Chappaquiddick on Bayou St. John – New Orleans, La.

Michelle M. Haensel Memorial Web Site


Appeal Bond Hearing
New Orleans, Louisiana    
Section F: Judge Dennis J. Waldron presiding

At approximately 9:00 AM on December 5, 1995, an appeal bond hearing was conducted in the courtroom of Judge Dennis J. Waldron. Bond for Convicted Felon, Dr. Christopher, was revoked. Dr. Nabors was handcuffed and immediately remanded to Orleans Parish Prison.  Years after the hearing, the following ten page official transcript was obtained from the court:
                                                       Page 1

            APPEARANCES:

GREG KENNEDY             Assistant District Attorney

SHARON ANDREWS       Assistant District Attorney

JOHN REED                    Attorney for the Defendant

MICHAEL CARRO           Attorney for the Defendant

 

REPORTED BY:   Dionne S. Daigle

                                                Certified Court Reporter

                                                Section "F"

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                                                   Page 2

               1           THE COURT:
                    2                  Mr. Nabors, please. This matter comes before the Court
                    3       for determination as to the status of the defendant’s bond. The
                    4       attorneys for both sides conferred with the Court on Thursday
                    5       evening in chambers for some time following the verdict of guilty.
                    6       The State’s request was twofold. One, first, the State’s position
                    7       was that the defendant should be remanded to await sentencing, or.
                    8       in the alternative, to have some different type of bond set. The
                    9       Defense, of course, requested that the gentleman remain on bond but
                    10     that the Court allow the defendant the opportunity to make
                    11     arrangements for some bond if bond was to be set.

                    12                The Court discussed this with both sides and advised
                    13     both sides that they should return this morning. The Court did
                    14     indicate that if - - and the key word is “if -- if bond was to be
                    15     set, it would no longer be in the form of a recognizance bond or in
                    16     the form of a so-called personal surety bond. It would have to
                    17     either be a commercial surety or a property bond if bond was to be
                    18     set.

                19                Is there anything further that the State wishes to say
                    20     formally on the record or be heard on?
                    21     MR. KENNEDY:
                    22     Judge, not only would we like to just remind the Court
                    23     of the entire trial, but, also, the State would also like co point
                    24     out that during the entire trial process and even subsequently
                    25     after the incident itself, the defendant has continually shown what
                    26     can be described as a callous disregard for the incident by his
                    27     actions at the time, as well as continuing actions after the
                    28     incident. And we would just like to point that out as an example
                    29     that – it’s been brought to the attention of the Court the type of
                    30     vehicle which the defendant - - that the defendant subsequently
                    31     purchased. It’s a Ford pickup truck, brand name is Splash, and
                    32     it’s exhibited on the truck itself. And, your Honor, we point that

                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                                             Page 3

                 1       out to the Court merely to use it as an example to. For the Court
                    2       to, to be able to understand the defendant’s continuing actions
                    3       and, as I said before, the callous disregard. We feel that the
                    4       defendant has not shown any remorse over the entire incident and,
                    5       in fact, has shown quite the opposite effect of that, and it just
                    6       makes a mockery out of the incident as well as the criminal justice
                    7       system, and we would like the Court to take that into account and
                    8       take into account the entire incident itself and the defendant’s
                    9       actions after the car went into the bayou. Thank you.
                    10           THE COURT:
                    11                   Is there anything further by the State?
                    12           MR. KENNEDY:
                    13                   No, your Honor.
                    14           THE COURT:
                    15                   Anything by the Defense?
                    16           MR. CARBO:
                    17                      Yes, your Honor. Mr. Kennedy is misleading the Court
                    18      with respect to, to this vehicle. Mr. Nabors was able to purchase
                    19      a new vehicle. It is not a sports car. It is a four-cylinder
                    20      truck. It comes with that decal on it. That decal has been
                    21      removed by Mr. Nabors, and somehow the State has attempted to take
                    22      something that is on the truck, factory dealer authorized, that has
                    23      been removed by Mr. Nabors and somehow twist it and convert it into
                    24      a callous disregard in this matter. That is not the case. That is
                    25      grossly misleading, and Mr. Kennedy didn’t even tell you that that
                    26      was on the truck when it was bought, and it’s a dealer factory
                    27      decal. That has been removed, and by no stretch of the imagination
                    28      can that be considered callous disregard. Somehow the State
                    29      apparently has been checking up on Mr. Nabors to find those types
                    30      of things but with a full explanation, I think, that you can see
                    31     that it doesn’t pertain to Mr. Nabors’ state of mind, motive, lack
                    32     of remorse, or any of that. And I think that that is highly

