Following is a text of remarks by Judge Cahill and the defendant at Monday's sentencing. The text has been edited for space and to avoid repetition:
Defendant: I would like to tell your Honor I'm very sorry about what happened. I can't change what has happened. I would like to continue working, and it helps me out mentally and everything. I'm just willing to accept whatsoever you will do for my actions. That's all I can say.
Mr. Irwin [the defense lawyer]: Thank you.
L Judge Cahill: You are blessed with a very supportive family.
Mr. Irwin is correct, that people who meet judges for the first time . . . , those not acquainted with the system, frequently ask what is the most difficult thing you have to do. The old saw is that it is decide custody, but that truly is not the most difficult thing that a judge is called upon to do. The most difficult thing that I have found is sentencing noncriminals as criminals.
This case is very similar and equally tragic to the very difficult manslaughter by automobile cases that I've handled in the past year. The consequences are as tragic. I was called upon to sentence a young man who while driving under the influence killed his brother.
I recently had to sentence a noncriminal citizen, a lady who had attended Christmas parties last December or a Christmas party, overindulged and got on the ramp going the wrong way and killed her best friend, leaving two children that that lady was supporting.
And previously I was called upon to sentence an individual, an employee of Xerox who had never had a brush with the law in 15 years and had had a prior ticket of some nature up on Pennsylvania, but while driving home after his wife had left him sometime before and having had too much to drink one night, he struck and killed a 10-year-old child on a bike.
Those are both difficult choices. This is nonetheless, it is equally difficult. There is a distinction. The courtroom contains visitors only on one side (the defendant's), and so I get the benefit of in effect sentencing in anonymity. I don't have Mothers Against Drunk Drivers present. The chances are this case will not even be written up. There is a chance that it might because of the current emphasis on spousal violence and that phenomenon in our society.
The judicial conference, where all the judges of this state gather . . . meets here in Towson a week from Thursday, and upwards of 250 judges will be present. The sole topic for the two-day meeting is domestic violence. I will certainly go with a great deal of current experience . . .
You could not fictionalize a more tragic circumstance than this. On the one hand, there is real sympathy for the defendant and how he should have reacted to this terrible situation. . . . But the victim is nonetheless a victim, and she is deceased. And her mother will never be the same. Nor will the defendant. Nor will his family. That, too, is tragic, but that's part of life.
The [sentencing] guidelines -- I understand the State's position, I don't quarrel with it. I think the state has been extremely fair in this case. I don't always say that. But generally I do, and certainly this case is a case where the State has acted with great recognition of its responsibility to the individual, the decedent, the victim, and the public.
. . . Manslaughter is a serious offense, as the guidelines indicate. Three to eight years for a first offender is a heavy sentence. And for those who have never had the misfortune of spending a day behind bars, they can't understand how heavy that is, because I say we're dealing here with an individual who by his background is noncriminal. He now is a criminal, unfortunately. All the more difficult, his brothers are in law enforcement, and have had long, having seen the rest of the family, I would expect, distinguished careers in law enforcement.
But what do we do with Kenneth Peacock? The two elements of sentencing, the cases tell us, are the individual, the deterrent aspect, the background of the individual, and punishment. I agree with Mr. Irwin, that just as in vehicular manslaughter cases, my sentences in the three cases I mentioned will not prevent other people from killing people with automobiles.
. . . But whether or not the sentence in this case will deter, I can't really say. I would hope that it does. But I cannot think of a circumstance whereby personal rage is uncontrollable greater than this for someone who is happily married. And that is not mere lip service, it is a fact. To be betrayed in your personal life when you are out working to support the spouse under the heightened circumstances of this case are almost unmanageable, I would think, even if a person did not have alcohol as a contribution factor.
I guess Mr. Peacock's single greatest problem in this case is the alcohol, but it does require some kind of sentence as a deterrent just as motor vehicle manslaughter . . . requires sentences. Judges simply can't say, in spite of how excellent the person's background may be, that appearing before the Court is enough, because there are other people watching and listening.
So I am forced to impose a sentence in this case in my mind, not forced by any guidelines, not forced by any third parties, but only because I think I must do it to make the system honest. I have no question in my mind that no judge of this circuit and probably no judge of this state will ever see Kenneth Peacock again. That's why I'm not overly concerned in light of his history since this event and what he has done awaiting sentencing, I'm not really concerned about probation, the terms of probation, things of that nature.
But I cannot send a message, and it could be interpreted this way, that if even under the most extreme circumstances you have a personal disagreement with a family member, you can settle it the way this ultimately got settled. And I give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, the fact that this was not a contact wound, that it could well have been rage and accident. But alcohol and rage create that kind of accident, the same as alcohol and driving an automobile create fatal accidents and fatal outcomes.
So I can at least look to my past in sentencing those cases and try to make this make some sense with those cases. It has been made easier again by the State's frankness with respect to the victim's mother . . . She is a very responsible lady, obviously. She has found her way to accept the system and trust that the person who has the difficult job of administering will do that job. . . .
So I must impose a sentence on Mr. Peacock. I had checked this morning to find out whether work release was available to a person who drove out of state. I'm told that it is. And I'm impressed by Mr. Peacock's statement that he needs work release to get by mentally. [The doctor] said . . . Mr. Peacock, that you have an alcohol problem.
Defendant: Yes.
Judge Cahill: And he put another psychiatric label in there, which I'm not surprised at, because there are labels, about what he really has is an alcohol problem. Like some other people, you just have to stay away from alcohol, that's all. No more tragedies with dTC no more alcohol.
But I must, as I said, impose a sentence as a deterrent and as somewhat of punishment for your . . . not walking away. I seriously wonder how many married men, married five years or four years would have the strength to walk away, but without inflicting some corporal punishment, whatever that punishment might be. I shudder to think what I would do. I'm not known for having the quietest disposition. Had you done that, you probably would have seen this Court in a different fashion, in a marital case. And that's extremely unfortunate for you. But I sense by your actions that you will handle this. And I don't know if you would handle or benefit or the public would benefit in any way by placing you within the Division of Correction.
So the sentence of the Court is that I will impose, and I think I have to say the first part, a sentence of three years -- because under any stretch of imagination these facts would be the minimum of the guidelines, and I don't see the necessity of having the classic something hanging over your head aspect of sentencing, it doesn't exist in this case -- to the Division of Correction for three years, suspend all but the 18 months to be served at the Baltimore County Detention Center. . . . I recommend work release immediately. I also will recommend ... home detention, when the authorities deem it appropriate. . . . It is not going to be pleasant, I can assure you of that. They're sleeping on the floors in the work release facility. We simply don't have any beds out here right now. But you will have to be very, very strong . . ..
Upon his conclusion of the 18 months or that portion of it, I'm going to place Mr. Peacock on probation for a period of one year. And the sole purpose of that probation in this case. . . is to have someone looking over him with respect to alcohol.... You will have to abstain from alcohol during that period of time. You will have to be evaluated . . . you will have to submit to random urinalysis, participate in . . . Alcoholics Anonymous . . .
If at all possible, I am also going to, as a condition of probation, require that the defendant not participate in the domestic violence program, but that he render assistance to domestic violence programs in existence in the form of 50 hours of community service, which could be spent allowing his dreadful and tragic experience to be used as an example that would help others. . . .