Guilt ad leads to charges - Corpus Christi DA files for homicide in Jan. 11 crash that killed two

Associated Press ^ | February 8, 2003 | Associated Press Staff

[MeekOneGOP]

Guilt ad leads to charges

02/08/2003

Associated Press

CORPUS CHRISTI - Prosecutors have filed criminal charges against a man who took out a full-page newspaper advertisement to confess his guilt in a deadly automobile accident.

In the ad in the Jan. 26 edition of the Corpus Christi Caller-Times , Regino Salinas wrote that he was talking on his cellphone when he drove through a red light, causing a Jan. 11 crash that killed two people.

"I allowed myself to be distracted, and I didn't give my driving all the attention it deserved," he wrote.

Mr. Salinas warned other drivers not to make the same mistake.

Jose Gonzalez, 44, and his father, Sotero Garza Gonzalez, 68, died in the crash. Jose Gonzalez's mother, Aurora Gonzalez, was injured.

Mr. Salinas' attorney, Lamar Clemons, said the ad was part of an out-of-court settlement the family had reached with his client and his employer, L.O. Construction Inc.

The Nueces County district attorney's office had rejected the case for lack of evidence, but the ad was more than enough to revive it, said District Attorney Carlos Valdez.

"My jaw just dropped when I was reading the Sunday paper and saw this ... which amounted to basically a confession," Mr. Valdez said.

A grand jury indicted Mr. Salinas on two counts of criminally negligent homicide on Thursday.

Criminally negligent homicide is a state jail felony with a maximum sentence of two years and a $10,000 fine.

"I don't think anybody even remotely considered that would happen" after the ad ran, Mr. Clemons told the newspaper. "I just think it's a travesty."

---

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/tsw/stories/020803dntexconfession.c6b9e.html

[MeekOneGOP]

My note to the suspect:

Click HERE!

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

"I don't think anybody even remotely considered that would happen" after the ad ran, Mr. Clemons told the newspaper.

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but even I could see this one coming.

Congratulations to the smart cookie who slipped this in as part of the out of court settlement.

Sometimes the opposition is even dumber then they look. This was one of those times. Justice was served.

[Jonx6]

If they charge cell phone users, they should charge everyone who crashes because they allowed them self to become distracted by something, kids, coffee, passengers, makeup, food, whatever. The rest they should charge because they are too dim to safely operate a vehicle and they try to anyway or are under the influence. The one hundredth of one percent that crash because of mechanical failure should be charged because it was still their responsibility to only drive a safe car vehicle on the roadway.

Task saturation is different for different people. Some people can work and use nav radios while working and using comm. radios while running a checklist while shooting a difficult approach and still chat. Some people are hunched forward toward their steering wheel straining all their intellect to drive a car safely and still cannot manage to take in, determine, sort, and use all the relative data from the input they are being bombarded with. These are the people who drive into the side of another car for what seems no reason at all.

Only people who crash intentionally or are guilty of gross negligence should be prosecuted. When we run out of evil people who need to be in jail, then I think we can take a closer look at the stupid.

[Mamzelle]

re: Only people who crash intentionally or are guilty of gross negligence should be prosecuted. When we run out of evil people who need to be in jail, then I think we can take a closer look at the stupid.))

Well put. Nice that the area of this story is so crime-free that the DA has the leisure to amuse himself with this attention-getter. Lawyers.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

You must have missed the part where he drove through a red light.

If he was being charged only for the cell phone usage I might agree, but he killed two people with reckless driving. Why it happened is irrelevant.

[Jonx6]

"You must have missed the part where he drove through a red light. You must have missed the part where he drove through a red light.

No, I did not. I have been onscene where people have died because someone ran a redlight. At that point, a ticket for running a red light means nothing to them, but they get one anyway.

"If he was being charged only for the cell phone usage I might agree,"

I using a cell phone is a crime. Then by all means give him a ticket.

"... but he killed two people with reckless driving."

Yeah that is sad. But, how many of the people who die on the roadway everyday died because of safe driving?

"Why it happened is irrelevant."

I can't even comment on this statement because it's absurd.

I feel you missed my point. I am not for unsafe driving. But, i feel that making a scapegoat out of one thing, cell phones, is not going to due much because it is feel good nonsense that doesn't address the real problems on the roadway.

[SwinneySwitch]

Your CLICK HERE should include Mr. Salinas' attorney, Lamar Clemons.