News

Woman who crashed into and killed Menlo Park couple sentenced to 30 years to life

 

A woman with a prior DUI conviction who struck and killed a Menlo Park couple walking their dog in 2013 was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison today, prosecutors said.

A jury in May found Marjorie Reitzell, 55, guilty of two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving charges. Judge Robert Foiles handed down the stiff prison sentence this morning, San Mateo County Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti said.

Reitzell, a Redwood City resident, had been drinking heavily on Oct. 24, 2013, when at about 7 p.m. she veered off Chilco Street in Menlo Park and hit Kamal Singh, 45, and Balbir Singh, 50, from behind, prosecutors said.

The married couple, who had three teenage children, had been out walking their dog that evening. They were both pronounced dead at the scene and the dog was injured.

After the collision, Reitzell swerved across the center divider and hit another car, causing minor injuries to the four teenagers inside. She tried to drive away again and slammed into a tree.

Reitzell was taken to a hospital after the crash and testing revealed she had a blood-alcohol level of .23 percent, nearly three times the legal limit, according to prosecutors.

She was already on probation for drunk driving after a 2012 arrest in Menlo Park.

Related content:

Woman to stand trial for murder in October drunk driving deaths

— Bay City News Service

Comments

5 people like this
Posted by Susan S.
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 9, 2015 at 11:51 am

My deep condolences again to the family and friends of the Singhs. While it is good to hear Ms Reitzell will remained locked up for a long time and cannot harm anyone else, it still seems terribly unjust.


4 people like this
Posted by Peter R Cross
a resident of another community
on Jul 9, 2015 at 1:59 pm

What is the fundamental moral reason that we even need to support this woman in prison-level comfort for the remainder of her life? She has chosen what seems to me "Level 9" of 10 IRRESPONSIBILITY for the lives of others in a civilized Commonweal. We don't need to execute her, but how about life in a non-Commonweal--a state of minimally-improved nature, with a sealed boundary, which all such "deniers" share. They may there find some way to live minimally, eat one another, or whatever. The Law of the Jungle pertains there, and she's ipso facto given herself over to the non-protection of that law. An alternative--more preventative: upon her first DUI, she loses the rights to make certain choices. An implant now can be designed that would knock her senseless for 10 hours if only molecules of certain substances were detected in her peripheral systems. That's effective and inexpensive.


Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 9, 2015 at 4:23 pm

"What is the fundamental moral reason that we even need to support this woman in prison-level comfort for the remainder of her life?"

One hears these paeans to the joys of prison life all the time--always from non-prisoners.


Like this comment
Posted by Stanhutchings
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 9, 2015 at 6:15 pm

So in 30 years she will be able to hit the victims children at about the same age as their parents were?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

He said – she said – who is lying? Justice Brett Kavanaugh or PA resident Christine Ford
By Diana Diamond | 69 comments | 6,764 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 1,062 views

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 1 comment | 951 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 931 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 820 views