Sign up for Express
New from the Voice, Express is a daily e-edition, distributed by e-mail every weekday.
Sign up to receive Express

Login | Register
Sign up for eBulletins
Click for Mountain View, California Forecast
Voice News
Increase font Increase font
Decrease font Decrease font
Adjust text size

Driver to face trial in Ware's death
Judge rules there's enough evidence for felony vehicular manslaughter charge

Photos

Bookmark and Share
Now that a judge has ruled there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial of Matthew Pumar, the driver accused of hitting and killing local man last June, there are two directions the case might take.

The 22-year-old Pumar stands accused of felony vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence in the death of well-known local man William Ware. He could plead guilty, possibly accepting some form of plea bargain for admitting guilt. Or, he may continue to fight the charge, which carries a maximum penalty of six years in prison.

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing on Jan. 3, Judge Thang Nguyen Barret ordered Pumar to return to court on Jan. 14 for arraignment. At that point, his charges will be officially presented to him and he will have the opportunity to enter a plea, though he could wait to do so until a later date.

After hearing multiple witnesses, called by Deputy District Attorney Duffy Magilligan, Judge Thang Nguyen Barrett ruled that sufficient evidence had been presented to warrant a jury trial.

During the hearing's closing arguments, Pumar's defense lawyer, Dennis Smith, argued that the Mountain View resident had not been negligent in the June 21 accident, in which he allegedly ran a red light at the intersection of California Street and Escuela Avenue. Smith pointed to evidence presented earlier in the day by a traffic accident expert who had estimated that Pumar was traveling somewhere between 46 mph and 62 mph when he struck Ware.

Magilligan argued, however, that before Ware was struck, Pumar had already driven up over a curb, had two wheels ripped from his vehicle, and plowed through a traffic sign post -- suggesting that his vehicle must have slowed significantly before hitting Ware. The posted speed limit at the intersection is 35 mph.

Earlier in the preliminary hearing, Smith made much of a utility van that Pumar allegedly swerved to avoid before losing control of his car, running up on the sidewalk and striking Ware.

Smith repeatedly asked witnesses whether the van, which was waiting to make a left turn at the time of the accident, had run a red light. The accident occurred at around 9:30 a.m., while Pumar was on his way from the gym to his job.

Several of Ware's family members attending the hearing seemed emotionally drained after the judge's ruling. But Ware's brother, Jim, said he was pleased to see that the case would go to trial. "It was relieving to hear that the judge saw the charges the way the DA did," he said.

Pumar and his family had no comment for the media. They also appeared emotionally distraught. At the conclusion of an earlier session of the hearing, Smith told the Voice that the "whole (Pumar) family has expressed to me the greatest sympathy for Mr. Ware. It's been a tragedy for everybody."

Ware, who was well-known around Mountain View, was waiting for a bus in the 1800 block of California Street when he was killed.

Pumar remained on the scene of the accident and cooperated with police and investigators. He was arrested on July 10 after the investigation was completed. He immediately posted $100,000 bail and was released.

The court will take up the case again on Jan. 14 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 84 at the Palo Alto Courthouse.

Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.


Comments

Posted by Steve, a resident of the Jackson Park neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2013 at 6:40 pm

"Pumar's defense lawyer, Dennis Smith, argued that the Mountain View resident had not been negligent in the June 21 accident"

"...Pumar was traveling somewhere between 46 mph and 62 mph when he struck Ware..."

Sigh. Only a defense lawyer would argue that speeding through residential areas at 11 to 27 miles over the posted speed limit is not being negligent. Their work should be held to a higher standard.


Posted by ORACLE, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2013 at 11:21 am

Why are lawyers considered to be professionals? Lawyers are merely word Technicians who manipulate words to make money. We all know the Law is blind to Justice, but why is that so? Pumar's frantic speeding, based on scientific analysis, was so negligent as to show he had no respect for others nor did he have any sense of responsibility. He needs to pay money to Ware's family and spend a lot of time in prison.


Posted by Old Ben, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2013 at 11:57 am

According to the initial reports here, Pumar got out of the car after the accident clutching his cell phone. How long had it been in his hand? Is that the first thing you grab after totalling your car, or was he on the phone while ripping down California Street at nearly twice the posted speed limit?


Posted by Sandy, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2013 at 3:21 pm

The only surprise about this is that it doesn't occur more often. I have been stopped at an intersection on California twice when a car from behind pulled out and ran the light. I was able to follow one to his house and photograph the car. But because the incident wasn't observed by an officer, nothing could be done.

I know, I know. Could be dangerous.


Posted by Otto Maddox, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2013 at 7:59 pm

Just because the speed limit is 35 does not mean that is the SAFE speed for that part of road. We would need to go to city hall to find out what the safe speed is for that street.

Also.. 46 to 62 is far from stating a fact. It shows how hard it is to accurately determine the speed of a car AFTER the fact.

Everyone deserves the best defense they can afford.

As far as the cellphone comment. Meh. If it's OK for the police to drive while talking on a cellphone I'm ok with everyone else doing it.


To comment on this topic, please login here if you are a registered member. If not, click here.
 

mv-voice.com   ©2013 Embarcadero Media.
All rights reserved.