been revoked after the Oct. OUI when he was found to be a danger to other drivers by the Registry and then suspended due to an unpaid speeding ticket.
I arrived at the courthouse and met up with George Brennan. Neither of us had seen Parker and it was 9am, the time the court session was slated to start. We checked the trial list and saw Parker's name so we waited for the announcement that would call people to the appropraite courtroom. At about 9:05 we see Parker enter the courthouse alone. He is dressed in a dark suit and tie and wearing a long black trenchcoat. He has a black baseball hat on and is wearing glasses. In his hands he is holding an umbrella and a wooden cane. He looks around and then sits down on one of the benches to await the call. At 9:10am the announcement comes for all adults having business in the trial court to go to the 2nd Session Courtroom. George and I followed Parker up the few stairs and down the hall toward the courtroom, Geoge telling me that it was a small room. He wasn't kidding! I think this courtroom was about the size of my master bedroom. Because it was so small most people stood outside in the narrow hallway. I stood just outside the open door of the courtroom on one side and George stood with his reporter's notepad on the other side of the doorway. As the Judge would call a case the defendants would go into the courtroom and stand in front of the large Judge's desk.
Finally I hear the clerk announce "The Commonwealth vs. Christopher Parker" and I moved to stand in the doorway so that I could see clearly. The clerk swore Parker in (although he didn't say anything) and at that point the Assistant District Attorney Chris Shea stood and said "Your Honor we request that bail be revoked in this matter". He then explained to Judge Tobey Mooney that while Parker was out on bail for this case he drove on a revoked license and has been charged with vehicular homicide in the death of Diane Carhart. I was surprised that they asked for the bail revokation so quickly, but I certainly was pleased! The Judge read briefly through Parker's file, made a comment on the number of his past convictions and charges and then she asked if Parker's Attorney, Arnold Lett, had anything to say. Atty Lett stated that Diane's death had been a tragic accident and involuntary on the part of his client, Parker. He also stated to the Judge that Parker has always appeared in court so he certainly wasn't a flight risk.
I have a problem with both facts that Atty Lett spoke too. First, my mother's death was not an involuntary accident. Parker was driving on a revoked and suspended license. He voluntarily got behind the wheel of that car. If he had been following the law he wouldn't have gotten into that driver's seat on Monday March 5, 2007. Secondly Parker had failed to appear on the date of his last court appointment, April 4, 2007. On that day there was to have been a Magistrate's Hearing at the Barnstable District Courthouse on the charges Parker is facing in Diane's death. Parker had even requested this hearing, but he failed to show up.
I found it interesting that Parker's face turned white when they asked for his bail to be revoked. He actually looked surprised that he might go to jail. He started slowly shaking his head back and forth as if he was saying no. He looked at the floor and then at the judge, then back at the floor. When Atty Lett was finished the Judge stated that Parker was a "danger to the community" and asked one of the two baliffs in the room to take Parker into custody. The baliff took Parker by the arm and left the room walking right past me as I stood there in the doorway. I had to fight the urge not to stick my foot out and trip him as they walked by! I stayed in the doorway watching as A.D.A. Shea and Atty Lett worked out a date for the next pre-trial hearing that they will meet on the Oct. 2006 OUI. That date will be May 18, 2007.
When they were done I left the courtroom and spoke briefly to George Brennan on how we felt to finally have Parker behind bars. Then I jumped into the car to drive home so that I could let everyone in my family know that he was in jail. My brother has been sick with a stomach flu and I hope this news will make him feel a little bit better. As of today Chistopher Parker is going to spend at least the next 60 days at the Barnstable County House of Correction in Bourne, MA and I couldn't be happier.
The weather this morning was horrible with wind and torrential rains. The sky was dark grey and fog had settled along the coast as I drove over the Bourne Bridge on my way to the Falmouth District Courthouse. I had been waiting for this day, hoping and even praying that today would find a bit of justice for my mother by having Christopher G. Parker's bail revoked.
If you have been following along on this blog you may have seen that Parker had been arrested yet again on charges of driving under the influence of drugs in October of 2006 in Bourne, MA. The day, March 5, that he allegedly drove his car into the back of my mother's Chevrolet Tracker he was not only out on bail for the Oct offense but was also driving on a revoked and suspended license. His license having been revoked after the Oct. OUI when he was found to be a danger to other drivers by the Registry and then suspended due to an unpaid speeding ticket.
