Jury decision seen as vulnerable

BY ANDREW STRICKLER | Newsday Staff Writer

October 18, 2006

Martin Heidgen faces 25 years to life after being convicted of murder in the drunken-driving crash that killed Katy Flynn and Stanley Rabinowitz. (Newsday / Dick Yarwood / October 17, 2006)

Citing trial irregularities, a last-minute decision to isolate the jury, and murder charges that pushed the envelope for drunken driving cases, several prominent local defense attorneys said yesterday they believed Martin Heidgen's murder conviction had a strong chance of being reduced on appeal.

Defense attorney Raymond Perini of Hauppauge said the central issue likely would be the appropriateness of the murder charges themselves. "To shoot someone and leave them to bleed to death, that's depraved indifference," he said. "To get drunk and cause an accident, it's manslaughter, pure and simple."

Perini said an appeals panel would have to consider the overwhelming precedent of charging drivers who kill others while drunk with manslaughter or lesser charges. "As horrible as this accident was, for all the lives it destroyed, I don't see any facts in this case that make it any different than hundreds of other DUI fatalities," Perini said.

Heidgen's lawyer, Stephen LaMagna of Garden City, said he believed the verdict likely would be reduced to manslaughter upon appeal and cited a recent state appeals court decision which showed that a depraved indifference murder charge should only apply to rare cases where it is clear the defendant did not care whether his victim lived or died.

LaMagna said testimony that Heidgen slowed down in the seconds before the crash showed he tried to avoid the collision. He also said testimony about Heidgen's blood-alcohol content should not have been admitted after state police acknowledged making mistakes in handling that evidence.

Bruce Barket, a former Nassau prosecutor and defense attorney in Garden City, said Judge Alan Honorof's decision to allow jurors to view the crushed remains of the two vehicles unfairly brought a "hysterical atmosphere" into the courtroom that could support a future reduction of charges.

Barket also said the mid-trial admission of DNA evidence "sandbagged" the defense by giving it little time to prepare.

Defense attorney John LoTurco of Huntington believes an appeal attorney also could question Honorof's surprise decision to isolate the jury because it could have put "a tremendous psychological weight" on some jurors. "Did the minority feel like they were being punished by the judge by not going along with the majority?" he said. "That will be a key appellate issue."

Staff writers Ann Givens and Bart Jones contributed to this story.

E-mail

Reprint

Related links

Popular stories

Hampton Roads Facts, Data and Statistics

Blogs