The long, sad saga of Robert Orabuena and Joseph Judnick took
another twist last week. A jury returned a guilty verdict for
Orabuena on a charge of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter
resulting from the tragic July 4 accident that killed Judnick,
48.
The same jury found Orabuena not guilty of a misdemeanor
reckless driving charge. A judge earlier tossed a felony charge
brought by the district attorney, citing a lack of evidence.
The long, sad saga of Robert Orabuena and Joseph Judnick took another twist last week. A jury returned a guilty verdict for Orabuena on a charge of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter resulting from the tragic July 4 accident that killed Judnick, 48.
The same jury found Orabuena not guilty of a misdemeanor reckless driving charge. A judge earlier tossed a felony charge brought by the district attorney, citing a lack of evidence.
From the beginning, the handling of the tragic July 4 accident that took Judnick’s life has been a cause for concern: From the trumped-up, ridiculous charges – second-degree murder and driving under the influence of marijuana, neither of which was supported by any evidence – on which Orabuena, 41, was originally held to the comparisons with handling of similar cases; from evidence the victim was speeding at the time of the accident to the suffering which Orabuena was subjected before he was ever tried on any charges.
Whenever any of us slides behind the wheel of a vehicle, we take upon ourselves an awesome responsibility. Yet who among us hasn’t sped, as it appears Judnick did, or misjudged the timing of a left turn, as Orabuena did? Sometimes our mistakes have tragic, painful, fatal consequences.
We’re not sure a guilty verdict was appropriate in this case – but that verdict is the result of following the justice system under which we live: A jury of Orabuena’s peers heard the evidence, weighed the law and rendered its decision.
Sentencing, however, is left to the discretion of the judge, and it seems to us that’s the appropriate place for all the mitigating factors to be weighed. When he ponders sentencing Orabuena, we hope the judge will carefully consider the price Orabuena and his family have already paid – the separation of 36 days in jail, a lost job, the terror of the prospect of spending 25 years in jail – as well as the actions of the district attorney’s office that exacerbated the situation, and what role the victim played in his own demise when he decides what punishment is appropriate for misjudging a left turn with a speeding motorcyclist approaching.
The Judnick family has suffered a terrible loss, to be sure, and we don’t want to minimize their pain and suffering. But a harsh, unjust sentence for Orabuena will be a snake oil that will fail to balm their emotional wounds.
We think what we’ve said before about this case bears repeating and underlining as the sentencing nears: Robert Orabuena and his family have already been severely punished for simply being involved in a tragic, but accidental, traffic fatality.