I arrived at the courthouse and met up with George Brennan. Neither of us had seen Parker and it was 9am, the time the court session was slated to start. We checked the trial list and saw Parker's name so we waited for the announcement that would call people to the appropraite courtroom. At about 9:05 we see Parker enter the courthouse alone. He is dressed in a dark suit and tie and wearing a long black trenchcoat. He has a black baseball hat on and is wearing glasses. In his hands he is holding an umbrella and a wooden cane. He looks around and then sits down on one of the benches to await the call. At 9:10am the announcement comes for all adults having business in the trial court to go to the 2nd Session Courtroom. George and I followed Parker up the few stairs and down the hall toward the courtroom, Geoge telling me that it was a small room. He wasn't kidding! I think this courtroom was about the size of my master bedroom. Because it was so small most people stood outside in the narrow hallway. I stood just outside the open door of the courtroom on one side and George stood with his reporter's notepad on the other side of the doorway. As the Judge would call a case the defendants would go into the courtroom and stand in front of the large Judge's desk.
Finally I hear the clerk announce "The Commonwealth vs. Christopher Parker" and I moved to stand in the doorway so that I could see clearly. The clerk swore Parker in (although he didn't say anything) and at that point the Assistant District Attorney Chris Shea stood and said "Your Honor we request that bail be revoked in this matter". He then explained to Judge Tobey Mooney that while Parker was out on bail for this case he drove on a revoked license and has been charged with vehicular homicide in the death of Diane Carhart. I was surprised that they asked for the bail revokation so quickly, but I certainly was pleased! The Judge read briefly through Parker's file, made a comment on the number of his past convictions and charges and then she asked if Parker's Attorney, Arnold Lett, had anything to say. Atty Lett stated that Diane's death had been a tragic accident and involuntary on the part of his client, Parker. He also stated to the Judge that Parker has always appeared in court so he certainly wasn't a flight risk.
I have a problem with both facts that Atty Lett spoke too. First, my mother's death was not an involuntary accident. Parker was driving on a revoked and suspended license. He voluntarily got behind the wheel of that car. If he had been following the law he wouldn't have gotten into that driver's seat on Monday March 5, 2007. Secondly Parker had failed to appear on the date of his last court appointment, April 4, 2007. On that day there was to have been a Magistrate's Hearing at the Barnstable District Courthouse on the charges Parker is facing in Diane's death. Parker had even requested this hearing, but he failed to show up.
I found it interesting that Parker's face turned white when they asked for his bail to be revoked. He actually looked surprised that he might go to jail. He started slowly shaking his head back and forth as if he was saying no. He looked at the floor and then at the judge, then back at the floor. When Atty Lett was finished the Judge stated that Parker was a "danger to the community" and asked one of the two baliffs in the room to take Parker into custody. The baliff took Parker by the arm and left the room walking right past me as I stood there in the doorway. I had to fight the urge not to stick my foot out and trip him as they walked by! I stayed in the doorway watching as A.D.A. Shea and Atty Lett worked out a date for the next pre-trial hearing that they will meet on the Oct. 2006 OUI. That date will be May 18, 2007.
When they were done I left the courtroom and spoke briefly to George Brennan on how we felt to finally have Parker behind bars. Then I jumped into the car to drive home so that I could let everyone in my family know that he was in jail. My brother has been sick with a stomach flu and I hope this news will make him feel a little bit better. As of today Chistopher Parker is going to spend at least the next 60 days at the Barnstable County House of Correction in Bourne, MA and I couldn't be happier.
Repeat OUI driver jailed to protect public
Repeat OUI driver jailed to protect public
By George Brennan Cape Cod Times
April 27, 2007 11:01 AM
FALMOUTH – Christopher Parker, 50, was taken into custody this morning at Falmouth District Court, the judge calling him a “danger to the community.”
Parker is charged with causing a March 5 accident on Route 130 in Sandwich that killed Forestdale grandmother Diane Carhart, 63.He will be arraigned in Barnstable District Court on vehicular homicide charges May 9.
