During a sentence hearing today, his lawyer, Arthur Aidala, tried to have the charges dismissed.
However, as the Daily News reported, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Melissa Jackson denied the request, stating that there was sufficient evidence to support the crime.
Per the Daily News:
Aidala argued that Martin was so intoxicated he couldn't be held accountable for murder by displaying a "depraved indifference to life.”
"You can't say someone who doesn't know what the heck they are doing is depraved — because your brain isn't working with enough synapses to make that judgement," he said.
“Because he was so intoxicated on this cocktail of drugs, he couldn't make decisions the law says he has to be able to make. If he was sober, he would be 100% guilty.”
Sentencing is now schedule for Nov. 4. Martin, 35, faces up to life in prison.
Previously on EV Grieve:
[Updated] Car smashes into East Village Farm & Grocery on Second Avenue; 6 reported injured
Crowdsourcing campaign for injured East Village Farm and Grocery worker raises nearly $19,000
Report: Injured East Village Farm and Grocery florist has lost his memory, use of his voice
[Updated] RIP Akkas Ali
see you in hell, counselor
ReplyDeleteWe live in a legal system where we require the attorney of a defendant to advocate for his client's interest to the utmost. So grow up, 3:44PM.
Delete4:07...Anon #1 was correct. You wouldnt be saying this if the Scum defendant had plowed into you or someone you loved.
ReplyDeleteAgree with Anons. 3.44 and 5.10.Some crimes are beyond reprehensible, and in my book this was one of them. Trying to bargain the sentence down, that I can understand. But to try and get complete dismissal on the grounds that your client was too fucked up to know what he was doing so can't be held responsible? Show me the gun that was held to his head in order to force him to ingest the cornucopia of substances he was high on, then, maybe. Until then, he should have the book thrown straight at his ugly mug, and you should be disbarred.
ReplyDelete@7:54 and others . . .
ReplyDeleteThere is another way to look at it: by bringing up the "too drunk to be held accountable" issue now, then the defense can't use that argument in an appeal. In a way the defendant's attorney is doing you a favor by making sure this guy doesn't get heard by an appellate court and stays in jail for life.
He will be heard in an appellate court. His lawyer is correct.
ReplyDeleteI remember this very well. This man, the driver, who seemed to display no remorse for his actions, should accept responsibility for his reprehensible actions, which as a result, cost the life of a beloved man, who had a family and life of his own, who unfortunately was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Having the charges dismissed or diminished negates the quest for justice for this scumbag who had little regard for other fellow human beings. This was an unspeakable accident, which shook so many who witnessed it, and those of us who live in this community. I certainly hope, for the welfare of others, and the peace that the victim's family deserves, that this convicted felon will be handed the ultimate sentence.
ReplyDeletehttps://cinemasips.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/cary-grant-bourbon.jpg
ReplyDeleteHe is especially responsible. No one starts out drunk or high. Hope it gets tossed.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry, but this awful man is a scumbag. He is complicit, responsible and should deeply ponder the consequences of his behavior. A human being died senselessly. Someone has to pay the price. While drugs and alcohol contributed to this accident, no one made him he drink or get high. So, be a man, and accept what is, and do your time like all the rest of hardened criminals.
ReplyDeleteGojira? Dis barred? A lawyer has to make every available argument. If he doesn't he isn't doing his job. It's a basic tenet of criminal defense, like it or not. It aligns with due process.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the attorney did not cause the death, had nothing to do with it. He has the duty to give the best defense for his client in court. He would be disbarred if he did not. He made his argument to the judge/jury, now the judge/jury must make a ruling.
ReplyDeletePlease everyone, don't reflexively attack the attorney. This is a complicated issue that the Court of Appeals has considered more tha once. If you are so drunk or high that you don't know what you are doing, can you have the mens rea (mental state) for the crime of depraved indifference homicide? Depraved indifference means you don't care whether others live or die, even if you are not specifically intending to kill anyone. Shooting a gun into a crowd is a classic example. You have to have some knowledge that you what you are doing is dangerous. If you are driving on the wrong side of the road, but are so drunk that you don't know that you are on the wrong side of the road, is that depraved indifference homicide if you kill someone? Or is it a lesser crime of reckless homicide? I don't think the lawyer here was arguing that his client should go completely free. It sounds to me like he was doing his job in raising the issue. It sounds to me like he would be incompetent for NOT raising the issue.
ReplyDeleteRiddle me this:
ReplyDeleteWhat's to stop someone with intent to murder from loading up on alcohol and/or drugs, getting in a car, hitting the intended target, then claiming "I was drunk and/or high"? I'm not saying this guy did this, 'just asking somewhat rhetorically.
This lowlife showed depraved indifference to life by being drunk and high while operating a vehicle. He knew he was drunk and high, got into a car anyway, and knew that could mean death for him and/or whoever he hits in the case of an accident, so he was depraved and indifferent. You don't do that, especially when you're a lawyer who knows full well the penalties for doing that.
I am drunk and high right now, and am indifferent to this discussion.
ReplyDelete