Chante Mallard convicted of murder

[Wolverine]

FORT WORTH, Texas — A Texas jury has found former nurse's aide Chante Mallard guilty of murder in the death of a homeless man she hit with her car -- and who died trapped in the windshield.

The jurors deliberated for only about an hour before delivering the verdict just before noon.

Mallard, 27, cast her eyes downward after the verdict was returned. She could be sentenced to life in prison.

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90458,00.html)

[mjv]

Life is too good for her.

I have heard of heartless people before in my life, but this is just stunning.

1. You hit a man with your car with enough force for him to pierce your windshield and launch completely into your car;

2. You drive home and hide your car in the garage;

3. You wait a day or two for the man to finally bleed to death in your garage; and finally

4. You call your worthless friends to come and dispose of the body.

And the friends! They had one of her girlfriends on the stand and she said (I paraphraze): "(after seeing the man in the car, moaning) I told her to call 911, and we argued about it (for 2-3 WHOLE minutes), and I left."

WTF!!! Your friend kills another human being and 2-3 minutes is the BEST that you can do!

She has proven she is a danger to society and should be removed from the gene pool ASAP.

[corplinx]

I say we also prosecute her parents for naming her "Chante". Giving hew a low class silly name probably led to her life of drugs and disregard for human life.

[Ladyhawk]

Finally! I hate to say it, but with the way the justice system has been working lately across the country, I was just waiting for this woman to get off on a technicality. The jury acted swiftly and accurately...

Now, let's just hope that the judge imposes the maximum life sentence against her !

[DragonLady]

Mallard faces life in prison on the murder conviction and 10 years stemming from her guilty plea earlier this week on a separate charge of tampering with evidence. The sentencing phase was to start later Thursday.

Why not the death penalty? Leaving him to die that way was surely a premeditated act. She knew damn good and well he wasn't going to get out of there alive.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by DragonLady


Why not the death penalty? Leaving him to die that way was surely a premeditated act. She knew damn good and well he wasn't going to get out of there alive.

It's gonna end up being "life" either way. Either she spends years and years on death row waiting to be executed before exhausting appeal after appeal to overturn the sentence...OR....she does 20+ years not waiting to die. ;)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by DragonLady


Why not the death penalty? Leaving him to die that way was surely a premeditated act. She knew damn good and well he wasn't going to get out of there alive.

The crime didn't fit the criteria for capital murder. The definitions are established in the Texas Penal Code (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0001900.html#pe003.19.03) -- and although this is one of the most heinous incidents in memory, it doesn't qualify for the death penalty.

I'm relieved that justice is being served in this case instead of watching this vile creature walk away on some technicality.

[Boo]

I've been wondering about her friend that came over and testifies that the man was still alive while she was there and urged her (Chante) to call 911. Why didn't the friend do it?!? Was she charged with any crimes? I haven't been able to find any info on that.



Boo

[Cinorjer]

You people are something else. She doesn't deserve to live? I suppose you'd be leading the lynch mob and supplying the rope, in earlier times.

Yes, the woman was an irresponsible coward. Knowing she would be in big trouble for being drunk and high on drugs when she hit the man, she ran and hid. She decided her own future was more important than the life of one homeless man, who she probably rationalized was going to die anyway. Her friends were no better, prefering either not to get involved or electing to help in the coverup, figuring the damage was already done. This puts them in the majority of people in our society.

This does not make them monsters. It makes them all-too human. Doing the right thing is not always an easy choice, and the people yelling loudest about revenge might ask themselves when's the last time they acted in their own selfish interest. Justice has been done. The woman will pay the price. Isn't that enough?

[Wolverine]

Update:

FORT WORTH, Texas — A jury sentenced Chante Mallard to 60 years in jail Friday, 50 for hitting a homeless man with her car and leaving him to die in her windshield and another 10 for tampering with evidence.

The sentences will be served concurrently, making her actual time behind bars 50 years. Under Texas law Mallard, 27, won't be eligible for parole for 25 years, when she is 52 years old.

It took jurors about two hours to decide on the sentence.

The legal range of jail time was five years probation to life. Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90645,00.html)

Thoughts?

[Clancie]

The friends were sentenced to 10 years each.

Chante got 60 (well, 50 for the concurrent sentencing).

Apparently the defense only called one witness--really did not put on a very good case. Probably in most other states, there would be grounds for a new trial, but not in Texas.