This morning he appeared in Falmouth District Court for a pre-trial hearing on a charge of operating under the influence of drugs.
If convicted, it would be his fifth offense for driving impaired.
At the time of his arraignment on those charges, Parker was released after posting $1,000 bail. After that charge, his license was revoked by the Registry of Motor Vehicles because he was considered a danger to other drivers.
This morning his bail was revoked yesterday by Judge Tobey Mooney ruling on a prosecution motion.Based on his driving record, which includes four convictions for operating under the influence of alcohol, Mooney said he should be taken into custody for 60 days at the Barnstable County Correctional Facility.
“I would find that (Parker) would present a danger to the community,” Mooney said.
Parker, hobbled by a leg injury that requires use of cane, walked out of the courtroom behind a court officer. The officer asked him if he came to court alone and he nodded yes.
Outside the courtroom, Susan Linhares of Mattapoisett, the daughter of Carhart, expressed relief that Parker was going to jail. “The family feels justice has finally been served,” she said. “We’ve waited almost two months for this. He has proven to be a danger to society, which is why his bail was revoked.”
All defendants offered bail are warned by the judge that being charged with another crime while out on bail could lead to a 60-day sentence in jail.
Arnold Lett, Parker’s attorney, argued against revoking the bail. He said his client shows up for court, which is what bail is supposed to guarantee.“This was an unfortunate accident,” Lett said. “It was not an intentional thing.”
A pre-trial hearing was set for May 18 in this case.
George Brennan can be reached at gbrennan@capecodonline.com.
Christopher G. Parker's Bail Revoked!
I've been waiting almost 2 months to be able to post this message....
At 9:30am this morning I watched as the judge at the Falmouth District Court approved the A.D.A.'s request to revoke Christopher Parker's bail on his Oct. 2006 Bourne, MA OUI charge. He was then taken into custody by the bailiff and sent directly to jail :-)
I will post more later this afternoon when I have a bit more time.
At 9:30am this morning I watched as the judge at the Falmouth District Court approved the A.D.A.'s request to revoke Christopher Parker's bail on his Oct. 2006 Bourne, MA OUI charge. He was then taken into custody by the bailiff and sent directly to jail :-)
I will post more later this afternoon when I have a bit more time.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Revoked and/or Suspended Licenses
Christopher G. Parker has been charged with driving on a revoked license as one of the offenses in connection to my mother, Diane Carhart's death. I've done a bit of research on the Massachusetts driving laws as they pertain to driving on a revoked or suspended license.
According to the Cape Cod Times (March 14, 2007) in regards to Parker's charges in Bourne, MA in October 2006: "After he was charged in October, state police wrote a letter to the Registry saying Parker posed an ''immediate threat” and his license was revoked. His license was also suspended in December because he failed to pay a speeding ticket issued in 2005, Registry records indicate."
The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles clarifies the term "immediate threat" as follows:
Immediate threat - If the Registrar determines that allowing you to continue driving poses an immediate threat to public safety, he/she can suspend your learner’s permit or driver’s license immediately. - http://www.mass.gov/rmv/dmanual/chapter2.pdf
Here are a few questions and answers on revocation and suspension from the Findlaw.com website....
Q : What is the difference if the state suspends, cancels, or revokes my license?
A : Suspension involves the temporary withdrawal of your privilege to drive. The state may reinstate that privilege after a designated time period and payment of a fee. You may also restore the privilege by remedying the underlying cause of the suspension, such as buying automobile insurance.
Cancellation involves voluntarily giving up your driving privilege without penalty. Cancellation allows you to reapply for a license immediately.
Revocation aims both to discipline the driver and protect the public. Revocation involuntarily ends your driving privilege. Revocation generally is permanent until you are eligible after a minimum period set by law to apply for a new license. The state may conduct a reinstatement hearing. You may have to retake a driver's license examination.
Q : What are the grounds for license suspension?
A : They vary by state. A local lawyer will be able to give you details about your state laws. Generally, however, a state might provide that three moving violations within one year warrant a three-month suspension. Refusal to submit to a field sobriety or breath testing device test also will result in suspension.
