|
|
|
Uploaded: Monday, January 14, 2013, 4:12 PM
Pumar sticks with not guilty plea
Plea entered in brief arraignment in vehicular manslaughter case
|
|
by Nick Veronin
Mountain View Voice Staff
Matthew Pumar, the man accused of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence for allegedly hitting and killing local man William Ware last summer, maintained his not guilty plea to the felony charge at his arraignment today, Jan. 14.
At the arraignment, which only lasted a few minutes, the 22-year-old Pumar stuck to the plea he first entered on Sept. 26, before a preliminary hearing was held.
At the conclusion of that preliminary hearing, Judge Thang Nguyen Barrett ruled that sufficient evidence had been presented to warrant a jury trial.
Ware's niece, Dolorez Marquez, one of only a couple of representatives from the victim's family, attended the arraignment. Outside the courtroom after the arraignment, Marquez said the prosecuting deputy district attorney had told the family to expect a not guilty plea. While Marquez was not surprised, she said she believed Pumar ought to plead guilty to the charges as she believes the evidence makes it quite clear that Pumar was driving "recklessly" on June 21, 2012, the day her uncle died.
During the preliminary hearing, some witnesses said Pumar was driving much faster than the posted speed limit of 35 mph before the accident. Based on the distance the victim's body was thrown, a traffic accident expert with the Mountain View Police Department estimated that Pumar's car may have been traveling anywhere between 46 and 62 mph when it struck Ware.
Pumar's attorney has maintained that his client was not driving negligently at the time of the accident, which occurred around 9:30 a.m. Pumar is alleged to have run a red light, swerved to avoid a van in the middle of the intersection -- which was waiting for oncoming traffic to pass before making an unprotected left turn -- and lost control of the car, which careened off the road, onto the sidewalk and through a portion of a bus stop shade structure before hit Ware.
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Kate, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jan 15, 2013 at 2:20 pm Imagine a world where a person, group, organization etal admitted guilt when guilt is real. Think of all the time, energy and $$'s we could devote to advancing human life.
Integrity as the norm. Hard to imagine isn't it. Consider what that means.
|
|
Posted by Dawn, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jan 15, 2013 at 2:28 pm I think Pumar is guilty of being a "reckless driver" I drive in that area all of the time and think of William Ware every time I pass that intersection. The truck that was turning left most likely thought he had enough time to turn as NO ONE SHOULD BE DRIVING THAT FAST! Pumar should just plead guilty for driving too fast and take what punishment he gets. Stop making the family feel they have to fight to make you do the right thing. Haven't they been through enough? If Pumar gets off with a slap on the wrist, I think that is like telling everyone it is ok to drive that fast on that street if you are late for work. California Ave is not a freeway, don't drive freeway speeds on it or "you are going to kill someone"
|
|
Posted by Martin Omander, a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on Jan 15, 2013 at 2:29 pm Let's all take this as a reminder not to speed, especially not in built-up areas where pedestrians are likely to be around.
|
|
Posted by Kathy, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Jan 15, 2013 at 3:08 pm The only thing Pumar is not guilty of is driving within the speed limit. His own lawyer said he 'swerved', 'lost control of the car' and 'careened'. This did not happen on 101, it happened on a city street. If he gets off I am once again disgusted with our judicial system, I wonder if his family has money? No mention of a public defender, the affluent have the resources to make these things go away, but that is an assumption on my part, so please correct me if that assumption is off base.
|
|
Posted by Savings, a resident of the Cuernavaca neighborhood, on Jan 15, 2013 at 6:13 pm Who needs a fair trial or a justice system? Presumption of innocence? Bah! The all-knowing MV Voice bloggers can just handle this all online.
|
|
Posted by Mountain View Mom, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Jan 18, 2013 at 3:20 pm I can think of a couple reasons he is pleading not guilty. 1. So he can avoid his inevitable incarceration for as long as possbile. 2. He may feel that by taking this to trial he has a chance at a reduced sentance. What a piece of work he and everyone advising him is.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
