Bishop Heather Cook, who hit and killed cyclist Thomas Palermo while she was driving drunk and texting, was sentenced to serve 7 years in prison. Thomas Palermo, a 41-year-old software engineer and father of two young children, as hit from behind by Cook in the Roland Park area of Maryland.
Cook, 59, pleaded guilty last month to automobile manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident and other violations.
The Palermo family, who lived in the Anneslie neighborhood of Towson, spent the morning of Dec. 27 hiking at Gunpowder Falls. Thomas Palermo stopped to help a inexperienced kayaker who was having trouble, his wife, Rachel Rock Palermo, recalled in a letter to the court.
Later, he went out for a bike ride. A software engineer at Johns Hopkins Hospital, he had a side business building bike frames.
He was cycling down Roland Avenue in Roland Park when Cook veered into the bike lane, killing him almost instantly.
Her car was badly damaged, but Cook drove on.
The state recommended a 20 year sentence with 10 of those years suspended.
The only similar Maryland sentence I can think of (My database only looks at Montgomery and PG Counties) is Quinzy Fraser, who was sentenced to just 10 years, but only two were suspended. So her sentence was longer, but her time to serve is shorter. On the one hand, she committed the added offense of texting while driving, but on the other, she did return to the crash site on her own. Still, I think her time to serve should have been more similar to, if not longer than Fraser's, but I wasn't in either courtroom, so what do I know.
It's a bit of a stretch to say she returned to the crash site on her own. My understanding is that she returned after she realized she had been identified and followed. Returning was an act of resignation, not remorse.
Posted by: contrarian | October 30, 2015 at 01:17 PM
She actually went back twice, according to reports. The first time she drove by, which is when cyclists in the area took to following her.
Posted by: Kolo Jezdec | October 30, 2015 at 01:54 PM
This is clearly a marker for futures sentences. If a cyclist in a bike lane in broad daylight can be hit by a drunk, texting driver who flees the scene, and the punishment is 7 years, then that is the absolute maximum in Maryland. Most cases won't have facts so clear-cut, so we can expect most punishments to be far lighter.
Posted by: Crickey7 | October 30, 2015 at 02:06 PM
Yeah, the only way a sentence gets much larger is if someone can prove intent, like in the move "The Judge." And that would be difficult indeed.
Posted by: washcycle | October 30, 2015 at 02:36 PM
OTOH: Quinzy had two prior DUIs, including (IIRC) a collision, while Cook had one DUI. You could also see this as glass-half-full: at least we got a conviction and sentencing.
Posted by: SJE | October 30, 2015 at 04:12 PM
It's just reassuring that there were consequences at all. New York advocates are going through hell just trying to get any penalties attached to the most blatant and egregious traffic crimes against cyclists and pedestrians, and it's like society has turned upside down to blame the victims and exonerate the perpetrators. It makes me fear for the basics of our social contract, but we are at least a bit more progressive in this region.
Posted by: Will | October 30, 2015 at 04:40 PM
I'm not the biggest fan of long prison sentences for otherwise productive members of society. I highly doubt the length of the sentence has any impact on preventing future crimes like this, so I'd be happy with a year or two, but only if you also revoked her driver's license for a LONG time (10+ years). Also, maybe make her pay for improvements to the road to better protect cyclists (curbs, in this instance). Also, maybe make her give talks about the carnage that results from drinking + driving and texting + driving.
Posted by: Uptowner | October 30, 2015 at 05:41 PM
Let's not forget that drunk and otherwise impaired drivers kill thousands of other occupants of motor vehicles every year. Few of them receive much in the way of serious consequences. Until all such killings are taken seriously, cyclists and pedestrians have little hope of seeing meaningful punishments.
I agree with @Uptowner that long sentences likely do little to deter others from drinking and driving. However, serious consequences for the first offense, regardless of whether injuries or deaths are involved, might have an effect on preventing future events.
Posted by: Kolo Jezdec | October 30, 2015 at 07:59 PM
More terrible news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/two-montgomery-cyclists-killed-while-on-their-tandem-bike/2015/10/31/2e004b40-8034-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html
I knew John and Lynne from the Potomac Pedalers Club and also from bike advocacy. They were very nice people and very experienced cyclists.
Posted by: Nancy | November 01, 2015 at 09:45 AM
Kolo: Australia is a country notorious for alcohol consumption. But with more vigorous DUI laws, and lower limits, they changed the culture of DUI.