           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                             Page 4

               1       improper to give half the facto when Mr. Kennedy can know that,
                    2       because that’s a common truck.
                    3            MR. KENNEDY:
                    4                  Judge, if I could
                    5            MR. CARBO:
                    6                  In addition
                    7            MR. KENNEDY:
                    8                  I’m sorry.
                    9            THE COURT:
                    10                Please.
                    11           MR. CAPBO:
                    12                In addition, your Honor, with respect to the factors
                    13       for bond. Mr. Kennedy has not discussed those. Bond pending
                    14       sentencing is to ensure Mr. Nabors’ appearance at sentencing.
                    15       Mr. Nabors is currently engaged in a residency program where he
                    16       treats patients. This is part of his schooling, part of his
                    17       preparation for licensure. He has finished a neurosurgery block.
                    18       He is currently in an anesthesiology block for the next few months
                    19       until January, and, after that, he takes a general medicine,
                    20       including emergency room block, where he assists people with his
                    21       medical skills.
                    22                He has been in the area for many years pursuing not
                    23       only his Ph.D. in anatomy but his medical school program. and,
                    24       consequently, if Mr. Nabors were remanded to jail, he would not be
                    25       able to assist people, as he is attempting to do currently. This
                    26       is, again, part of his medical training but it shows that he is
                    27       attempting to move on with his life and to do what he can with
                    28       respect to the skills that he is being taught. Consequently,
                    29       remanding to custody is not indicated here.
                    30       Mr. Nabors has been, indeed, on bond throughout these
                    31      proceedings, and he is tied to the community not only because he
                              32      lives here but also because he has a program that ties him here.

           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                     Page 5

                    1       It he were to leave the jurisdiction, he would not only jeopardize
                    2       obviously his liberty with respect to this matter but also his
                    3       whole professional career that may be ahead of him.
                    4            THE COURT:
                    5                    Anything further by the State?
                    6            MR. KENNEDY:
                    7                    Yes, your Honor. As to the truck itself, your Honor,
                    8       we never contended that the defendant put the decal on the truck.
                    9       we’re just merely trying to point chat out that the defendant
                    10     shouldn’t have bought that truck in the first place, especially
                    11     within several weeks after this incident itself. And that - -
                    12     regardless of whether he removed it or not, that’s not the point.
                    13     The point is, he should have never bought it, because it does show
                    14     a callous disregard for the victim in this case and for the
                    15     incident as well.
                    16     Regarding Mr. Nabors’ medical background and everything
                    17     else. Judge, the same argument can be made for an auto mechanic.
                    18     Regardless of what somebody does for a living, their training, or
                    19     anything else, for that matter, should not be taken into account
                    20     here. Whether you’re a doctor, an auto mechanic, the situation is
                    21     still the same, and the fact remains the defendant has yet to spend
                    22     a day in jail over this entire incident, and the fact also remains
                    23     that Shelly Haensel was still dead and at the hands of the
                    24     defendant.
                    25     This is a callous crime that requires mandatory jail
                    26     time, and that mandatory jail time should be carried out. And this
                    27     appeal could go on for years. When is it the point where the
                    28     defendant is finally going to start paying society for his actions?
                    29     And he has yet to do so and continuously flaunts it in the face of
                    30     the criminal justice system by buying this type of truck. Whether
                    31     he removed the decal or not, he should have never bought it in the
            32     first place.

