Judge at hearing calls it ‘hit-and-run’

Grossman case update



TRAGIC SCENE–The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department investigates the intersection of Triunfo Canyon Road and Saddle Mountain Drive on the night of the 2020 incident.                                                                                                                                                                                                                Acorn file photo

The judge in the Rebecca Grossman preliminary hearing Wednesday issued her strongest rebuke yet against the 58-year-old driver accused of running over and killing two Westlake Village brothers in 2020.

Witness testimony moved into a second week in the case against Grossman, driver of the Mercedes AMG GLE 43 vehicle that struck the Iskander brothers, 8-year-old Jacob and 11-year-old Mark in a Triunfo Canyon Road crosswalk while they were on an evening stroll with their family.

“I think the defendant, after hitting the two young boys, proceeded to drive away,” Los Angeles Superior Court Shellie Samuels said. “She didn’t come back, she didn’t turn around.”

Grossman, who is co-founder of the Grossman Burn Foundation with husband Dr. Peter Grossman, could have “walked back to the scene” after her vehicle’s engine shut down automatically about a quarter-mile north of the intersection between Triunfo and Saddle Mountain Drive where the incident occurred, but chose not to.

“She did not apply the brakes after she hit the children. That is hit-and-run,” Samuels said.

A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s detective testified Wednesday that Grossman’s blood alcohol content was .08%, the legal limit in California. She was not charged with DUI, however.

Nancy Iskander, mother of the boys, walked out of court in tears as a sheriff’s department crash investigator provided a graphic summation of the body of her 11-year-old son Mark after he was found 254 feet from the intersection where Rebecca Grossman ran him down.

“Based on other cases, this is the farthest a pedestrian has been projected,” Deputy Robert Apodaca said.

The testimony came on what was expected to be the last day of Grossman’s preliminary hearing in which Samuels will decide whether to hold the Hidden Hills socialite over for trial on murder and manslaughter charges.

DEFENSE TEAM–Rebecca and Peter Grossman at the May 4 preliminary hearing in Van Nuys Court.           SCOTT STEEPLETON/Acorn Newspapers

Grossman maintains her innocence and is free on bond.

Samuels heard from law enforcement about a friend of Grossman’s who said she came to his home at 4:40 the afternoon of the collision and that Grossman drank half a margarita. That was not long before Grossman and two other people consumed additional margaritas at Julio’s Agave Grill on Agoura Road. A waitress at the restaurant reportedly told authorities of the glasses, “They were all empty” when the trio left.

Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Ryan Gould was saved from having to file an objection to an 11th hour defense request for a witness who would dispute any notion that Grossman had not applied the brakes after the collision.

“I’m not going to let you prolong this preliminary hearing any more than you already have,” Samuels told defense attorney Alan Eisner before denying the request.

Eisner responded, “The people are being able to present a false narrative without this evidence.”

The judge’s fiery rebukes took a toll on Grossman, who at times shook her head—drawing even more admonishments from Samuels. Should the case go to trial and Grossman is convicted on all counts, she could face 34 years to life in state prison.

Wednesday’s testimony capped an eventful few weeks in the case. Among the highlights was a hearing where defense attorneys won an argument to exclude several pieces of evidence against their client. That was followed by the defense losing its bid to exclude media and the public from the preliminary hearing, where a judge decides if the evidence warrants a trial.

The public saw for the first time Grossman, on video recorded by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, being cooperative while being put through various field sobriety tests after the collision. Dressed for a casual night out—ripped blue jeans, black top, white fedora with a dark band and flip flops, her hair in braids that hang in the front—Grossman initially tells a deputy that the airbags in her Mercedes SUV simply deployed and that the car came to a stop.

As the tests continue, with Grossman touching her nose with her fingers, walking a straight line, standing with head back and a foot slightly off the pavement, she blurts out specifics about whatever happened a half-mile earlier.

“How are the children?” she asks, eliciting no response from the deputy.

Soon after, she encourages the deputy to ask her husband, Grossman Burn Foundation co-founder Dr. Peter Grossman, to come to the scene to help the children.

At one point Grossman tries to ingratiate herself to the deputy, saying she and her husband “do a lot” with the department.

Grossman, who admitted to having a margarita drink earlier in the evening, blew a .076 and .075 at the scene. At this point in his investigation the deputy determines she is impaired.

And while Nancy Iskander used the word “racing” to describe the way Grossman and Grossman’s friend, former Dodgers pitcher Scott Erickson were driving on Triunfo Canyon Road approaching Saddle Mountain Drive the evening her boys were killed in the crosswalk, Gould did not add street racing to the charges or as an aggravating circumstance.

Gould is, however, asking the judge to hold Grossman over for trial on two counts each of vehicular manslaughter and second-degree murder. The murder charge is often reserved for a motorist with a prior DUI who has been formally admonished about the dangers of drinking and driving but does it again, resulting in a fatality. In California, this is known as a “Watson murder,” named for a 1981 California Supreme Court case (People v. Watson) in which the court ruled that a DUI motorist who causes a fatal crash can be convicted of murder if the driver acted with implied malice.

While not unprecedented, Gould’s implied malice approach is rarely applied, according to a legal expert not associated with the case contacted by The Acorn.

Bill Makler, a DUI and criminal defense attorney and former professor at Santa Barbara and Ventura colleges of Law, cited another California case in which the defendant drove double the speed limit in a 35 mph zone, ran a red light and then struck and killed another motorist.

“Even though the defendant was sober and told the police he did not intend to kill anyone, his second-degree murder conviction was upheld because his conduct ‘went well beyond gross negligence.’” Makler said.

“Naturally, the grieving loved ones are not caught up in the gradients of the offending driver’s intent,” he said. “They are hurt beyond measure, they are angry and they often, emotionally, want the absolute worst for who they view as the callous, if not willful, ‘murderer.’”