Nun not guilty of running light in fa...

Nun not guilty of running light in fatal crash

There are 53 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from May 19, 2009, titled Nun not guilty of running light in fatal crash. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

Marie Marot does not speak English, but the nun's broad grin did not require translation from her native French.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Mike CSI

Canada

#1 May 20, 2009
Once again, in Church vs. State the Church somehow seems to win. Everything about this trial was "look at this wonderful nun, she's doing God's work, how could she possibly be human and do something wrong?" The defense's only method was to basically say everyone is lying, yet they had no evidence to back anything up. I heard in another news report there were four, FOUR, independent witnesses and the defense just said every single one of them was lying, yet they couldn't prove it. Initially I thought it was a bit cold for the prosecution to try and have the nun not wear her habit to court, but now I see the reason behind it. The defense used every b.s sympathy trick with the jury without offering one shred of concrete evidence. There wasn't one witness that said this nun didn't go through a red light, yet there were four, independent mind you, that said she did. How the hell did the jury not find this woman guilty? Simple, the defense used the invisible threat of God to place fear into the jurors without actually saying it. Find the defendant guilty, you're punishing a nun, so you'll go to hell. A sad day for the judicial system.
mean person

Woodridge, IL

#2 May 20, 2009
I can't believe the attorney was permitted to just accuse everyone of lying!! I have to think the fact that the other driver was a teenager had something to do with it.
Shame on that judge and the jury. This is astonishing courtroom behavior and I agree with Mike CSI. A sad day for the judicial system.
EJ from Palatine

Chicago, IL

#3 May 20, 2009
So the jurors were brainwashed? It's a jury trial, the jury rendered a verdict, that's how it works, Church vs State, what is wrong with you fools?
Mike CSI

Canada

#5 May 20, 2009
EJ from Palatine wrote:
So the jurors were brainwashed? It's a jury trial, the jury rendered a verdict, that's how it works, Church vs State, what is wrong with you fools?
Oh for Pete's sake. Yes, that's the spirit, take my words and twist them all up so the point is lost. I never said or even eluded to the word "brainwashed" so you can correct yourself anytime on that one. I'm saying the jury was influenced by the defenses tactics of basically shoving her religious faith in their faces. If any amount of those jurors were Christian or Catholic, do you really think they would even consider a guilty verdict with a young nun looking at them piteously in full habit? No, of course not. Christianity and Catholicism is the foremost religion in the United States, hence why there are no gay marriages and why we just had a president who loved to utilize the bible as a rationale for most of his boneheaded actions. Christians and Catholics LOVE to shove their religion at everyone and claim it is the only right religion and if they don't convert they'll go to hell. Okay, not every one of them does that but those "strong in faith" do.

I'm also not saying this was a literal "Church vs State" legal situation, I was utilizing the phrase as a means to illustrate that the defense used this woman's religious background to sway the jury. That's why they fought to allow her to wear her habit in court

Like someone else said, I'm amazed that the prosecution didn't obliterate the defense when they started calling every witness a liar with absolutely zero proof to substantiate their claim. It was dirty pool by the defense and a ball dropped by the prosecution.

Also, for those who don't think that the nun's religion was central to the defense...if this had been any other Joe on the street in this situation, the jury would have come back with a guilty verdict even faster, if there had even been a trial at all.
Jos Soroka

Chicago, IL

#6 May 20, 2009
I don't recall religion being called into account here. There was this horrific traffic accident in which a young person died. The individual who hit the car was accused of running a red light. The persons occupation is not part of the equation here. So why is everyone all hot and bothered about the fact that this is a nun?

Since: Jun 08

Lees Summit, MO

#7 May 20, 2009
Jos Soroka wrote:
I don't recall religion being called into account here. There was this horrific traffic accident in which a young person died. The individual who hit the car was accused of running a red light. The persons occupation is not part of the equation here. So why is everyone all hot and bothered about the fact that this is a nun?
People are upset because she was dressed as a nun. I believe that this was done deliberately to solicit sympathy for her.
Mike CSI

Canada

#8 May 20, 2009
Norridge is correct. People are upset because by all accounts this woman was found not guilty despite a great deal of eyewitness accounts from the prosecution and a bunch of unsubstantiated name calling by the defense, and a great deal of that could probably be attributed to the nun's religion and occupation. Yes, religion was never actively brought into the equation when it came to the trial, but the defense used the face that she was a nun as a way to sway the jury sympathetically in their favor. The defense presented zero evidence to suggest that the nun did not run that red light and instead just called everyone else liars without any proof. What bothers me, other than she was found not guilty, is that she wasn't charged with anything bigger than disobeying a traffic signal. All of the parents of the victims had as far as repercussions or restitution for her actions was a guilty verdict and then they could file wrongful death suits against the nun and probably the church. Chances are they'll still file those suits anyway, but now the courts will be against them because of this sham of a trial.
Depot Jim

United States

#9 May 20, 2009
All the Nuns, including the accused, wore their Nun's Habits at the trial. It was a victory for the Church.