Obviously, she committed a terrible crime when she left him in her garage for two hours while he begged for help. Then, while he was still alive, she got friends to help her dump the body.

I think that qualifies for murder, in principle regardless of what the law says. That she was doped up and confused, is now genuinely remorseful, etc. may be mitigating circumstances, but how much so?

All things being equal, I agree that she is guilty of murder, but that 50 years in prison is too much.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
You people are something else. She doesn't deserve to live? I suppose you'd be leading the lynch mob and supplying the rope, in earlier times.

Yes, the woman was an irresponsible coward. Knowing she would be in big trouble for being drunk and high on drugs when she hit the man, she ran and hid. She decided her own future was more important than the life of one homeless man, who she probably rationalized was going to die anyway. Her friends were no better, prefering either not to get involved or electing to help in the coverup, figuring the damage was already done. This puts them in the majority of people in our society.

This does not make them monsters. It makes them all-too human. Doing the right thing is not always an easy choice, and the people yelling loudest about revenge might ask themselves when's the last time they acted in their own selfish interest. Justice has been done. The woman will pay the price. Isn't that enough?

You have got to be kidding me. Let me explain the difference between that monster and someone like me.

When I drive on the highway and see someone in a car accident I stop and help them. If they have blood gushing from their wounds, I would take off my shirt and apply a pressure bandage to save their life.

If I see someone being robbed at gunpoint, I go and pull the robber's arms out of their sockets. If I see a cat stuck in a tree, I get a ladder and rescue it.

I would do those things because I am an American.

We are talking about a pathetic excuse of a human being that munched down an X-tabulet, smoked dope and then drove to a bar to drink herself to oblivion.

Then when she got back behind the wheel of the car, ignoring a friend's wishes not to drive, she runs over an innocent man on the side of the road and he gets injected through her windshield.

What does she do? She goes home, calls her friends and laughs about it, leaving the guy to die in her garage.

Then she calls up her Addam's Family pals to come over and help her move the corpse and dump it into a park in the middle of the town she lived in.

That chick is a monster and if anyone deserves 60 years in jail, it is her. It is people like her that are propelling America into the 4th world.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Clancie
The friends were sentenced to 10 years each.

Chante got 60 (well, 50 for the concurrent sentencing).

Apparently the defense only called one witness--really did not put on a very good case. Probably in most other states, there would be grounds for a new trial, but not in Texas.

Obviously, she committed a terrible crime when she left him in her garage for two hours while he begged for help. Then, while he was still alive, she got friends to help her dump the body.

I think that qualifies for murder, in principle regardless of what the law says. That she was doped up and confused, is now genuinely remorseful, etc. may be mitigating circumstances, but how much so?

All things being equal, I agree that she is guilty of murder, but that 50 years in prison is too much.

No, a monster like her and her friends do not deserve to walk in the midst of civilized society ever again.

Her pals that got 10 years each got off easy.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/94695/2_2_221_windshield_50years.jpg

"Boo hooo boooo hoooo puppy-dog tears"

JK

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
You people are something else. She doesn't deserve to live? I suppose you'd be leading the lynch mob and supplying the rope, in earlier times.

Yes, the woman was an irresponsible coward. Knowing she would be in big trouble for being drunk and high on drugs when she hit the man, she ran and hid. She decided her own future was more important than the life of one homeless man, who she probably rationalized was going to die anyway. Her friends were no better, prefering either not to get involved or electing to help in the coverup, figuring the damage was already done. This puts them in the majority of people in our society.

This does not make them monsters. It makes them all-too human. Doing the right thing is not always an easy choice, and the people yelling loudest about revenge might ask themselves when's the last time they acted in their own selfish interest. Justice has been done. The woman will pay the price. Isn't that enough?

Another fine example of moral relativism and its many faults.

[Roadtoad]

Yahoo reported it this way:

FORT WORTH, Texas - A jury sentenced a former nurse's aide to 50 years in prison Friday for leaving an accident victim to die a slow death while lodged in the broken windshield of her car.

Chante Mallard, 27, could have received anywhere from five years probation to life in prison for murdering Gregory Biggs. She and her family cried after the sentence was read.

"There's no winners in a case like this. Just as we all lost Greg, you all will be losing your daughter," Biggs' son, Brandon, told Mallard's family in a statement he read in court after the sentence was announced.

