While car accidents often involve inattention or negligence, we see many people reaching out because they were hit by a drunk driver. While we work on the civil side of things, we are also there to support our clients as they move through the criminal process. Every time, I’m amazed at how what happened to the victims is so often an afterthought in the criminal arena. It’s one of the many reasons that civil advocacy is crucial in ensuring that victims can get some justice.
Last week, I went with one of our clients to the criminal sentencing of the drunk driver who nearly killed her in a motor vehicle collision. We arrived at the King County Courthouse, went through the marble atrium, made it through the metal detectors, and settled into the courtroom with the checkered tile floors. From there, we waited almost an hour for their case to be called.
Over a year prior, our client and her friend (both in their 70s), were driving to dinner in their neighborhood. Our client was sitting in the passenger seat and their car was about to turn left, when a car came towards them driving erratically at high speeds. The oncoming driver lost control and my client’s vehicle was struck head on. Both cars were destroyed – but words don’t really do it justice. The scene was horrifying and it is a miracle that no one died that day.
Our client suffered broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. I watched as she struggled to get care, I read through the medical records describing the horrific pain she experienced, and I gathered pictures of her injuries to submit to the insurance companies involved in the civil case. I wanted to make sure that she got every penny she could to help her with her recovery and medical expenses. But while we were able to handle the insurance side of her case, the criminal side dragged on.
The drunk driver (who had a .16 BAC 4 hours AFTER the collision1) had been out on electronic home monitoring since this happened back in the summer 2022. Even though he had prior criminal convictions, had nearly killed two people, and had no license at the time he was driving, his defense attorney was requesting a sentencing alternative2 rather than serving the 42 months that would be his normal sentence range. Notably in the materials submitted to the court, the drunk driver actually insisted that our client had rear-ended him, despite the many witnesses and evidence showing otherwise. If the judge imposed the sentencing alternative, he would not serve a day in jail for his actions that day.
To be clear, I understand that sentencing alternatives are an important part of our justice system, and I support judges having the discretion to consider them in many cases. As a former Snohomish County prosecutor myself, I do believe in rehabilitation. But this did not feel appropriate to me in this case. As the sentencing hearing went on, I could feel my anxiety growing.
Ultimately, the judge did impose a standard sentence of 42 months. While I hoped that brought some measure of peace to our client and served as a deterrent for something like this ever happening again, I know that our office will continue to receive calls from people injured by drunk drivers. And, I know this won’t be the last sentencing I go to with a client.
What can you do to help these preventable situations? Join Adler Giersch in supporting the MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) walk this year. Here’s a link to donate: https://give.madd.org/team/663480. We’re also supporting the Washington State Legislature’s recent move to reduce the .08 BAC limit to .05. You can read more about that bill, and how impairment starts before the .08 threshold, here.