Church 1
Justice 0
Quickster

Aurora, IL

#10 May 20, 2009
Mike CSI wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh for Pete's sake. Yes, that's the spirit, take my words and twist them all up so the point is lost. I never said or even eluded to the word "brainwashed" so you can correct yourself anytime on that one. I'm saying the jury was influenced by the defenses tactics of basically shoving her religious faith in their faces. If any amount of those jurors were Christian or Catholic, do you really think they would even consider a guilty verdict with a young nun looking at them piteously in full habit? No, of course not. Christianity and Catholicism is the foremost religion in the United States, hence why there are no gay marriages and why we just had a president who loved to utilize the bible as a rationale for most of his boneheaded actions. Christians and Catholics LOVE to shove their religion at everyone and claim it is the only right religion and if they don't convert they'll go to hell. Okay, not every one of them does that but those "strong in faith" do.
I'm also not saying this was a literal "Church vs State" legal situation, I was utilizing the phrase as a means to illustrate that the defense used this woman's religious background to sway the jury. That's why they fought to allow her to wear her habit in court
Like someone else said, I'm amazed that the prosecution didn't obliterate the defense when they started calling every witness a liar with absolutely zero proof to substantiate their claim. It was dirty pool by the defense and a ball dropped by the prosecution.
Also, for those who don't think that the nun's religion was central to the defense...if this had been any other Joe on the street in this situation, the jury would have come back with a guilty verdict even faster, if there had even been a trial at all.
In the United States people have the following rights in the first amendment: The right to freely worship, the right to free speach, the right to a free press and the right to free assembly and petion the government. Everyone has the right to worship as they see fit and to talk about their religion. Everyone else has the right to a)believe it b) take the opposing view or c)ignore it. As for the trial, defense attorneys everyday will use any arguement to defend their clients that is their job. Or do you not believe that people are entitled to zealous defense in criminal trials?
Jeff

Geneva, IL

#11 May 20, 2009
Hard one to call. The other witnesses were in the other vehicle, and the state's other witness is in a deal with the DA over other charges. Thus there are no disinterested witnesses on either side. That makes it hard to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt". The DA is not interested in truth, only getting a "win", so any kind of "deal" shoots the credibility of that witness.
Catholic

Deerfield, IL

#12 May 20, 2009
Mike CSI wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh for Pete's sake. Yes, that's the spirit, take my words and twist them all up so the point is lost. I never said or even eluded to the word "brainwashed" so you can correct yourself anytime on that one. I'm saying the jury was influenced by the defenses tactics of basically shoving her religious faith in their faces. If any amount of those jurors were Christian or Catholic, do you really think they would even consider a guilty verdict with a young nun looking at them piteously in full habit? No, of course not. Christianity and Catholicism is the foremost religion in the United States, hence why there are no gay marriages and why we just had a president who loved to utilize the bible as a rationale for most of his boneheaded actions. Christians and Catholics LOVE to shove their religion at everyone and claim it is the only right religion and if they don't convert they'll go to hell. Okay, not every one of them does that but those "strong in faith" do.
I'm also not saying this was a literal "Church vs State" legal situation, I was utilizing the phrase as a means to illustrate that the defense used this woman's religious background to sway the jury. That's why they fought to allow her to wear her habit in court
Like someone else said, I'm amazed that the prosecution didn't obliterate the defense when they started calling every witness a liar with absolutely zero proof to substantiate their claim. It was dirty pool by the defense and a ball dropped by the prosecution.
Also, for those who don't think that the nun's religion was central to the defense...if this had been any other Joe on the street in this situation, the jury would have come back with a guilty verdict even faster, if there had even been a trial at all.
While you are obviously upset, everything you propose in your comments is purely speculation on your part.

And as for your claim that Cathollcs who are "strong in faith" "LOVE to shove their religion at everyone and claim it is the only right religion and if they don't convert they'll go to hell," I am a "strong if faith" Catholic, and I have never shoved my religion in anyone's face, nor told anyone to convert with threats of hell.

Don't speculate.
And don't generalize.

