Murder, I Wrote

Because of the distraction that is wireless in Room 140, I was reading the news about the Metrolink derailment in Glendale, CA. The relevant part of what took place is this:

At least 10 people were killed and nearly 200 injured on Wednesday when two Los Angeles commuter trains collided after one struck an automobile left on the tracks in what authorities called an aborted suicide attempt by a "deranged" man.

Police and fire officials said the man slashed his wrists and stabbed himself in the chest shortly before parking his Jeep Cherokee on the tracks. But he jumped clear at the last moment and watched as the two high-speed trains smashed together and derailed in a fiery wreck.

The man was identified by police as Juan Manuel Alvarez, 25. He was found wandering the scene after the predawn accident, muttering: "I'm sorry, I'm sorry," according to a local television report. Police said the man, who was uninjured in the crash, was arrested and would be charged with at least 10 counts of murder. (From REUTERS, via Yahoo, also see this AP/Yahoo Video)

A friend of mine actually remembered a discussion I had with him a while back and inquired about this case. At the time I did not know that they planned to file murder charges. I'm no expert on CA law, but from whatever little I remember from Crim Law, I think the charges are warranted. (My initial answer was that the DA might have some problems, and while they still might, I explain below why those are relatively minor).

There is no question of cause here. But for Alvarez parking the car on the tracks, the 10 would not have died. I don't see any issues with respect to proximate cause. There were no intervening acts and the derailment was not unforeseeable. Compare these to a negligent ambulance driver carrying a shooting victim to the hospital but on the way crashing into a tree and killing the victim or a two police helicopters crashing while following a high speed pursuit. In the first the original shooter is not guilty of murder and in the second the pursued is likewise not guilty of murder (People v. Acosta, Cal. Ct. App. 1991).

The only challenge I can see is against the requirement of "malice aforethought" for murder. This is a term of art and especially in Cal it is not taken to mean that you actually intended to kill. (Sidenote: in Ancient Athens, the element of intent always referred to with respect to act and not outcome, i.e. whether you intended to punch someone instead of intending to kill them.) Cal. Pen. C. Sec. 188 defines this element:

"[M]alice may be express or implied. It is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an ABANDONED AND MALIGNANT HEART."

The slight problem that I foresee for the DA is proving the malignant part. Abandoned is easy enough, he tried to kill himself. But malignant might take some convincing. He apologized profusely once he saw the result. This may cast some doubt. Nevertheless, he intended to crash a train. That in and of itself can show a malignant heart. And frankly when 10 people died, I don't see a jury or any state judge who stands for reelection once ever eon to give him any leeway.

This is a relatively long post, but I thought I'd bring together the three things I remember from Crim...which really was not all that bad.