Brandon Biggs told Mallard he accepted the apology she tearfully offered on the witness stand, "but in return I hope that you will accept my forgiveness and I hope you will accept the forgiveness of Jesus Christ."

Both families declined to comment afterward.

"My heart is heavy, truly heavy," said Norma Carethers, who counseled Mallard in jail as part of a chaplain program.

It took the jury less than an hour Thursday to convict Mallard, who after a night of drinking and using drugs struck Biggs, 37, with her car about 3 a.m. on Oct. 26, 2001. She drove home with the man crumpled in the windshield and left him in her garage to die.

Medical experts testified that Biggs was alive for one or two hours after being hit and probably would have survived had he received medical help.

Defense attorney Jeff Kearney said he was disappointed with the length of the sentence, which was announced after jurors deliberated about 2 1/2 hours. He said an appeal is planned.

"We certainly knew it would be a significant prison sentence based on all the evidence but we were hoping it would be somewhat lighter," he said.

Mallard told the jury Thursday that she was sorry, adding that she didn't call for help because she was scared and didn't know what to do. But prosecutor Richard Alpert said Friday that the case "is all about selfishness."

"Some people lack the moral fiber to do the right thing," he said. "A man is lying in her car moaning and bleeding and she needs someone to tell her what to do? Any decent person would call for help."

Kearney told jurors that Mallard would not have left the man to die if she hadn't been under the influence of alcohol, marijuana and Ecstasy.

Alpert, who had told jurors that Mallard deserved life in prison, said he was pleased with the sentence. "We just wanted to point out that this was a serious case and it needed a serious punishment," he said.

Brandon Biggs testified earlier in the week that his father took medication for bipolar disorder and mild schizophrenia. He said Biggs had been homeless for a couple of years after loaning a girlfriend money and then losing his truck and home.

Biggs' battered body was found in a park the day after he was hit. Authorities had no leads in the death until four months later, when one of Mallard's acquaintances called police and said she had talked about the accident at a party.

Officers went to Mallard's house and found the bloodstained, dented car. They also found the passenger seat burned in the back yard.

Before her trial began Monday, Mallard pleaded guilty to tampering with evidence by burning the bloody car seat. On that charge she was sentenced to 10 years in prison, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence.

A friend of Mallard's and his cousin pleaded guilty to tampering with evidence by dumping the body. Clete Jackson and Herbert Cleveland received prison sentences of 10 years and nine years, respectively.


Mallard, in a word, was stupid.

(1.) She was stupid for taking drugs.

(2.) She was stupid for driving under the influence of drugs.

(3.) She was stupid for not offering help to the man she hit.

(4.) She was stupid for trying to hide her actions.

(5.) She was stupid for leaving Biggs to die.

Everyone is feeling sorry for Mallard. What about Biggs? Any sympathy in the press for this man's family?

Yup, you sure can trust the American Press.

[Cinorjer]

Everyone is feeling sorry for Mallard. What about Biggs? Any sympathy in the press for this man's family?

Yup, you sure can trust the American Press.

Point to one - just one - statement where anyone said or implied they "felt sorry for Mallard". Why do you even bother to read something if you don't pay attention to what people are saying? I'm telling you that the woman is not a "monster". Ted Bundy was a monster. A man who kidnaps a woman, then rapes and murders her is a monster. In this case, there's no difference between this woman and the thousands of people who continue to drink and drive. Mallard got what she deserved. Understanding just how common her childish attitude is doesn't mean feeling sympathy.

As far as feeling sympathy for the man's family, of course I do. I also wonder about a son who allowed his father to be homeless for years, when he at least had a couch the man could sleep on. But that's just me. I care about people, even the losers in the game of life.

[Skeptic]

You people are something else. She doesn't deserve to live? I suppose you'd be leading the lynch mob and supplying the rope, in earlier times.

For someone who did this sort of thing, yes.

This does not make them monsters.

Oh yes it does.

EVERY murderer thinks, when he does the crime, that HE, specifically, is "really" totally innocent; that HIS "special circumstances" are such that he should be exhonerated.

Sure, they say, the victim's bleeding to death, but it's just a useless homeless man; sure, I raped and killed that girl, but she shouldn't have worn that dress that turned me on; sure, I killed a few thousand jews today, but they are subhumans who will destroy us if we don't do them in first.