Q : What are the grounds for license revocation?
A : They are based on violating specific laws, such as habitual reckless driving, drunken driving, nonpayment of your motor vehicle excise tax, using a motor vehicle to commit a felony, and fleeing from or eluding the police. Again, they vary by state.
Q : What must the state prove before a court can convict me of driving on a suspended or revoked license?
A : The law varies from one state to another. The state, however, usually has to show that:
the accused's license or privilege to drive was revoked or suspended on the occasion in question; and the accused was driving a motor vehicle on a public highway at the time of the offense.
http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/traffic-ticket-overview/drivers-license-penalties-faq.html
Below is a portion of the Massachusetts General Law as it applies to operating a motor vehicle after suspension or revocation of license. For the full statute click HERE.
CHAPTER 90. MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT
MOTOR VEHICLES
Section 23. Any person convicted of operating a motor vehicle after his license to operate has been suspended or revoked, or after notice of the suspension or revocation of his right to operate a motor vehicle without a license has been issued by the registrar and received by such person or by his agent or employer, and prior to the restoration of such license or right to operate or to the issuance to him of a new license to operate,......shall, except as provided by section twenty-eight of chapter two hundred and sixty-six, be punished for a first offence by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ten days, or both, and for any subsequent offence by imprisonment for not less than sixty days nor more than one year,.....
Any person convicted of operating a motor vehicle after his license to operate has been revoked by reason of his having been found to be an habitual traffic offender, as provided in section twenty-two F, or after notice of such revocation of his right to operate a motor vehicle without a license has been issued by the registrar and received by such person or by his agent or employer, and prior to the restoration of such license or right to operate or the issuance to him of a new license to operate shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.
Any person convicted of operating a motor vehicle after his license to operate has been suspended or revoked pursuant to a violation of paragraph (a) of subdivision (1) of section twenty-four, or pursuant to section twenty-four D, twenty-four E, twenty-four G, twenty-four L, or twenty-four N of this chapter, or pursuant to subsection (a) of section eight, or pursuant to a violation of section eight A or section eight B of chapter ninety B, or pursuant to a violation of section 8, 9 or 11 of chapter ninety F, or after notice of such suspension or revocation of his right to operate a motor vehicle without a license has been issued and received by such person or by his agent or employer, and prior to the restoration of such license or right to operate or the issuance to him of a new license to operate shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment in a house of correction for not less than sixty days and not more than two and one-half years; provided, however, that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon such person shall not be reduced to less than sixty days, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served sixty days of such sentence; provided, further, that the commissioner of correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or of the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this paragraph a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution; or to engage in employment pursuant to a work release program. The provisions of section eighty-seven of chapter two hundred and seventy-six shall not apply to any person charged with a violation of this paragraph. Prosecutions commenced under this paragraph shall not be placed on file or continued without a finding.
Whoever operates a motor vehicle in violation of paragraph (a) of subdivision (1) of section 24, sections 24G or 24L, subsection (a) of section 8 of chapter 90B, sections 8A or 8B of chapter 90B or section 13 1/2 of chapter 265, while his license or right to operate has been suspended or revoked, or after notice of such suspension or revocation of his right to operate a motor vehicle has been issued and received by such person or by his agent or employer, and prior to the restoration of such license or right to operate or the issuance to him of a new license or right to operate, pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision (1) of section 24, sections 24G or 24L, subsection (a) of section 8 of chapter 90B, sections 8A or 8B of chapter 90B or section 13 1/2 of chapter 265 shall be punished by a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $10,000 and by imprisonment in a house of correction for a mandatory period of not less than 1 year and not more than 2 1/2 years, with said sentence to be served consecutively to and not concurrent with any other sentence or penalty. Such sentence shall not be suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served said 1 year of such sentence; provided, however, that the commissioner of correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or of the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this paragraph a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution only to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution or to engage in employment pursuant to a work release program. Section 87 of chapter 276 shall not apply to any person charged with a violation of this paragraph. Prosecutions commenced under this paragraph shall not be placed on file or continued without a finding.
