Jury Acquits Driver Who Killed The Sister In Law of Professor Alan Dershowitz

This week a jury cleared postal service driver Ian Clement in the death of the sister-in-law of Professor Alan Dershowitz. The defense accused Dershowitz of exerting pressure on the prosecutors to bring the case while Dershowitz’s brother implied that the prosecution did a poor job in the case leading to the acquittal.

Marilyn Dershowitz, 68, was killed last Fourth of July weekend when she fell off her bicycle and was crushed by a truck’s rear wheel. It was a horrific accident as Dershowitz was slowly crushed under the right rear wheel of the seven-ton truck. Reports detailed how people were screaming and honking their horns as people rushed to the side of Dershowitz — commotion that the prosecutors insisted the driver must have seen. Her husband was at the scene and gave testimony at the trial. The couple had decided to go biking that day. Marilyn Dershowitz was a retired court employee and Nathan Dershowitz is an attorney. He had sped up to make a light and she was passing between two seven-ton truck in part of the road that was narrowed that day because of an obstruction. The slow crushing of Dershowitz could not be more horrific as a death and witnesses described the terrible screams from both Dershowitz and pedestrians.

Clement was asked, when he pulled in, whether he had seen the horrible accident and he went to his supervisor and said “I think I’m the guy you’re looking for.”

Clement left the scene and insisted that he did not notice anything like a bump in running over the woman. Yet, Clement, 63, stopped 20 feet after running over Dershowitz and then continued on without getting out of his truck. He was only charged with leaving the scene of the accident.

Notably, the jury took less than a day to clear Clement. Moreover, the weight of a seven-ton truck might have been a deciding factor for the jury which could have assumed that the driver would not feel a significant bump in running over a person with the rear tires. Clement’s attorney also argued that cars are always beeping in New York and that the commotion did not alert Clement that his truck was the source of the problem.

The victim’s husband, Nathan Dershowitz, was clearly not happy with the performance of the prosecutors in the case and said outside of the courthouse, “I’m sorry I wasn’t part of the prosecution team.” When asked what he meant, he just added “You can understand what I’m saying.”

There remains the option of a civil lawsuit for Dershowitz, though there remains immunity issues in such cases with regard to personal liability. There is also the question of possible allegations of contributory negligence in Dershowitz riding between the two large trucks and possibly trying to catch up to her husband at the light — though I am not sure of the support for such a defense given the limited testimony on leaving the scene of an accident. Yet, in a tort action, the standard of proof is lower and the family would have greater control over the case.

Source: NY Daily

57 thoughts on “Jury Acquits Driver Who Killed The Sister In Law of Professor Alan Dershowitz”

  1. mespo727272,


    Great comment.

    Citing three 3 judgement factors in one sentence while not a record could be regarded as a proud achievement.
    If you got an argument to advance, do so. Otherwise……..ad hominems by implication only.

    BTW, when was it said, or even practiced, that we must respect a blog author, even Turley? Or just hoping for it when you blog?

  2. Since when have manners mattered? If one wants to hijack a thread, alls they have to do Is post. Now, at the kos, they’d never be able to do thIs.

  3. Moderator, Self Induced:

    “No one has the right to tell you what threads you can post to or not.”


    True enough but common sense, courtesy to the author, and an avoidance of the maniacal do.

  4. MIke S:

    “The authoritarian mindset is not just a failing of the Right Wing.”


    Ne’er a truer phrase was ever spoken.

  5. I find Dershowitz to be a brilliant lawyer — but not the most principled of persons.

  6. Jill,

    While not addressing the issue of whether you were attacked I do not feel my comment consists of bizarre “this or that”. Read again:

    “I could see that you perhaps wish to remind us that we accept the terrible tragedies occurring to civilians effected by drone attacks, whereas we react to seeing someone hit by seemingly random causes here in the USA with full sympathy. Where is your sympathy for these suffering people, is perhaps your implied question.

