61°
NORWALK, Conn. – A 17-year-old New Canaan girl charged in the death of a Norwalk jogger appeared briefly in Norwalk Superior Court on Friday morning, pleading not guilty as she stood next to her father and her attorney before Judge Bruce Hudock.
Kenneth Dorsey, 44, was jogging on New Canaan Avenue in Norwalk the morning of March 24 when he was struck by a Toyota 4Runner, according to Norwalk Police. He was pronounced dead a short while later at Norwalk Hospital. Police say the SUV was driven by the then-16-year-old, who was using her smartphone to surf the Internet while driving.
She is charged with negligent homicide, use of a hand-held telephone under age 18 and failure to drive in the proper lane. Her case was continued to Aug. 16.
Hudock did not allow photos or videos during the court proceedings. Attorney Robert Bello objected to the photographers on the scene, prompting Hudock to remark that he was torn and that media requests to photograph the proceedings had troubled him from the onset of the case. Bello then repeated his desire not to have photos taken in the "very tragic case," and Hudock asked the waiting media photographers to leave.
The thin, pony-tailed girl wore tight gray pants and a pink top as she stood with her hands clasped in front of her before Hudock. Her demeanor was serious. Bello mentioned "supervised pretrial" as he agreed with Hudock that the case be continued to Aug. 16.
Prosecutor Suzanne Vieux asked that the victim's cellphone, which had been seized as evidence, be returned. Bello did not object. Hudock agreed that it was no longer necessary that it be held and said it would be returned.
The teen's family left the courtroom shortly thereafter and fled out the back door. A Channel 12 videographer followed, taking footage as they grimly got into their car.
Correction made, 9:49 p.m.
Comments (11)
'Process' or not, pleading "not guilty" is a real slap in the face to those of us who knew and loved Ken. It's an insult and I'm disgusted.
Imagine all the 2 seconds here the 2 seconds there that both the jogger and the driver had that finally made their destinations collide that day. I was a teenager once, we didn't have cell phones yet something could have caught my eye out my drivers side window, a distraction I regarded as more important than my obligation to keep my eyes on the road then the worst thing happens, I veer out of my lane or even the jogger stumbles and his body is tossed my way, out into the road in front of me. Those 2 seconds in time and now somebody is dead because of my lack of vigilance about the road and me pushing a couple of tons of steel down that road between a couple of lines. My indifference to my responsibility to watch where I'm aiming that thing and now somebody is dead. It could have been a kid chasing a ball out the driveway, still I decided that what I was doing was more important than the idea that this couple of tons of vehicle can kill if not properly guided. I was indifferent, it was a vehicle I used and somebody is dead. Vehicular homicide, yes. Indifference, yes.
I am so glad and probably so lucky, this wasn't me, when I was a teen or even yesterday, brushing cigarette ashes from my shirt. I think about her everyday and how all of us know very well we have all decided to drive distracted at least once and once was all it took. We need to take a lesson away from this and become more responsible and prudent drivers. We can stop trying to squeeze just in front of each other because apparently going 65 or 70 in a 55 is just to damn slow and we risk with such a narrow margin as we squeeze into the other persons lane. This is more room than needed to kill a jogger. I also have been lucky enough to not be a part of a multiple vehicular accident with a few other tons of metal moving at 70 only inches apart. I have been so lucky to be granted these few inches and this girl and the jogger were not granted the same luck, that day, that morning that same point in time and place. If he was 2 seconds one way or the other and if she took 2 seconds to tuck the cell phone away, who knows.
None of us can point fingers and talk of her age or driving experience. She was competent enough to keep a couple of tons of steel between two lines and so she was able to obtain a license. She is probably a fine driver, as driving goes. Was it thoughtlessness, yes but only because she as all of us think, it can't happen to us BUT it Can.
I'm confused as to why she's pleading not guilty.
probably because she thinks she isn't guilty? And, if one is old enough to drive and in the process kills a person, one should be tried as an adult.
She pleads not guilty as a matter of procedure. 955 of people plead not guilty. Then, they work out an agreement on the terms of punishment and she will amend it and plead guilty. They still have to sort out the adult or minor.
I very much doubt she thinks she's not guilty. I am sure she knows she killed a man and has to live with that fact
She should be charged as an adult. She killed another human being. She took someone's life. Who searches the web when they drive? That is flat out crazy. My 11 year old knows better than that.
Rml, I have seen it way too often, and it is almost always the young teen agers with that cell phone in hand. I watched on girl so intent on her cell phone texting that she crossed the center line!
I dissagree, I spend alot of time on the road & see people of all ages on the phone & texting. Just yesterday I was getting on the Parkway behind a pickup with landscaping equipment in the back. The truck was only moving about 40MPH so I passed him & there was a middle aged grown man trying to text & enter the highway at the same time. I see bus drivers, cops, men, women & children doing it.
I do agree that its mostly young people who drive the worst while useing a phone though.
She is NOT an adult she A MINOR UNDER THE LAW.
PERIOD END OF STORY
Really, Tim? How should she be charged then? What should her punishment be for killing someone? A slap on the back of her hands and "don't do it again"? Seriously - I'd like to know how you feel this should be resolved.
It shouldnt matter anyway. She killed somebody, a family member is gone forever because of the thoughtlessness of another person. She isnt a criminal, but the gravity of what she did isnt lessened because she is 16. If shes old enough to drive she is old enough to be treated as any driver would be.