02.20.07

When Real Attorneys Take Up Armchairs

Posted in Journalism, Society, Law at 18:51 by Wormwood

The latest news in the “McMissile” case is that Jessica Hall has been sentenced to two years in prison for throwing a cup of ice at another car on I-95 in Virginia. Jessica Hall is joined by talking heads and even her victim in proclaiming that the sentence is “disproportionate”. Let’s examine this a little better, shall we?

Let’s start from the top, shall we?

What I (Supposedly) Know:

• On July 2, 2006, Jessica Hall took out her frustrations on another driver by throwing a McDonald’s cup full of ice at a car being driven by Pete Ballin.
• Ballin and Eliza Fowle, his girlfriend and passenger, reported the incident to the police.
• Hall was arrested and charged with “maliciously throwing a missile into an occupied vehicle”, an act covered under § 18.2-154 of the Code of Virginia (last .
• Under the law, Hall’s act (including malice) is a Class 4 felony.
• § 18.2-10 of the Code of Virginia gives the minimum (remember that word, minimum) sentence for a Class 4 felony as two years.

Now, let’s see what’s going on in the news. From the WaPo story (emphasis mine):

“I think that this is way too much of a punishment for her actions. This is just to me absolutely ridiculous,” Fowle said. Community service would have made more sense, she said.

Okay, so the girlfriend of the driver whose car was hit by the cup thinks that community service would have made more sense. That’s a fine opinion to have, and shows a degree of forgiveness on the part of someone who could have been more of a victim than she, in fact, was. I can’t really say that she’s playing “armchair attorney” here, since it appears that she’s just voicing her shock at the sentencing. What irks me is the following quote from the ABC News story (again, emphasis mine):

“What’s disturbing about this case is the real lack of proportionality in the sentencing,” Court TV’s Lisa Bloom said. “Two years in prison, two years for her kids not to have a parent. That seems unduly harsh.”

[…]

“But I’m sure prosecutors want to send a message by saying acts of road rage are unacceptable,” Bloom said. “They’re violent, they cause injuries and it’s going to stop right here with this case.”

The first paragraph I can agree with. Perhaps having a blanket law that classifies a relatively harmless projectile in the same class of crime as rocks or bullets is overly harsh. Perhaps it was even overbearing to include malice in the charge, but without the court transcript in front of me I simply can’t tell what evidence was presented to substantiate the claim of malice. The jury seemed to agree that malice was present, though, and I can do naught but hope that they made that judgment based on sound evidence.

The second quote is what gets on my nerves. The prosecutors “want to send a message”? Under Virginia law, Hall’s actions were either a Class 4 or Class 6 felony, depending on whether or not malice was present. If malice was not present, the charge would have been a Class 6 felony, with a minimum sentence of one year in prison. Last I checked, prosecutors weren’t allowed to tweak laws and sentencing guidelines at their whim. I’m also unable to find any Virginia law that would fit Hall’s action that carries a misdemeanor charge - even “reckless endangerment of others by throwing objects from places higher than one story” (§ 18.2-51.3) is a Class 6 felony, and throwing things at a building in a way that could put others in peril carries the same tiers of penalty (§ 18.2-279). So how are prosecutors trying to “send a message” here? Lisa Bloom is, in fact, an attorney, and that’s what bothers me. Without alternate avenues for prosecution, without exemptions in the law for types of projectile, and with malice being the only differing factor between two classes of felony, the prosecutor’s and jury’s hands were effectively tied.

What I Interpret:

• Virginia Law is exceptionally clear on the classification and penalties for crimes involving throwing objects at vehicles when the potential for harm is created by the throwing of said object.
• Hall’s actions would have been either a Class 4 or Class 6 felony under almost every applicable state law I can find.
• The jury, perhaps actually swayed by Hall’s situation, returned a recommendation for the minimum allowable sentence under the law, which was enacted without modification.

My Opinion:

• As I stated above, it’s possible that the jury was already swayed by the human-interest aspect of this story; rather than seek a heftier prison term (up to 10 years) or a fine (up to $100,000), they instead returned a two year prison term; the fine of $1,000 was assessed for her other charges (reckless driving, assault, and assault and battery).

Reaction Summary (Pure Opinion):

• Lisa Bloom, as an attorney, should know better than to give an opinion on a case that is unsupportable by the letter or spirit of the law.
• Those arguing that the sentence was unreasonable need to take out their aggressions on the laws of Virginia, not the jury or the prosecutor in this case.
• Final Thought:
  • It’s not at all unreasonable to state that the state of Virginia sentencing guidelines may be overly harsh. It’s not at all unreasonable to say that the classification for crimes that only create potential for peril may be overly harsh. But to say that prosecutors or juries are attempting to “send a message” to a victim by returning the absolute minimum sentence allowable by law is unconscionable.

Permalink