    The attacks which you meet attests to that your message went home with some, or was simply regarded as passing the line of requisite restraint when passing a tragic accident.”

    Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had written “accept without affect…”.

    I support your right to making OT comments. I feel OT comments are and should be placed where they have stronger, even chocking effects. We accepted what is being done in our name “over there”. Giving people the shocking truth at times thay are exposed to more shock is a good tactic, but not adviseable on most blogs, for reasons you are very well aware of.

    As for MikeS, there is no reason to comment. I don’t think he is reachable just now. Like most of the herd. To discard a herd influence is damn hard, especially when it is inflamed by the call of an acknowledged leader.

    Herd effect is why we sit in this mess called two party politics. Why we charge out to get revenge for 9/11 and attack the wrong people. But as said in earlier comments, war is a good business—and for controlling the people.

    Nice to observe, I believe, that no one attacked your reports and their facts. So again I repeat good cause you support.

    As for how one comment, mostly excerpted material of substance, can be called jacking does not match my understanding of jacking.

  7. Jill,

    Do not fall for the bait. No one has the right to tell you what threads you can post to or not. This silliness is lead by only Obama supporters. Please keep up the cause you believe in. It is apparent that some do not want to hear anything other than the propaganda they have bought into. When Stalin takes over this blog, fear reprisals, until then post anything you wish. These people are in need of a drink, they need to chill, they are acting out. Keep up the fight.

  8. Junior High School nonsense. Jill has been posting to this blog for years and years so all this in crowd talk is just childish how dare anyone criticize me foolishness.

  9. This is a very sad story, but riding your bike in any urban area comes with risks. When a truck or a bus cannot see you, you are riding in the wrong spot. I can understand how the outcome upset the family, however, I think it was the correct result.

  10. It is a great topic but on the wrong thread. The are plenty of appropriate ones. Some Iraq war supporters like Glen Greenwald prefer the use of ground troops. It makes for a great debate.

  11. The Dershowitz family have been devastated by a horrible accident and their desire for retribution is understandable. It was a series of missteps that led to a horrible way to die. I do feel for them. It was an event that has forever changed their lives, as well as the life of the postal driver.


    Thank you for the post on the drones. Sling’s thoughts make the point that your post is related to the article. As the Dershowitz family wants retribution, so do those affected by the drone attacks. Our whole country went bonkers where three buildings went down due to an attack that killed fewer than 4,000 people. The retribution has been horrific. Millions have died as a result. Included thousands more Americans. Is it any wonder that we’re not winning any friends in the middle east? And why the wars aren’t popular with anyone except those making lots of money from them?

    btw, I have occasionally posted OT and have never been attacked for it as you have. I like Nal’s comment to Blouise.

  12. Jill,

    Now, if you feel violated you have been. I am surprised that you are taking this abuse laying down. Get up and fight, not only for what you believe in, but for all women, every where. No one has the right to abuse you or anyone else. Don’t let them abuse you or they will keep it up.

    Just stand your ground, you don’t carry do you?

  13. WOW–I set out to give those who care about what is happening to our drone victims, the latest, very reliable info on what is happening. The rest of you are attributing bizarre motives to me. I have posted, along with others, topics that seem very relevant to this blog and this nation, many times.

    As I said before, had I posted this information while it was occurring under Bush, people would have thanked me for it. Instead of simply reading or ignoring the info, many of you have taken on a pack or herd mentality.

    Here is my analysis. I leave out of this the paid commenters because it is their job to discredit anyone who has brought out information the USG finds difficult to deal with.

    Oxytocin is not a compassion or “love” hormone. It increases and increases in response to “herd mentality”. When people are stressed they often move into a herd mentality. They attack “outsiders”, actually feeling better when they form a group to attack others. Being a bully pays off physically speaking.

