Chappaquiddick on Bayou St. John – New Orleans, La.
Michelle M. Haensel Memorial Web Site
EXERT FROM THE SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS
"To him to whom much is given, much is expected."
February 15, 1996
Parish
of Orleans - Section "F" - Case No.
375-409
This is an exert of Orleans Parish Criminal Court Judge Dennis J. Waldron's sentencing statements (pages 62 through 70 of the 72 page sentencing transcript). These statements were placed in the record at Dr. Christopher C. Nabors sentencing conducted on the morning of February 15, 1996 at Criminal District Court (Tulane Avenue) in New Orleans, Louisiana. A complete transcript can be obtained from the Clerk of Records in Orleans Parish Criminal Court.
APPEARANCES:
Greg
Kennedy Assistant
District Attorney
Sharon
Andrews Assistant
District Attorney
John Wilson Reed Attorney for the Defendant Christopher C. Nabors
Michael Carbo Attorney for the Defendant Christopher C. Nabors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This
case is unlike any other vehicular homicide case or any other....perhaps even
manslaughter case....that this Court has dealt with. And it's not just because
of Mr. Nabors status as a medical doctor. Clearly, the circumstances under
which Miss Haensel died in this case are not ordinarily associated with
vehicular homicide.
The
defendant's role as a physician cannot be overlooked. We know that criminal
consequences flow from both the actions of persons and/or their failure to act.
In
this case the Court certainly doesn't minimize the actual act, or failure to
act, in terms of operation of the motor vehicle that ultimately led to the
death of Miss Haensel. But the Court can never put out of its mind the acts of this gentlemen in the hours and the minutes, the moments
leading up to this tragedy, and his actions in the hours that immediately
followed it.
I
don't know that the blood that was contaminated was contaminated as a result of
this man's urging. I don't know if that blood was contaminated at the hands of any
human being, including his fellow workers, his fellow doctors. I don't know
that. But I know, based on the testimony of Dr. Monroe Samuels, a man that I
think everyone in this room respects to the utmost, that I'm convinced that the
blood was contaminated.
Whether there was an obstruction of justice or not is for the
District Attorney to determine. But someone tampered with that
blood, I believe, in more likelihood than not.
Coupled
with the observations under oath of the emergency medical technicians, that
this is the only case that they can ever recall that upon bringing a subject,
more particularly, Mr. Nabors, into the emergency room at Charity Hospital, it is
the only time they were told to leave the room and leave his fellow workers
with them.
And lastly, the attitude of the defendant on the night of the
incident. Those are the four circumstances and facts, speaking very
broadly, that caused the Court the greatest concern in this case. Ultimately,
there are seven things that I'm concerned about that I've written down on my
five-by-eight cards.
First his comments at the bar. It
would be just as if I went out and announced to the world that I'm a judge. No
one can do anything to me. It would be as I said to any of you, including the
fellow officers of this court, the attorneys and/or their clients, or their
prospective clients, "You better never come to criminal court,
you'll be dealing with the wrong person. I dare you in any way challenge
me."
The
operation of the vehicle, of course, itself, the second point to consider. The
defendant must have been driving at a significant speed, based on the testimony
of one eye witness who testified in this courtroom. It must have been a
significant speed that propelled this car into the bayou.
The ultimate disregard for the stop sign at the intersection of Fredricks and the bayou.
And,
again I've already discussed the blood situation. The level of intoxication is
uncertain. Clearly, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Even
without his testimony here today, the Court was convinced of that. The true
level, we'll never know. Again, assuming that the blood was in some way
contaminated intentionally by human involvement and intervention, whether that was
at the urging of this man or not, I will never know. But, clearly, just a few
hours before, he was in this barroom saying that nothing, in effect, will ever
happen to him in his role as a doctor.
The
third major consideration for this Court is the disregard for the victim. This
is not your everyday vehicular homicide: not because of the victim's status in
this community, not because of Dr. Nabors' status or his profession, but the
cases that we normally deal with here, and please, I don't in any way mean to
minimize, nor do I believe I minimize, the loss of those lives in those cases,
are usually what we consider to be, what we think of as a typical automobile
accident, one car strikes another and someone is ejected from the vehicle and
dies upon impact: someone is crushed through the impact with the steering
column or the dashboard; something of that sort. But here we have disregard for
the victim. We must never forget that this lady did not die as a result of a
concussion or her chest being crushed. She died as a result of drowning. The defendant clearly, whether intoxicated or not, had the presence
of mind to open the sunroof. The photographs can be looked at. They're
part of the public record. There's no doubt the proximity of this man to the
victim inside the very, very small interior compartment, passenger compartment,
of this sports vehicle was extremely close. He needed only to snap her seat
belt to disengage it. Let us never forget that this car was not submerged in an
ocean or river, but in a body of water that at best, the attorney's agreed, was
ten to twelve feet in depth. No difficulty on the part of the defendant in
swimming to shore. It was a relatively short distance. Anyone who has not, need only go to the bayou at this point, where it intersects
at Wisner Boulevard with Fredricks, and you will
notice that the distance in terms of the width is not that great.
