I am not going to dispute whether Chante Mallard, the woman sentenced June 27, 2003 to 50 years in prison for hitting a homeless man while driving home one night in October 2001 under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and leaving him to die in the windshield, deserved prison time.
The fact she deserves to go to prison came from Mallard herself during the punishment phase of her trial.
"I feel like I do need to be punished," Mallard told jurors, who also pleaded guilty earlier to tampering with evidence when she had the body dumped in a park with the help of a former boyfriend and his cousin, according to a front-page article in the June 27, 2003 article of The Dallas Morning News.
To quote a priest I had back in high school who taught a senior level religion course, "You do the crime, you do the time."
When it comes to murder, I have always believed the person convicted (provided he or she committed the crime) should either spend the rest of their lives in prison or get the next best thing, death.
I felt a little different though in the case of Chante Mallard. Yes, she committed a heinous crime. Did she deserve life in prison, which was one option the jury could have chosen? No.
Does she deserve to go to prison? Yes. But for 50 years? I am not so sure being on a jury that I would have handed down such a sentence.
"Now the jury's given her no chance,” defense attorney Jeffrey Kearney said. “The sentence from a legal standpoint is 10 years less than life. I certainly don't feel any victory."
Why do I feel this way? It stems from Mallard’s tearful testimony that was televised on the 5:00 news during the punishment phase of her trial.
I have seen Oscar winning performances like this before from convicts, who in a final attempt by his or her defense attorneys, could hopefully sway the jury from giving their client life in prison or the death penalty.
Mallard's actions on the stand were not the work of someone desperate to stay out of prison. Her words of sorrow to the family of Gregory Biggs were one of remorse as well as the pain and embarrassment she had brought upon her own family.
"I've ruined the lives of other people," she said. "I have put people through pain. I'm sorry."
Although Mallard's defense attorneys used one expert to prove that being under the influence of drugs and alcohol causes one to be unable to think straight, hence the reason she didn’t call for help that October night, Mallard admitted she was the one at fault.
Alcohol and ecstasy weren't to blame.
Of course, the ball rolls both ways.
Lead prosecutor Richard Alpert said in the DMN he doesn't doubt Mallard's remorse, but it is more likely she feels remorse for the consequences of her actions.
There is one thing neither the defense, the prosecutors, or the press for that matter brought up after I read a couple news stories about the case.
All this could have been avoided if Mallard had opted to stay at a friend's house after a night of partying, drinking, and taking drugs. She shouldn’t have been doing it in the first place.
If Mallard had done what she should have done that fateful October night after hitting Biggs, which was to call the police, would she still have gone to jail to be charged with not just involuntary manslaughter but driving under the influence of alcohol and controlled substances? Yes.
Would her jail time have been less than what she had received now? Yes. Would Gregory Biggs still be alive today had she gotten help? Yes. Would Mallard's former boyfriend, Clete Jackson and a cousin who helped her dispose of the body be sitting in prison today? No.
Would a jury of Mallard's peers perhaps accept her remorseful pleas and be far more lenient towards her when it came to sentencing simply because she did, in fact, call 911 immediately after the accident and tried to save Biggs' life? More than likely.
Mallard instead chose to go the other route. As a result, the jury saw it otherwise.
"Some crimes are just so outrageous that giving someone a chance to rehabilitate is just not going to occur to a jury," Alpert said according to the article on CNN’s website.
Chante Mallard is exactly as Jeff Kearney described her.
"A person who had a whole lot of good in her but did something really horrible," Kearney said. "The jury probably recognized it, but her conduct...was so compelling to the jury they just couldn't get over it."
There is a phrase I have heard or have been told repeatedly when coming to terms with the consequences of one's actions. And it's not just a phrase, but a lesson. It's called "live and learn."
In some cases, one learns the hard way.
Chante Mallard realized too late the consequences of what her actions wrought and as a result, she learned the hard way.
©7/16/03
The fact she deserves to go to prison came from Mallard herself during the punishment phase of her trial.