FACTS only please.
Gary

Oak Lawn, IL

#13 May 20, 2009
Depot Jim wrote:
All the Nuns, including the accused, wore their Nun's Habits at the trial. It was a victory for the Church.
Church 1
Justice 0
Sorry Jim: These 'nuns' are not affiliated or endorsed by any Church; Catholic or otherwise.
They are a group of women who live together in community and perform what they believe to be God's will.
The 'Church' as you put it didn't figure into this matter at all.
Don't let your prejudice get in the way of the facts!
Andra

Chicago, IL

#14 May 20, 2009
And they are NOT Roman Catholic, so the real score here is "Church" 0, State 0. The "order" so-called is affiliated with a schismatic (breakaway) group that does not recognize the authority of the Local Bishop or the Pope -- meaning they are not part of the Catholic Church. Do a little Googling on them and read the articles that are not propaganda that the order puts out. Its pretty odd stuff.
JohnP

Chicago, IL

#15 May 20, 2009
Most tickets that are written as a result of an accident ( excluding those involving drugs, alcohol, reckless driving, etc.) get dismissed because the officer didn't actually see the accident take place. Other witnesses may be unreliable.
That doesn't absolve the driver of a claim in civil court because the jury only has to consider the preponderance of the evidence as opposed to finding someone guilty beyond the shadow of doubt.
Depot Jim

United States

#16 May 20, 2009
Gary wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Jim: These 'nuns' are not affiliated or endorsed by any Church; Catholic or otherwise.
They are a group of women who live together in community and perform what they believe to be God's will.
The 'Church' as you put it didn't figure into this matter at all.
Don't let your prejudice get in the way of the facts!
I am not prejudiced against any Church or Religion. So stop the name calling. But all the Nuns, including the accused, did wear their Nun's Habits at the trial. Even with all the eyewitnesses accounts and facts, the Nuns dressing up in their habits obviously did have a major effect on the jury decision and out come of the trial.
Quickster

United States

#17 May 20, 2009
Depot Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not prejudiced against any Church or Religion. So stop the name calling. But all the Nuns, including the accused, did wear their Nun's Habits at the trial. Even with all the eyewitnesses accounts and facts, the Nuns dressing up in their habits obviously did have a major effect on the jury decision and out come of the trial.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion that the nuns' habits influenced the jury but it is not obvious that it had a major affect at all. Unless the members of the jury explain how they reached their verdict all anyone can do is guess.
mean person

Woodridge, IL

#18 May 20, 2009
Mike CSI wrote:
... It was dirty pool by the defense and a ball dropped by the prosecution.
And there you have it!!! Your statement is succinct, complete and correct!!! Good job!!!
skepticalsurfer

Des Plaines, IL

#19 May 20, 2009
What a crock! The jury somehow ignored eyewitness testimony by Miguel Reazola, stating that the nun's van was ahead of his car when the nun's van ran the red light and smashed into the side of the Honda Civic. How did those jurors come up with a way to ignore that? There is no truth in the courtrooms. There is seldom any justice. All of you judges and lawyers should take a good look at yourselves in the mirror and then ask yourselves if you can live with the person you are looking at.
ABC123

Saint Paul, MN

#20 May 20, 2009
The jury wasn't convinced without a reasonable doubt that she ran a red light based on witness accounts. The jury did their job. The nun's celebration was uncalled for, since a person was killed; that's the part that gets me.
Gary

Oak Lawn, IL

#21 May 20, 2009
Depot Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not prejudiced against any Church or Religion. So stop the name calling. But all the Nuns, including the accused, did wear their Nun's Habits at the trial. Even with all the eyewitnesses accounts and facts, the Nuns dressing up in their habits obviously did have a major effect on the jury decision and out come of the trial.
Jim: I didn't realize that I called you by any name. If I did, I apologize.
It was you who first brought the "Church' into play. As you will note from a later comment, this group of nuns is a schismatic community who won't obey any rightful Church authority.
That's the point I was making; i.e. that you were wrong to bring the Church into the discussion in the first place.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Algonquin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gasoline prices super high in Elgin! Nov 30 Elsie 1
News Individual injured after overnight shooting in ... Nov 30 bernard 3
red light cameras (Feb '10) Nov 27 ChristopherLock 29
News Assessors claim Lake County is unfairly taxing ... Nov 20 R N Co 1
News 'Adopt a Family' offers Christmas assistance (Oct '08) Nov 16 Tammy shaffer 273
Despicable Comment By Elgin School District Boa... Oct '17 Jimmy 5
News Rauner to tour northern Illinois flooding damag... Aug '17 Old Timer 2

Algonquin Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Algonquin Mortgages