Cellphone Driving

"This young man made a tragic mistake, but he decided to make more mistakes and drag the family and drag us all into trial rather than plead guilty, which he was.
"(Alexandra) was never about punishment. She was about justice, and I think justice was done."
"He owes it to Alex, he owes it to her family, he owes it to us, and he owes to himself and his family to be honest with himself and accept the consequences of his actions."
Mazin Al-Rasheed, law student, University of Ottawa

Social justice, it seems, was a cause that resonated with Alexandra Dodger. She will never have the opportunity to advance her chosen professional career and her emotional attachment to the concept of social justice. At age 27 she was struck down by a vehicle travelling on a road in the wrong direction, whose driver was under the influence of alcohol and paying attention to programming a new cellphone, not to the road ahead.

Maxime Morin Leblanc, one year older than his victim, was charged with criminal negligence causing death, impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample at the police station after the October 2011 collision that took Alexandra Dodger's life. The jury foreman delivered the verdict that the jury had unanimously arrived at: guilty on all counts.

Alexandra Dodger

"No verdict would bring Ms. Dodger back to her friends and loved ones, but hopefully this, in some way, helps them cope with Ms. Dodger's death", commented Matt Humphreys, assistant Crown prosecutor. Mazin Al-Rasheed, a friend of Alexandra Dodger, suggested the man who drove his vehicle into the young woman should "search his soul", and volunteer for Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The young woman had graduated from McGill University's school of law in May of 2011. She moved to Ottawa from her home in Toronto to take up an articling job at Amnesty International. Her family explained that she was looking forward to a career in social justice. "She was always trying to help everybody", said her grandmother; "To me, she couldn't be any better person."

Contrast that personal outline with that of the young man who had been out drinking with friends, visiting three drinking establishments. He had taken three beers, he maintained, over an eight hour period. He had been "church-mouse sober" insisted his lawyer, pointing out that post crash he wasn't seen to sway, stumble or slur his speech.

Morin Leblanc testified in his own defence. He explained that he had been distracted by his new iPhone as he drove down a one-way road in the wrong direction. An oncoming car caused him to swerve defensively out of the way. The young woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. She was walking on a one-way street, obeying the law, having no idea whatever that her life would be in danger.

But, as Morin Leblanc informed the court during his testimony, he was attempting to "impress" his friends in the car, as he was adjusting his new iPhone, trying to synchronize its music apps to his car stereo. He said repeatedly he hadn't been impaired. He hadn't felt under the influence of alcohol. He felt quite in control. He just happened not to have been paying attention.

"Opportunity to consume is not evidence of consumption", his lawyer cautioned the jury. The jury was obviously convinced otherwise, given the evidence, given the horror of the outcome of a momentary inattention that led a driver to ignore posted warning that the road was one-way, and hat someone's life, obviously might be endangered.

It wasn't the driver's.