Family of man killed in 2001 crash say police botched case;
Officials uphold original investigation
Gilroy – The parents of a man who lost his life while driving himself and a friend to work about five years ago hold the Gilroy Police Department responsible for botching the investigation and allowing their son’s killer to remain free. But police and city officials uphold the original investigation, claiming it’s not the investigation that has them seething, but the outcome.
In the early morning hours of March 30, 2001, Paul Antonucci, 26, and his friend Jesse Green, 28, were killed in a head-on collision with a Peterbilt tractor trailer on 10th Street at U.S.101. Both Antonucci and Green were pronounced dead at the scene.
“When somebody dies in an automobile accident, that’s serious to us,” said Capt. Jack Robinson. “In this case we weren’t able to determine who was at fault … A proper investigation was done. We did as good of a job as we could have at the time. This was a serious event and we put our best foot forward.”
But the Antonucci family disagrees.
Joe and Joan Antonucci, Paul’s parents, believe the investigating officer, Mitch Madruga, intentionally left information out of the police report that would have allowed the District Attorney’s office to file charges against the truck driver.
Police and city officials back Madruga’s original report, citing that he is one of the department’s best investigators.
The Antonuccis and Green’s mother, Maria Hill, settled out of court for an undisclosed sum with the driver’s trucking company in 2002, but haven’t been able to find peace.
“What we wanted was some kind of acknowledgement from them that they did something wrong,” Joe said. “That’s pretty much what I wanted – an apology. We’re not talking about a parking ticket – we’re talking about something that changed our lives forever.”
According to Joan Antonucci, it wasn’t until she was thumbing through the depositions and police report in August 2005 that she discovered that the police report lacked information present in the depositions.
The statute of limitations in vehicular manslaughter cases where no alcohol, drugs or extreme negligence is involved is one year. Even if new information is brought forward, the case cannot be reintroduced.
“They were pretty thorough in their investigation, but the report was missing a lot,” she said. “Half of the information officer Madruga got he didn’t include in his report – and that’s why it was dropped (by the DA), because of lack of evidence. It is my understanding that it’s against the law to withhold evidence from the DA.”
She claims Madruga changed the meaning of an eyewitness’s statement to fit his conclusion and withheld specific measurements such as the timing of sensors in the road that control the lights that would have proven her son did not run the red light. The police report stated that the witness was uncertain whether he saw if Antonucci’s tail light’s were on, however, in the deposition, the witness said he was asked about the head lights. He claimed he believed the tail lights were on.
“I think he just looked at that evidence and said that didn’t prove that Paul ran the red light,” Joan explained.
According to South County Deputy District Attorney Paul Carrubba, all pertinent information must be included in a police report, however, it is not uncommon for a deposition to contain additional or different information when someone is sworn under oath, than when first interviewed by police.
The district attorney who reviewed the Antonucci case nearly five years ago could not be determined. However, in order to file manslaughter charges, the district attorney follows a standard that based upon the law, the case can be proven to a jury, he explained.
Both the victims families and the trucking company hired independent investigators to determine who ran the red light – and both parties found the other at fault.
But police said that without an eyewitness there’s no way to prove who ran the red light. An expert cannot come to the scene days, weeks or months later and determine who ran the red light, the only thing they can come up with is a theory, opinion, said Sgt. Kurt Svardal who helped investigate the accident.
According to Andrew Miller, the attorney for the trucking company, the civil settlement clearly stated that neither party was at fault and that the crash was an accident.
Police investigators were asked to perform a speed analysis by the DA’s office, but were unable to determine the speed Antonucci’s Nissan 300ZX was traveling upon impact. However, based upon the damage both the Peterbilt and Nissan sustained in the crash, they believe Antonucci’s car was speeding. The Peterbilt, which was transporting crane equipment was pushed back five feet on impact, police said. The equipment was shifted back despite being chained down.
“To have all that happen, that’s means there’s an awful lot of force,” explained Svardal. “In this case, somebody ran a red light. The question is who.”
Investigators were unable to determine whether Antonucci’s car had its lights on. However, a witness’s deposition taken about more than a year later stated that he saw that Antonucci’s tail lights were on.