           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                     Page 6

                    1                  MR. REED:
                    2                          Your Honor, could I be heard on that?
                    3                  THE COURT:
                    4                          You may be heard.
                    5                  MR. REED:
                    6                           Your Honor, the determinative point on the entitlement
                    7       to bond hereafter in these proceedings is a question of the five-
                    8       year sentence. That is available to the Court, and if a sentence
                    9       of greater than five years is imposed, then the defendant would
                    10     have no right to bond . I think it is presumptuous at this point
                    11.    for any of us to know what the Court’s sentence would be, and I
                    12     would suspect that is the case also for the Court. I doubt very
                    13     much if the Court has been able to determine what his sentence will
                    14     be in this matter not having heard at least half of what the
                    15     sentencing factors are and, that is, those that relate to the
                    16     defendant and the defendant’s personal circumstances, which will
                    17     have to be taken into account, and, that is, of course, the purpose
                    18     of the presentence investigation and the purpose for whatever we
                    19     may further submit to the Court.
                    20     As long as that is the case and the range of
                    21     sentencings are open in the Court’s mind, I think it would be
                    22     unjust to deny bond at this time when the prospect remains that a
                    23     sentence of five years or less may be imposed. And as to when
                    24     Mr. Nabors does or does not pay what he owes to society for what
                    25     happened, that is dependent, as the Court realizes, on the
                    26     conviction being sustained by your Honor on post-trial motions and
                    27     by subsequent courts in the event there are irregularities in this
                    28     proceeding, as there may be, and the day will come in the days to
                    29     come. But I think it’s presumptuous, at this point, to assume that
                    30     the Court would give a sentence greater than five years and to
                    31     incarcerate the defendant as a result. Even if it were more than
                    32     five years, the Court would have discretion to grant bond, but as

           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                             Page 7

                    1      long as wider five years is a fair consideration in the case. which
                    2       it has to be in the absence -- given the defendant’s history and
                    3       absence of the Court’s further knowledge, then I think it would
                    4       be unjust to deny bond at this stage.
                    5                  THE COURT:
                    6                          Thank you. nothing further?
                    7                  MR. KENNEDY:
                    8                           No, your Honor.
                    9                  THE COURT:
                    10                         Let the defendant come forward, please. The Court has
                    12.     heard the entire case, of course. The jury has rendered its
                    12      verdict in this case. The sentencing range is two to fifteen
                    13      years. As such, the Court is afforded discretion of granting bond
                    14      or denying bond pending formal sentencing in the case.
                    15      This case has caused the Court great concern. I have
                    16      not been able to place this out of my mind since Thursday
                    17      afternoon. I’ve given this great weight, the facts that -- and
                    18      what facts are those? The facts that I’ve heard as presented
                    19      throughout the trial. The crime itself, in my estimation, in my
                    20      evaluation of the Jury’s verdict, I believe the Jury had every
                    21      right to return the verdict that they returned. There certainly
                    22      was the crime of vehicular homicide committed. That, of course
                    23      concerns the Court greatly. What concerns the Court as well, and
                    24      perhaps even more, are the actions and evidence of those actions
                    25      that the Jury heard of the defendant in the hours leading up to
                    26      this crime and then the hour or so after the crime. I have
                    27      struggled in my mind, as I always hope I give and try to give, the
                    28      full benefit, the full benefit of the doubt co the defendant
                    29      throughout the proceedings, including up until this very moment.
                    30      I have been very frustrated though in my attempts to conjure up in
                    31      my mind any possible explanation, any possible mitigation that
                    32      could explain away. Could explain away his actions and the evidence

                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                             Page 8