But these excuses are nothing, they are worthless words, a mere song to make the murderer feel good with his crime. It is the crime itself, the ability and willingness to do something horrible like that, that makes someone a monster.

How the monster considers itself and excuses its actions isn't of the least interest.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Cinorjer

Point to one - just one - statement where anyone said or implied they "felt sorry for Mallard".

"My heart is heavy, truly heavy," said Norma Carethers, who counseled Mallard in jail as part of a chaplain program.

Why do you even bother to read something if you don't pay attention to what people are saying? I'm telling you that the woman is not a "monster". Ted Bundy was a monster. A man who kidnaps a woman, then rapes and murders her is a monster. In this case, there's no difference between this woman and the thousands of people who continue to drink and drive. Mallard got what she deserved. Understanding just how common her childish attitude is doesn't mean feeling sympathy.

Tell you what: You take a look at some of the accidents that litter our highways, many of which are caused because someone drove drunk or stoned, then you tell me the people who cause such carnage aren't monsters. After all this time, after decades of education, public information, and the like, and particularly since Mallard was a Nurse's Aide, with medical training, who should not only have KNOWN what the effects of those drugs and alcohol on her body would have been, but knew that Biggs might still have been saved, you're going to tell me that a self-centered, spoiled, arrogant little coward, who dragged her friends into this cesspit, isn't a monster?

As far as feeling sympathy for the man's family, of course I do. I also wonder about a son who allowed his father to be homeless for years, when he at least had a couch the man could sleep on. But that's just me. I care about people, even the losers in the game of life.

You're right in asking about why this son would allow his father to live on the street. True, the elder Biggs was suffering from mental illness, but there could have been something this man's son could have done.

But Gregory Biggs should still not be dead. In truth, he's really the only loser in this. Chante Mallard may be in prison, but she's still alive, and has a chance to make a contribution to society. Her victim can't.

[Cinorjer]

"My heart is heavy, truly heavy," said Norma Carethers, who counseled Mallard in jail as part of a chaplain program.


And you take that to mean this chaplain "feels sorry" for her? I guess you would see it that way. She sees a young woman who's destroyed her life and taken the life of someone else. The chaplain sees this every day, in countless variations. That's tragic in all ways, for the criminal and the victim. It's called compasion, not sympathy. There's a big difference. The woman has destroyed her life, and that's tragic. She killed someone in the process, and that's even more tragic. Compassion is not something you extend in only one direction. It's different from "feeling sorry" for someone.

The dehumanizing of people who commit criminal acts does not fix the problem, and is dangerous. Suddenly they're monsters who do not think or act like we do. Certainly, none of your friends or family would ever do something like that, because we know them and they're nice people. You'd know if someone was a criminal, because monsters can't be nice people. Take Uncle Harry. He's a nice person, your best friend and drinking buddy. It's funny how his little girl always tenses up and runs from the room when he's around, and never wants to be alone with him. But hey, there couldn't be anything going on, right? Child molesters are those monsters you read about in the paper. Harry is your buddy, you've known him since he was a kid, and an all round nice guy. Certainly not a monster.

[gnome]

I think that those of you who responded back to Cinorjer missed the point... the response was not to say that she should have been exonerated, but that her murder does not give us the right to consider her inhuman... this has nothing to do with the rights of the criminal... it has to do with our own ability to recognize and understand, and ultimately predict and prevent, criminal behavior.

Justice needs to be humane. We must be better than the killers.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
The dehumanizing of people who commit criminal acts does not fix the problem, and is dangerous. Suddenly they're monsters who do not think or act like we do. Certainly, none of your friends or family would ever do something like that, because we know them and they're nice people. You'd know if someone was a criminal, because monsters can't be nice people. Take Uncle Harry. He's a nice person, your best friend and drinking buddy. It's funny how his little girl always tenses up and runs from the room when he's around, and never wants to be alone with him. But hey, there couldn't be anything going on, right? Child molesters are those monsters you read about in the paper. Harry is your buddy, you've known him since he was a kid, and an all round nice guy. Certainly not a monster.

Sorry, Cinorjer. I have known too many "Uncle Harrys." I've reported them. I've fought them.

I've also known too many Mallards. I've reported them. I've fought them.

The problem with monsters is they don't look like monsters. They look like you.