The truck driver reportedly told a witness he wasn’t sure what happened, he wasn’t sure if he ran a red light or not. His statement to police claimed that he was rolling to the limit line to stop for a red light when the light changed and he started making a left-hand turn at about 10 to 15 mph when the two vehicles collided.
“We didn’t have anybody who could verify that,” Svardal said. “Red lights are hard to determine because you need to have independent witnesses … It primarily goes on what people saw. In this case, the independent witnesses didn’t know.”
There were no witnesses that actually saw the crash occur – only those who saw Antonucci’s vehicle seconds before the accident.
“When somebody who contributes to the crash is dead, it makes it very difficult (to determine fault),” he said. “What we have right now is a one-sided picture …The bottom line is – who ran the red light? We’ll never know.”
Joan Antonucci believes their independent investigator proved that her son did not run the red light and is seeking an apology from GPD.
“He was not out for a joy ride – he was on his way to work,” she said. “Even if he was speeding, what does that have to do with it? You can argue about the lights, but even if he didn’t have them on, that doesn’t mean he ran a red light. It has nothing to do with it … I don’t think it’s justice that the person who’s responsible for two deaths was never charged.”
Joan believes the police report should have included all the evidence collected to help the DA’s file a case against the driver.
However, according to Carrubba, police reports are not novels – they cannot include everything. In most instances, the DA’s office will ask for police to perform follow up investigations whether they are going to file charges or not.
Officer Madruga’s conclusions in his report stated that the cause of the accident was that one of the drivers ran a red light, however, was uncertain who was at fault. He did say it was his opinion that Antonucci’s vehicle was speeding.
Police conclusions are opinions and based upon a processing of witness statements and physical evidence, explained Robinson.
“What we do is take down the information the best we can at the time,” he said. “You’re basing your opinions on all of the facts. It’s not the gospel (of what happened).”
Witnesses are not raising their right hand stating the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Svardal said.
“They do that in court. And it’s up tot the DAs to take it to court,” he said. “Mitch went out there and did an investigation. (The Antonuccis) didn’t like the outcome … We are absolutely sorry for the loss of her son. It’s a tragedy. We’re sorry that both of them have perished. … but we feel an adequate job was done. We can’t change the facts of the case. It was sent to the DA’s office. They have chosen not to prosecute.”
According to Robinson, Joan Antonucci has sent between six and a dozen letters to the GPD explaining her point of view. He has tried calling her several times, but has never spoken with her directly. Antonucci has also written to City Administrator Jay Baksa and Police Chief Gregg Giusiana who have returned letters in support of the original investigation.
“The city’s position is Paul ran the red light. That’s their opinion and they’re entitled to that opinion,” Joan said. “Everybody seems to be focusing on who ran the red light – that’s already been settled and that’s not the issue.”
For Joan, the issue is what was left out of the police report that could have led to the conviction of the driver who killed their son and his childhood friend.
But police do not believe it would have altered anything.
“If she had a valid complaint it seems to me she would have had a valid complaint four years ago, and that’s when I would have wanted her to come forward,” Robinson said. “My heart breaks for Mrs. Antonucci because she’s lost a loved one. But there’s nothing more that we can tell her that’s going to change things. It’s been addressed.”
The Antonucci’s have purchased a second home outside Gilroy where they split their time – especially during the holidays when it gets too hard to stay in their son’s childhood house because memories of Paul opening gifts is too much for them to bare. Joan spends June 18, Paul’s birthday, at the cemetery.
“I try to be there the time he was born, just the two of us. It never gets easier. Never,” she said. “I still cry at the drop of a hat and I know Maria feels the same way … To lose someone like that, it’s your life – it’s just so hard. Not a day goes by that I don’t think of him.”
According to Joan, the Antonuccis never received an apology from the truck driver. She wishes they had – it would have made things easier, she said.
“I would probably have been able to forgive him if he had done that,” she said. “I wanted to go to trial. But we didn’t. My husband just wanted it to be over. It’s on my mind all the time – it probably will be for the rest of my life.”
