Alec Scott Abraham sped through a red light, mowing down a family in a Chevy Cruz, killing a 2 year-old girl and her grandmother, while seriously injuring the girl’s mother and 7 year-old brother last month. Abraham fled the scene of the accident. Detectives believe he stole a bystander’s mobile device and phoned a friend for help.
Abraham had been cited multiple times over the last year for speeding, and owned a highly modified Ford Mustang which was involved in the accident. Irvine Police Detective Jonathan Cherney says the department was able to track Abraham down by “pining” his phone. He was arrested in a park in Costa Mesa.
During the arrest, Abraham told the police that he would receive a mere 5 year sentence for his crime. Prosecutors could use that statement as an admission in trial. However, it isn’t likely the judge will follow Abraham’s sentencing guidelines if he is convicted.
As a result, Detective Cherney requested the defendants bail be raised from $100,000 to $1 million. Since details have emerged about Abraham’s driving record, and prosecutors have better developed the evidence they intend to use in the case against him, Prosecutors have replaced two voluntary manslaughter counts with two counts of murder. Abraham could face up to 30 years in prison if convicted.
Essentially, it is very important that the suspect made that statement when he was arrested. Although he is implicated in the crime since his vehicle was involved in the accident, that doesn’t always provide the prosecution with a slam-dunk case. A defense often used in hit and run accidents is that the registered owner of the vehicle was not the actual driver at the time of the accident. In this case, witnesses claimed to have seen the suspect at the crime scene.
Also, his statement that he would only get 5 years for the accident can be used as an admission by the prosecution since he has essentially said, yes I might have done the crime, but I’ll only get 5 years. Furthermore, this sort of statement is often presented to juries in a way that paints the defendant as callous and disinterested in the wellbeing of the parties who were injured in the crash.
Some might ask, “Was he drunk or DUI when the crash occurred?” He could have been, but the District Attorney will have a hard time proving that since the defendant wasn’t captured until the following day when his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) had already subsided. The only way they could add that charge to the case is if he were to confess to being drunk at the time of the accident, and have witnesses corroborate that fact. With that said, it is very VERY unlikely that his defense attorney is going to present any of that information because it is simply against his client’s interest.