A certificate of the registrar or his authorized agent that a license or right to operate motor vehicles or a certificate of registration of a motor vehicle has not been restored or that the registrar has not issued a new license so to operate to the defendant or a new certificate of registration for a motor vehicle the registration whereof has been revoked, shall be admissible as evidence in any court of the commonwealth to prove the facts certified to therein, in any prosecution hereunder wherein such facts are material. A certificate of a clerk of court that a person's license or right to operate a motor vehicle was suspended for a specified period shall be admissible as prima facie evidence in any court of the commonwealth to prove the facts certified to therein in any prosecution commenced under this section.
Upon a conviction of operating after suspension or revocation of license or right to operate under the first paragraph, the registrar shall extend said suspension or revocation for an additional sixty days. Upon a conviction of operating after suspension or revocation of license or right to operate under the second paragraph, the registrar shall extend said suspension or revocation for an additional year.
If a person operating a motor vehicle after suspension or revocation of a license to operate or the right to operate a motor vehicle under the first or second paragraphs of this section, is found by the registrar to have operated a vehicle registered to another in violation of said suspension or revocation, the registrar shall, after hearing, revoke the certificate of registration of said motor vehicle for up to thirty days. Pursuant to said hearing, the certificate of registration and the number plates shall be immediately surrendered to the registrar.
For more info on revocation or suspension please see the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Laws.
According to the Cape Cod Times (March 14, 2007) in regards to Parker's charges in Bourne, MA in October 2006: "After he was charged in October, state police wrote a letter to the Registry saying Parker posed an ''immediate threat” and his license was revoked. His license was also suspended in December because he failed to pay a speeding ticket issued in 2005, Registry records indicate."
The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles clarifies the term "immediate threat" as follows:
Immediate threat - If the Registrar determines that allowing you to continue driving poses an immediate threat to public safety, he/she can suspend your learner’s permit or driver’s license immediately. - http://www.mass.gov/rmv/dmanual/chapter2.pdf
Here are a few questions and answers on revocation and suspension from the Findlaw.com website....
Q : What is the difference if the state suspends, cancels, or revokes my license?
A : Suspension involves the temporary withdrawal of your privilege to drive. The state may reinstate that privilege after a designated time period and payment of a fee. You may also restore the privilege by remedying the underlying cause of the suspension, such as buying automobile insurance.
Cancellation involves voluntarily giving up your driving privilege without penalty. Cancellation allows you to reapply for a license immediately.
Revocation aims both to discipline the driver and protect the public. Revocation involuntarily ends your driving privilege. Revocation generally is permanent until you are eligible after a minimum period set by law to apply for a new license. The state may conduct a reinstatement hearing. You may have to retake a driver's license examination.
Q : What are the grounds for license suspension?
A : They vary by state. A local lawyer will be able to give you details about your state laws. Generally, however, a state might provide that three moving violations within one year warrant a three-month suspension. Refusal to submit to a field sobriety or breath testing device test also will result in suspension.
Q : What are the grounds for license revocation?
A : They are based on violating specific laws, such as habitual reckless driving, drunken driving, nonpayment of your motor vehicle excise tax, using a motor vehicle to commit a felony, and fleeing from or eluding the police. Again, they vary by state.
Q : What must the state prove before a court can convict me of driving on a suspended or revoked license?
A : The law varies from one state to another. The state, however, usually has to show that:
the accused's license or privilege to drive was revoked or suspended on the occasion in question; and the accused was driving a motor vehicle on a public highway at the time of the offense.
http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/traffic-ticket-overview/drivers-license-penalties-faq.html
Below is a portion of the Massachusetts General Law as it applies to operating a motor vehicle after suspension or revocation of license. For the full statute click HERE.
PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE XIV. PUBLIC WAYS AND WORKS
TITLE XIV. PUBLIC WAYS AND WORKS
CHAPTER 90. MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT
MOTOR VEHICLES
Section 23. Any person convicted of operating a motor vehicle after his license to operate has been suspended or revoked, or after notice of the suspension or revocation of his right to operate a motor vehicle without a license has been issued by the registrar and received by such person or by his agent or employer, and prior to the restoration of such license or right to operate or to the issuance to him of a new license to operate,......shall, except as provided by section twenty-eight of chapter two hundred and sixty-six, be punished for a first offence by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ten days, or both, and for any subsequent offence by imprisonment for not less than sixty days nor more than one year,.....