His
refusal to acknowledge the presence of the lady in the vehicle, even as lay
witnesses implored him to say if anyone is inside; his reluctance to admit her
presence in that vehicle even when on shore; his behavior with the police and
the EMT's. He certainly is under no obligation to answer questions that would
be considered to be custodial interrogation, but his comments about his concern
for his car and the obligation or the need, the uncertainty, on his part to
purchase a new one, what this would do to his career; even the minute detail
that he was concerned with his insurance rates and what happened in terms of
those business dealings, indicate to me a presence of mind that is rather
self-centered. His attitude with the EMT's who day-in and day-out, 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year for a minimum wage, or perhaps a little above it, do all
they can to bring people to the Emergency Rooms of these hospitals, including
Charity, so that ladies and gentlemen in the position of the defendant can seek
to save their lives. He was belligerent, he was uncooperative, he used vulgarities toward those ladies and gentlemen.
His
ultimate comment about the victim, of course ... none of which we've heard here
today, and I don't hold that against anybody.... words....and I don't know if
this is verbatim, but it's very close to it, I believe, "I don't know the
bitch, I just met her in a bar about an hour ago."
With
all respect to the doctors in this room today who have testified and to the
defendant, as to the decals on that vehicle, "Splash",
excuse me, but my sensibilities apparently are a little more delicate than
yours.
The
photograph, and no one doubt's it's the vehicle that was subsequently purchased
by the defendant (indicating), came to the Court's attention when it was
attached to a letter that's part of the public record that was sent by the
father of the victim after the trial, after the verdict was announced.
The
"Splash" decal, I take judicial notice, is not limited to the
tailgate, it's also on each of the doors. These vehicles, I come to be keenly
aware of them now, as I've seen them on the streets of this city. The
"Splash" decals, and you can see it right here, are also literally
right on the door handles. This vehicle, when it was photographed by Mr.
Haensel...according to his letter, he took the photograph ... was parked right
across the street from this courthouse, diagonal, in the 2800 block. I'll take
judicial notice of that, and any of you familiar with this area will agree, it's right across the street in front of the U-Haul outlet.
It's
none of these things alone that cause the Court concern,
it's the totality of all of them. It's the totality of all of them.
Ultimately,
it's the lack of concern for the lady's life as she remained pinned in that car
alive breathing her last. From one of the photographs that was
entered into evidence, it appears that she was unfamiliar with the seat belt.
Most of us, including myself, would immediately turn to our left or right,
depending if we were on the passenger seat or in the driver's seat, at, if you
will, waist level hoping to disengage a seat belt. The vehicle that was
involved in this case had the seat belts, the so-called automatic seat belts,
where you must go to your right or to your left at shoulder level and disengage
the seat belt.
The
presence of mind to open the sunroof, or moonroof,
whatever you wish to call it, had to involve....had to involve greater effort,
I believe, than would have been involved in merely in a split second
disengaging that seat belt.
Ultimately,
it is the lack of respect for the memory of this victim, as you later referred
to her as a "bitch", is that something that will remain with me
forever. She deserves far greater than that on her tombstone.
On
yesterday, or was it the evening before, when Mr. Reed presented to me his
presentencing memorandum, incorporated in that sentencing memorandum was
something that I had written on this final note card a few days before as I sat
down and began to collect my thoughts on this, having given it much thought
over the last sixty days. I wrote, in advance of receiving this memorandum, a
line that the defense council wrote. "To him to whom much is given, much is
expected."
It
is the sentence of this Court that the defendant serve
the maximum sentence of fifteen (15) years
in the custody of the Department of Corrections. It is without benefit of
parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, and a
fine of $ 2000.00 is imposed.
February
15, 1996 8:00 A.M.
New
Orleans, Louisiana
Case No:
375409
SENTENCE:
Defendant
appeared with council John W. Reed Esq.
Greg
Kennedy Esq. and Sharon Andrews Esq. present for the State.
Motion of
the State, Sandra R. Haensel was duly sworn and testified for the State. State rest.
Motion of
defense, Dr. Jack Kruse, Ms. Kimberly Meng, defendant Christopher Nabors were duly sworn and
testified for the defense. Defense Rest.
Defense and
State both argued and the matter was submitted, the defendant announcing
readiness for sentence. The court sentenced the defendant to fifteen years at
hard labor DOC, credit time served, cost waived, WITHOUT BENEFIT OF PAROLE,
PROBATION OR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE AND TO PAY A FINE OF $ 2000.00 Objections
reserved by defense.
The court
advised the defendant of his rights under article 930.8. Appeal status 3-1-96.
Place
defendant on jail list.