Posted by: SJE | November 01, 2015 at 02:10 PM
The suspended part is bs, but I think the total sentence may be close to the sentencing guidelines the judges follow:
http://www.msccsp.org/files/guidelines/offensetable.pdf
By the way, bigamy carries a max term sentence guideline higher than manslaughter by motor vehicle while under the influence.
Maryland's sentencing guidelines all sorts of wack. Good luck ever changing them though.
Posted by: T | November 01, 2015 at 06:00 PM
I should add that with eligible dimunition credits, she will likely only serve 2-3 years or so.
http://dls.state.md.us/data/polanasubare/polanasubare_coucrijusncivmat/Dimunition-Credits.pdf
Good behavior is up to 10 days per month, work is up to 5 days per month, and education is up to 5 days per month.
Posted by: T | November 01, 2015 at 06:06 PM
No opinion on the length of the sentence, but I'm glad she got something fairly substantial.
Regarding deterrence, this sort of thing isn't check fraud or armed robbery. It's the action of an intoxicated drug addict whose judgment is, ipso facto, chronically and acutely impaired. Not the optimal calculator of utility, in my view.
Posted by: Smedley Burkhart | November 02, 2015 at 09:23 AM
Indeed, a suit against the diocese that ignored her drinking problem might be a better deterrent.
Posted by: Crickey7 | November 02, 2015 at 09:35 AM
I would agree that sending people to prison for a long time in these kinds of cases is probably non-productive. But the larger problem is that there have been numerous cases recently of cyclists killed by repeat offenders. So, clearly not enough is being done to keep known drunk drivers off the road - and as a result people are dying.
I think the diocese is getting more anger directed at it then deserved and Maryland is getting far less than they've earned.
Posted by: washcycle | November 02, 2015 at 11:51 AM
If we don't want to see impaired drivers killing people we can choose to no longer accept any drinking and driving.
The restaurant and entertainment industries would have an issue with that.
And then we still face the growing menace of distracted driving.
Maybe time to hang the bike up :(
Posted by: jeffb | November 02, 2015 at 12:10 PM
Mandatory ignition interlock devices for a year for "first-time" offenders (who in all likelihood have already driven while drunk over 100 times before being caught) would be a step in the right direction.
Posted by: John Henry Holliday | November 02, 2015 at 01:19 PM
I'm not really sure why ignition interlock isn't just mandatory in all cars to begin with similar to the new backup camera requirements, but I do think the sentence was too lenient unless they have some way of guaranteeing she does not get behind the wheel again.
The news stories indicated the first time she drove plastered, her car was pretty banged up. Yet she got behind the wheel while drunk again, during the middle of the day, in a congested area? I mean, she may have an addiction and I hope she receives treatment, but if the opportunity to be behind a wheel exists, then she is a danger to everyone out there.
Posted by: T | November 02, 2015 at 02:18 PM
The absence of deterrence is not an argument for leniency. I think the causes of public safety and justice would be best served in such cases by a lifetime loss of the privilege of driving.
Posted by: Smedley Burkhart | November 02, 2015 at 04:25 PM
Smedley, I think something along those lines makes sense. An alternative might be a long suspension of driving privilege followed by a period when a service the perp hires has to certify that they are safe to drive. The service would be criminally & civilly liable for any failures.
With so many other options for transportation, it would be a fine option. And it might create an available niche market for robot cars.
Posted by: washcycle | November 03, 2015 at 08:36 AM
I like your last point. I used to scoff at the idea of American individualists riding around in autonomous vehicles, but so many trends seem to be converging on it that I have changed my mind.
Posted by: Smedley Burkhart | November 03, 2015 at 09:55 AM
I'm skeptical that they will work the way the boosters say they will - at least in my lifetime - but I'm rooting for them because if they do, they'll save a lot of lives.
Posted by: washcycle | November 03, 2015 at 10:27 AM
Instead of ignition interlock, just ban them from driving for a chunk of time, or forever.
Posted by: SJE | November 03, 2015 at 11:37 AM
SJE: I prefer something that's somewhat self-enforcing (I assume there are ways to defeat ignition interlock systems). How many people do you think are driving around with suspended/revoked licenses? How often have you had to produce your license while driving?
Posted by: John Henry Holliday | November 03, 2015 at 01:37 PM