Bishop in fatal Palermo crash pleads guilty, prosecutors to ask for 20 year sentence

Former Episcopal bishop Heather Elizabeth Cook pleaded guilty Tuesday to four counts related to the December drunken-driving death of bicyclist Thomas Palermo in North Baltimore.

She pleaded guilty to one count of automobile manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years; leaving the scene of a fatal accident, which also carries a maximum penalty of 10 years; and driving while under the influence and texting while driving, which both bring a maximum penalty of one year.

I can't say I'm too surprised, since in cases like these, it's my experience that the accused usually pleas, but the sentence prosecutors are seeking would be the longest I've ever heard of in the region. 

Prosecutors said they would ask for a sentence of 20 years, with all but 10 years suspended, to be followed by five years' probation. Judge Timothy Doory scheduled sentencing for Oct. 27. He said he would not sentence Cook to any more time than prosecutors are seeking but could give her less.

Still local bike advocates don't think it's enough.

Bicycle advocates Liz Cornish of Bikemore and Nate Evans of Bike Maryland attended the hearing and said they did not believe the sentence prosecutors are seeking is sufficient. Tougher penalties would deter others from committing similar crimes and contribute to a greater awareness of the "immense responsibility that comes with operating a motor vehicle," Cornish said.

Comments

[Jeffb]

I'd be okay with lighter sentencing if, in return, we'd have tougher laws and more enforcement of DUI and distracted driving in general.

What If Bishop Cook had been giving a more severe penalty the first time she was caught?

Driving should be viewed as a privilege and responsibility not as a right. One that can and is permanently revoked at the first sign of irresponsible behavior.

[Greenbelt]

She should lose her driving privilege for life, regardless of the length of the jail term.

[Jon]

Aren't there studies that show that longer penalties don't do much as a deterrent - it's all about likelihood of getting caught. For example, if you KNEW every time you drove drunk, you'd get caught and pay $100, almost no one would do it. But if it's enforced as it is now, but the penalty was 100 years in jail, it probably wouldn't change anyone's behavior.

I'd love to see her lose her license for some extended period.

[T]

I don't know the sentencing guidelines well enough, but I wonder if these sentences are deemed as concurrent-eligible or are mandated consecutive? I think they should be the latter. Either way, she'll get diminution credits good behavior, education, etc, thereby reducing the actual time served by 40%. She'll maybe serve 6 years.

It's sad.

The problem with tougher DUI laws is the spectrum of cases presented. Maryland counts from .04 upward as eligible, but the per se limit is .08 because that's where they actually point to clinical data of impairment. And frankly, someone driving with her levels of intoxication is a lot different than someone who had two beers. I'm not justifying either, but I'm not also not advocating for a broad crackdown.

Leaving the scene of the accident is where it's just so beyond horrible. She knew she was wrong and worried more about saving her own backside than she did about a fellow human.