    It is my feeling that herd mentality attack occurs regularly on this blog. People are rationally upset about the situation we face in this nation. Instead of admitting this, the fear, upset and rage are released upon a few designated victims. The people in the herd actually do, physically, feel “better”. This release, the sense of well being, helps fuel the continuation of the cycle.

    I have seen this occur on this blog with individuals and groups. It is Orwell’s: “2 minutes of hate”. I find herd mentality scary because it is what stories about totalitarianism are always trying to get across–that designating someone or a group for abuse turns the people doing that abuse into something they probably don’t want to be–a bully, a cruel person.

    Some people like being cruel and it is likely impossible to reach them. But other people get swept up-it feels good. Those people need to grab a hold of themselves and remember the description of this behavior in so much of our great literature. An authoritarian regime always needs people to take on a herd mentality. If enough people will do so, it can succeed. If enough people refuse to do so, it will fail.

    I’ve told you what I actually intended. I told you my analysis of what has happened on this thread. I leave all venom, herd mentality and hatred to those who wish to engage in it.

  14. Jill,

    Bad tactics. If we all want to come rushing salivating when JT rings the bell, with an issue camouflaged as it is in legal terms, then let us.

    If there was any issue, as I see it, to be examined in this blog, it was JT checking to see how we let
    sympathy sway our legal judgement. IMHO.

    I could see that you perhaps wish to remind us that we accept the terrible tragedies occurring to civilians effected by drone attacks, whereas we react to seeing someone hit by seemingly random causes here in the USA with full sympathy. Where is your sympathy for these suffering people, is perhaps your implied question.

    The attacks which you meet attests to that your message went home with some, or was simply regarded as passing the line of requisite restraint when passing a tragic accident.

    But then this is my opinion, and it can be expressed without the bloggers OK, as I understand it. Marking with OT is all that is required.

    My comment is not OT, as it is following the thread created by the otherscomments here.

    Good cause anyway, that you support.

  15. Kramer,

    How do you know anyone’s intent? Are voices telling you what to say and do again?

  16. Darren,

    How do you know what the blog policy is? Are you usually this much of a bully? Do you regularly guest blog? Except for being a died in the Wool pig, what are you qualifications. Cops usually suck up to whichever teat they can get, so long as its not hind. You dig?

  17. Mke hit it right on the head with regard to the first comment post.

    Jill, how can you declare there was nothing wrong with this off topic post when in the first word you wrote “OT”? Surely you knew this was impolite, else you would have not qualified the posting.


    I suspect in the case of this accident, the legal issue is going to press on for many years to come.

  18. Ladies and Gents: Jill has obviously done what she set out to do because we have all (and I AM including myself) commented on the OT.

  19. Let me get this straight. She was passing the truck on the right. She fell off the bike and fell under the rear tire. She must know that there is a blind side to drivers of long trucks. So she took a big risk in passing on the right and a bigger one when she fell off under the wheel. What kind of a bump would this person’s body or head make? None. So he could not see her, he did not feel a bump, if he felt a bump it is so common on NYC streets as to be like feeling a bug hit the window in front of you in Florida, if he could not see her after feeling the bump then why would he have to stop and go back to see more and why on earth is this leaving the scene? It was charged in the first place because these Dersw guys used their muscle.

  20. There could be said to be a ‘sort of’ connection between this and drones.

    Alan Dershowitz and his brother are clearly enraged. Sister-in-law / wife died horifically.
    It was an accident – with opinions as to how the driver might have been responsible.
    Surviving relatives/friends of people who die unpeacefully tend to look for retribution. Maybe it’s part of the denial and grieving process. Retribution is sought – even for a complete accident.
    Relatives of murder victims can not believe that an accused is innocent even if found innocent.
    We can understand this rage, even if we might think it is disproportionate.

    Try telling Dershowitz that the death was simply collateral damage arising from traffic. He’s not going to be receptive.

    With that understanding, what if this ‘accident’ came deliberately out of the sky?

Comments are closed.