This letter is in response to the June 14 article “Grossman Sentence: 15 to life.”
Judge Joseph Brandolino handed down what many observers considered a rather light sentence considering that she ran down two small boys while speeding after having consumed some amount of alcohol.
She was charged with two counts of second degree murder and also leaving the scene. She claimed in court that she “was not a murderer” and that this was just a tragic accident. However, a jury saw it differently and convicted her.
Under California law, someone can be charged with murder if they have a prior DUI conviction and then kills someone while driving under the influence. This is known as the Watson Murder Rule. The driver is considered to have acted with “implied malice.” The concept is that the defendant knew of the consequences of their driving while intoxicated and that this could result in the death of others.
Rebecca Grossman does not have any prior DUI convictions, but she does have a history of speeding. I think that the DA used that speeding history to formulate the murder charges. The theory is that because she had been stopped before, she understood the dangers. Speeding and reckless driving were certainly contributing factors to the horrific accident.
Even though the jury convicted her of two counts of murder, the charges may have been an overreach on the part of the DA’s Office. This type of offense used to be considered as vehicular manslaughter, and the penalties are less than a murder charge.
In light of no prior criminal history, I think that the judge felt that manslaughter was the more appropriate charge and sentenced Ms. Grossman according to the manslaughter guidelines.
In conclusion, had she been able to work out a plea bargain with the DA’s office by pleading guilty to two counts of manslaughter as well as leaving the scene, the 15 year sentence that she received might have been exactly what the judge would have handed down. So, maybe, in a roundabout way, justice was served.
Dan Nathan
Westlake Village