Any person convicted of operating a motor vehicle after his license to operate has been revoked by reason of his having been found to be an habitual traffic offender, as provided in section twenty-two F, or after notice of such revocation of his right to operate a motor vehicle without a license has been issued by the registrar and received by such person or by his agent or employer, and prior to the restoration of such license or right to operate or the issuance to him of a new license to operate shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.
Any person convicted of operating a motor vehicle after his license to operate has been suspended or revoked pursuant to a violation of paragraph (a) of subdivision (1) of section twenty-four, or pursuant to section twenty-four D, twenty-four E, twenty-four G, twenty-four L, or twenty-four N of this chapter, or pursuant to subsection (a) of section eight, or pursuant to a violation of section eight A or section eight B of chapter ninety B, or pursuant to a violation of section 8, 9 or 11 of chapter ninety F, or after notice of such suspension or revocation of his right to operate a motor vehicle without a license has been issued and received by such person or by his agent or employer, and prior to the restoration of such license or right to operate or the issuance to him of a new license to operate shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment in a house of correction for not less than sixty days and not more than two and one-half years; provided, however, that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon such person shall not be reduced to less than sixty days, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served sixty days of such sentence; provided, further, that the commissioner of correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or of the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this paragraph a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution; or to engage in employment pursuant to a work release program. The provisions of section eighty-seven of chapter two hundred and seventy-six shall not apply to any person charged with a violation of this paragraph. Prosecutions commenced under this paragraph shall not be placed on file or continued without a finding.
Whoever operates a motor vehicle in violation of paragraph (a) of subdivision (1) of section 24, sections 24G or 24L, subsection (a) of section 8 of chapter 90B, sections 8A or 8B of chapter 90B or section 13 1/2 of chapter 265, while his license or right to operate has been suspended or revoked, or after notice of such suspension or revocation of his right to operate a motor vehicle has been issued and received by such person or by his agent or employer, and prior to the restoration of such license or right to operate or the issuance to him of a new license or right to operate, pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision (1) of section 24, sections 24G or 24L, subsection (a) of section 8 of chapter 90B, sections 8A or 8B of chapter 90B or section 13 1/2 of chapter 265 shall be punished by a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $10,000 and by imprisonment in a house of correction for a mandatory period of not less than 1 year and not more than 2 1/2 years, with said sentence to be served consecutively to and not concurrent with any other sentence or penalty. Such sentence shall not be suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served said 1 year of such sentence; provided, however, that the commissioner of correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or of the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this paragraph a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution only to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution or to engage in employment pursuant to a work release program. Section 87 of chapter 276 shall not apply to any person charged with a violation of this paragraph. Prosecutions commenced under this paragraph shall not be placed on file or continued without a finding.
A certificate of the registrar or his authorized agent that a license or right to operate motor vehicles or a certificate of registration of a motor vehicle has not been restored or that the registrar has not issued a new license so to operate to the defendant or a new certificate of registration for a motor vehicle the registration whereof has been revoked, shall be admissible as evidence in any court of the commonwealth to prove the facts certified to therein, in any prosecution hereunder wherein such facts are material. A certificate of a clerk of court that a person's license or right to operate a motor vehicle was suspended for a specified period shall be admissible as prima facie evidence in any court of the commonwealth to prove the facts certified to therein in any prosecution commenced under this section.
Upon a conviction of operating after suspension or revocation of license or right to operate under the first paragraph, the registrar shall extend said suspension or revocation for an additional sixty days. Upon a conviction of operating after suspension or revocation of license or right to operate under the second paragraph, the registrar shall extend said suspension or revocation for an additional year.
If a person operating a motor vehicle after suspension or revocation of a license to operate or the right to operate a motor vehicle under the first or second paragraphs of this section, is found by the registrar to have operated a vehicle registered to another in violation of said suspension or revocation, the registrar shall, after hearing, revoke the certificate of registration of said motor vehicle for up to thirty days. Pursuant to said hearing, the certificate of registration and the number plates shall be immediately surrendered to the registrar.
For more info on revocation or suspension please see the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