                    1        of his actions, as the Jury heard, in roughly the hour or so
                    2        leading up to the crime and the hour or so after the crime. I have
                    3        been unable, unable to comprehend in any way how those actions can
                    4        be explained away. How a man who has worked so hard, and I have no
                    5        reason to doubt that he has to be a doctor, could tell someone,
                    6        “You better never come to Charity Hospital.” The implication that
                    7        you would throw the Hippocratic Oath aside, cast it to the wind.
                    8        I know there are those who would say that’s just “barroom talk”.
                    9        That’s just talk from someone who’s had a drink or two, or three,
                    10      or four, or is under the influence of alcohol, intoxicated or
                    11      otherwise. How one could do that as a doctor, I don’t know. I
                    12      personally hold doctors on a pedestal. I view a doctor as a person
                    13      who is to be given the utmost respect. He or she is a person sworn
                    14      to respect the dignity of life and to do all humanly possible to
                    15      enhance life, to protect life, to preserve life.
                    16                  The actions and the evidence of the actions of the
                    17      defendant, of course, the hour or so after the offense speak even
                    18      louder. Perhaps, the most striking thing is something I never
                    19      thought about -- I examined the photographs that have been placed
                    20      into evidence, that the Jury has seen -- was the comment I
                    21      believe, of Ms. Andrews during the closing argument that in all
                    22      likelihood the defendant even had to step on the victim, who we
                    23      know was alive when the vehicle struck the water, just as this
                    24      defendant was, to have the time to open the sunroof of this car, to
                    25      remove himself, without even attempting to in any way help this
                    26      lady and never to reveal her presence in the vehicle until some
                    27      time after he reached the bank of Bayou St. John.
                    28                    By the way, we all think of this as a body of water, a
                    29      bayou, and perhaps it conjures up in our mind a body of water that
                    30      is deep, that is wide. Anybody who has traversed that water or
                    31      even the roadways that adjoin it knows that it’s not anything of
                    32      that sort. In terms of its depth, it’s really nothing more than a

                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                             Page 9

                     1       swimming pool, with all respect to its eight to ten feet deep.
                    2       The comments made additionally in reference to who the lady
                    3       was, her name, the profanity that’s been alleged to have been
                    4       uttered by this gentleman, this man, in terms of the inquiry, the
                    5       officers in desperation trying to find out if anyone was in this
                    6       vehicle who, if anyone, remained in the vehicle, who had been in
                    7       the vehicle, the conflicting answers that the man gave, the cries
                    8       that were made as the man swam to shore and people came to his aid,
                    9       imploring that he tell them was anyone in the water. I simply --
                    10     I’m overwhelmed by it. I can’t begin to picture in my mind anyone,
                    11     much less a doctor, much less a doctor, having such total and
                    12     wanton disregard for the life of another. His concerns about his
                    13     automobile, his job, his insurance rates, that’s perhaps a horrible
                    14     reflection on what a lot of our society is about today,
                    15     materialism.
                    16                   I have thought long and hard about this and I am going
                    17     to be quite honest, as I always am or try to be. I truly
                    18     don’t believe this man is deserving of an appeal bond or a bond
                    19     pending sentence at this time. As to what his ultimate sentence
                    20     will be, the numbers in my mind have gone from the minimum to the
                    21     maximum and everything in between. Mr. Reed, you are right in one
                    22     thing. I have not yet decided what to do. Everyone in this room
                    23     has my word that. I will wait until I have heard from everyone that
                    24     wishes to be heard in this matter.
                    25                  This defendant had every right not to take the witness stand
                    26     and in no way will he ever be punished for that. Why do I say
                    27     that? Because I want to at least say that not one witness, none of
                    28     the police officers, none of the lay witnesses on the bank of Bayou
                    29     St. John, none of the emergency medical technicians or any of this
                    30     gentleman’s contemporaries, his fellow workers at Charity Hospital,
                    31     not one of them offered one bit of evidence that this man ever
                    32     expressed in any way, directly or indirectly, remorse for the

                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                             Page 10

     1       victim. Not even a word as to is she alive, not even a word as to
     2       did she make it, not even a word did they find her, not even a
     3       simple I’m sorry. The defendant is remanded.
     4
     5                                                                     CERTIFICATE
     6                  I, Dionne S. Daigle, certify that the above proceedings were
     7        recorded in shorthand by me and were transcribed under my direct
     8        supervision, and are true and correct to the best of my ability and
     9        understanding.
     10                                                                   _______/s/______
     11                                                                   DIONNE S. DAIGLE

                    12                                                                   Certified Court Reporter
                    13                                                                   Section “F”
                    14
                    15
                    16
                    17
                    18
                    19
                    20 New Orleans, Louisiana
                    21 December 6, 1995
                    22

 

Home     Return to Case History     Return to Top