Mark Thomas

Man that was my boss!
Mesquite man gets 6 months in road-rage death
2nd driver still faces charges in crash that killed teen, hurt friend

09:12 PM CDT on Wednesday, September 15, 2004

By ROBERT THARP / The Dallas Morning News

A Mesquite man involved in a road-rage collision that killed a 16-year-old girl was sentenced Tuesday to six months in jail after a jury convicted him of manslaughter, aggravated assault and fleeing the scene of an accident.

Prosecutors had asked jurors in Frank Dorsett's trial to consider the maximum 20-year prison sentence for his involvement in the June 2003 crash, which killed Rachel Blasingame and injured her friend Tabitha Leonard, 16.

Ms. Leonard's father, Ken Leonard, praised prosecutors' efforts but said the jury failed to "send a signal" about reckless driving.

"If you drink and drive like a maniac and get involved in a road-rage incident that kills a 16-year-old girl ... there's a high price to pay," he said.

After the jury sentenced Mr. Dorsett to probation, Judge Keith Dean imposed the 180-day jail sentence. The judge will set the terms of the probation at a hearing Friday.

According to police reports, Mr. Dorsett, a married father of two, and another driver were speeding south on Interstate 635 near Military Parkway and weaving in and out of traffic when their pickups collided.

The driver of the other truck, Jason T. Scott, crossed the freeway median, striking Ms. Blasingame's vehicle. The two young women had just left a church event when the crash occurred.

Mr. Dorsett fled and was arrested after another motorist recorded his license tag number and called police. Police conducted an intoxication analysis that found that Mr. Dorsett was over the legal limit, according to court reports, but that analysis was performed more than four hours after the accident.

Mr. Scott also faces felony charges for his role in the crash and awaits trial.

DSjockey

Hard to believe the jury just wanted to give him probation, he should be doing some serious hard time, like 10-20

joel

Agreed.

But here in TX, they say that after midnight about 60% of the drivers on the road are impaired. It's a "national" way of life down here... drink, drive, do stupid things on the road.

I have put very few miles on my road bicycle for this very reason; hell, I'm scared to be on the road here in my 7K pound pickup truck, let alone a 20 pound bike!

Moving in 3 weeks... can't wait!

Redleg

I thought the problem in Texas was attributed to the snowbirds.

bdramsey

Why bother with the jury........................the judge just changed the whole punishment. I guess one person's opinion is more acceptable that 12-14 peoples. Kinda sounds like our federal goverment, why do we have congress? and why the house of "representative", they vote in a law, then a judge changes it. so take 400 people's decision and replaced it with 5 peoples decision, and whala you have a socialist govermental system, and not a DEMOCRACY. my own dos centavos... I agree with the jail sentence, but then again, there was 12 people that AGREED against it. That is how the legal system should operate.

Redleg

See how the press manipulates your opnion. They convicted him. They don't say wether there is a minimum sentance on the conviction. The jury probably failed to meet the minimum required by law, but who would know?

We had a case here where the media rported the State was not prosecuting a man in a road rage incient causing death. The female that caused the accident is the one that died. There had been previous calls made reporting her reckless driving. But if they say in the commercially, police not prosecuting for road-rage, people will tune in.

BigBlue

I agree on the 10-20 thing. I remember something one of my friends told me at the bar one night when I offered to drive him home, "In Texas if your drunk and awake you are the designated driver."

bdramsey

I have never been on a jury, but I would take a guess and suggest that after a person has been convicted, then the jury would have to choose a punishment from a list of possiblities, and then they would have to agree on a length of the punishment, I don't think that they can just pick somthing out of the air, there would have to be guidlines to follow. Is it the road-rage or the death that the prosocution pushed? They could both have very different penalties, my personal opinion is that when police see people on the road that are causing the possibilitiy of a catastrophy occuring, i.e. you see 2 cars travelling side by side without any free lanes to allow passing, and you see a mile of cars being slowed down because of these 2 that are actually controlling the speed on that road. It causes frustration, to all the folks behind them. It crawls under my skin, and I could guess that it crawls under most people's skin also. Don't get me wrong, the responibility ultimatley falls on the driver that was'nt paying enough caution to be aware of possible "traps". With alcohol being involed in any collision, then I 100% agree with jail time. The amount of jail time is a different story. How long does someone have to be in jail before they lose everything, job, family, possesion (cause they are now unemployed, and can't pay for them). I doubt most people get a 12 vacation schedule from thier employer.

DSjockey

Maybe you would feel different if it was one of your family that he helped kill???? you drink, you drive, you kill, you need to be in prison even if the jury fails to do their job (maybe they were pounding beers in the jury room)

bdramsey

That's why the jury is selected. To prevent one person from making the decision. So someone goes to prison, I did not disagree with that, if you read my post more carefully, then you would see that I DID agree that he needed to be in jail. See a prime example of why there are multiple people to make a decision, instead of just one. Combine all the people will see, and notice, and understand things differently than than person sitting next to them. The judge is supposed to decide if what the jury agrees to is legal or not. Period. If there are 12 on a jury, and 6 have lost family members, then there would still be 6 left that did'nt, it would provide for an objective view, not a biased.

btw if the jury fails to do thier job, then the case gets tossed.

Forrest Nearing

that's nuts, I can't believe he got off that light!

Forrest <-- in Dallas

Lary Ellis (Top)

After the OJ case, nothing surprises me any more

joel

Judges are there to ensure a fair trial as well as prevent and/or correct any obvious errors or stupidity by the jury. Though I've rarely heard of them adding additional punishment/awards, you do hear of judges reducing jury awards. They reduce sentencing or damage awards in civil cases, if the jury appears to have gone beyond the bounds of the law or if the "punishment doesn't fit the crime".

Without knowing the particulars of this case, it sounds like somehow the defense attorney got the jury to feel sympathetic for the butt who drove drunk and killed someone. He applied the law where the jury did not. I'm sure the court of appeals will determine if he was within his charter as a judge.

crobtex

The DWI (DUI) laws are pretty tough in most areas around here. I do know that at one time, in Dallas County, the average lawyer fees for DWI, first offense, was about $7K. Financially, this probably ruined the guy for life. When some idiot gets convicted in a case like this, I think there should be a mandatory minimum sentence and it should be a lot longer then six months.

hotdram

The judge imposed these conditions of probation after his time is served:

From CNN.com:
State District Judge Keith Dean ordered Frank Dorsett to serve two 180-day terms, drive a car with no more than 130 horsepower, carry a photo of the wreckage, take daily medication that will make him sick if he drinks alcohol and put a bumper sticker on his vehicle asking other motorists to call the probation department if he's driving recklessly.

The link is here: CNN LINK

~Rob