Convicted drunk driver charged with ramming into two cars stopped on the Gilmore Bridge

John McCarville, 48, of Cambridge, was released on his own recognizance today at his arraignment on charges he sent four people to the hospital - including himself - in a 2 a.m. crash on the Charlestown side of the Gilmore Bridge on Sept. 24.

McCarville's arraignment on charges of OUI, second offense, causing serious injury while operating under the influence and negligent operation came more than a month after the crash because of the hospitalization he required, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports, adding McCarville was first convicted of OUI in 1988.

According to the DA's office, the drivers of a 2014 Honda Accord and a 2012 Toyota Camry had stopped on the bridge after a minor collision with no injuries or even any apparent damage to either vehicle when:

McCarville allegedly drove [his 2002 Ford Explorer] into the Honda at a high rate of speed, colliding with such force that the Honda crashed into the Toyota.

The DA's office continues:

The Honda was occupied by a 27-year-old ride-share service driver, who was transported to Massachusetts General Hospital with head, neck, and chest injuries, and her 22-year-old passenger, who was outfitted with a brace for a neck injury. The woman’s vehicle sustained heavy front end and rear end damage in the crash. The Toyota was occupied by a 58-year-old male taxi driver who was transported to MGH for a leg injury. His vehicle sustained heavy rear end damage.

McCarville was also transported to MGH with head and neck injuries. His vehicle sustained heavy front end damage.

According to the DA's office, responding state troopers detected alcohol on McCarville's breath and found two open Bud Light cans in his car - one still cold to the touch - and a third just outside the car.

Troopers also observed a cooler in the vehicle. During an inventory incident to its removal from the scene, troopers recovered a total of 22 empty Bud Light cans; 12 unopened Bud Light cans; 10 Smirnoff vodka “nip” bottles, two of which were empty; a partially-consumed Romana Sambuca "nip" bottle; and an empty flask.

At his arraignment, prosecutors had asked for bail of $7,000. A Charlestown District Court judge reduced that to personal recognizance, but did agree with prosecutors to order McCarville not to drive while the case against him is pending. In addition to the criminal charges, he also faces several civil infractions: Possessing an open container of alcohol in a vehicle, failing to wear a seat belt and speeding.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Can we not link to creepy sites like this?

By on

We're talking about an allegedly loathsome criminal, and that's a sleazy stalker site, and that site also does irresponsible things like "possible relatives" and "possible associates" links to people who don't have anything to do with this.

Common name

By on

This is a fairly common name - and people of a certain age tend to be named after their fathers. There are lots of people named John Blah who have several cousins named John Blah who are of similar age, too. Ditto for their sister Mary Blah.

Don't go there.

Thanks for keeping the roads safe, your honor

By on
Troopers also observed a cooler in the vehicle. During an inventory incident to its removal from the scene, troopers recovered a total of 22 empty Bud Light cans; 12 unopened Bud Light cans; 10 Smirnoff vodka “nip” bottles, two of which were empty; a partially-consumed Romana Sambuca "nip" bottle; and an empty flask.

At his arraignment, prosecutors had asked for bail of $7,000. A Charlestown District Court judge reduced that to personal recognizance, but did agree with prosecutors to order McCarville not to drive while the case against him is pending.

Sure, tell the guy not to drive. He's obviously good at following the rules.

Prosecutors don't make the decisions

By on

Judges do.

They owe ZERO justification whatsoever.

Please study some history and civics and try again. If you need help, contact your community college.

Really

By on

You don't need to be a snide dic.

In my job, when I make nearly any decision

By on

especially one that runs contrary to professional advice or established standards, I have to provide justification for that decision. And I can assure you that "Because that's my decision." would not be acceptable to my bosses.

Why should we expect any less from judges, who deal with decisions that are very important to society. It's called ACCOUNTABILITY. Unless you believe that the public is better served by not knowing why a judge chose to disregard a prosector's bail recommendation and release a person charged with second-time OUI on personal recognizance.

Prosecutors are adversaries

By on

Prosecutors are representing the state - they are not "expert opinion". They are ONE adversarial opinion.

Plaintiff's lawyers are adversaries - why are you whining that their professional opinions are disregarded?

Judges are neutral parties.They DO NOT have to justify it when they do not side with an ADVERSARIAL opinion any more than they have to explain why they ignored the plantiff's lawyer's opinion.

You need to learn how our system works

Time for my quick quiz

By on

In Massachusetts, what is the default for bail?

I’ll give you a hint. The answer is in the article.

If judges don’t do what the default is, perhaps then they should have to justify their decision.