"I feel like I do need to be punished," Mallard told jurors, who also pleaded guilty earlier to tampering with evidence when she had the body dumped in a park with the help of a former boyfriend and his cousin, according to a front-page article in the June 27, 2003 article of The Dallas Morning News.
To quote a priest I had back in high school who taught a senior level religion course, "You do the crime, you do the time."
When it comes to murder, I have always believed the person convicted (provided he or she committed the crime) should either spend the rest of their lives in prison or get the next best thing, death.
I felt a little different though in the case of Chante Mallard. Yes, she committed a heinous crime. Did she deserve life in prison, which was one option the jury could have chosen? No.
Does she deserve to go to prison? Yes. But for 50 years? I am not so sure being on a jury that I would have handed down such a sentence.
If I were on that jury, I probably would have given her 25 years. Ok. An even 30. According to an article off CNN's website, under Texas law, a person must serve half their prison time before they can be eligible for parole. Giving her 25 years in prison, Mallard would have become eligible for parole in 12 or 13 years instead of 25 or 30.And it would have given what the defense was hoping for Mallard; a chance to still make a life for herself.
"Now the jury's given her no chance,” defense attorney Jeffrey Kearney said. “The sentence from a legal standpoint is 10 years less than life. I certainly don't feel any victory."
Why do I feel this way? It stems from Mallard’s tearful testimony that was televised on the 5:00 news during the punishment phase of her trial.
I have seen Oscar winning performances like this before from convicts, who in a final attempt by his or her defense attorneys, could hopefully sway the jury from giving their client life in prison or the death penalty.
Mallard's actions on the stand were not the work of someone desperate to stay out of prison. Her words of sorrow to the family of Gregory Biggs were one of remorse as well as the pain and embarrassment she had brought upon her own family.
"I've ruined the lives of other people," she said. "I have put people through pain. I'm sorry."
Although Mallard's defense attorneys used one expert to prove that being under the influence of drugs and alcohol causes one to be unable to think straight, hence the reason she didn’t call for help that October night, Mallard admitted she was the one at fault.
Alcohol and ecstasy weren't to blame.
Of course, the ball rolls both ways.
Lead prosecutor Richard Alpert said in the DMN he doesn't doubt Mallard's remorse, but it is more likely she feels remorse for the consequences of her actions.
There is one thing neither the defense, the prosecutors, or the press for that matter brought up after I read a couple news stories about the case.
All this could have been avoided if Mallard had opted to stay at a friend's house after a night of partying, drinking, and taking drugs. She shouldn’t have been doing it in the first place.
If Mallard had done what she should have done that fateful October night after hitting Biggs, which was to call the police, would she still have gone to jail to be charged with not just involuntary manslaughter but driving under the influence of alcohol and controlled substances? Yes.
Would her jail time have been less than what she had received now? Yes. Would Gregory Biggs still be alive today had she gotten help? Yes. Would Mallard's former boyfriend, Clete Jackson and a cousin who helped her dispose of the body be sitting in prison today? No.
Would a jury of Mallard's peers perhaps accept her remorseful pleas and be far more lenient towards her when it came to sentencing simply because she did, in fact, call 911 immediately after the accident and tried to save Biggs' life? More than likely.
Mallard instead chose to go the other route. As a result, the jury saw it otherwise.
"Some crimes are just so outrageous that giving someone a chance to rehabilitate is just not going to occur to a jury," Alpert said according to the article on CNN’s website.
Chante Mallard is exactly as Jeff Kearney described her.
"A person who had a whole lot of good in her but did something really horrible," Kearney said. "The jury probably recognized it, but her conduct...was so compelling to the jury they just couldn't get over it."
There is a phrase I have heard or have been told repeatedly when coming to terms with the consequences of one's actions. And it's not just a phrase, but a lesson. It's called "live and learn."
In some cases, one learns the hard way.
Chante Mallard realized too late the consequences of what her actions wrought and as a result, she learned the hard way.
©7/16/03
