Mary Fong Lau, second from left, stands with friends before a hearing in the Hall of Justice in San Francisco on Friday. Lau faces felony vehicular manslaughter charges in an accident that killed a family of four in March 2024.

The car crash that killed a family in West Portal two years ago is a tragedy from any angle. The family, Diego Cardoso de Oliveira, Matilde Moncada Ramos Pinto and their two infants, had recently settled in San Francisco. They were struck when a car going the wrong way at a high speed slammed into a bus shelter. The 80-year-old driver, Mary Fong Lau, had no criminal record and, by all the evidence, was not under the influence and didn’t act intentionally. A tragedy all the way around.

But when San Francisco Superior Court Judge Bruce Chan stated his intention to sentence Lau to probation without jail time, there was widespread outrage in the community. The outrage is centered first on the fact that Lau was permitted to plead “no contest” instead of guilty to four felony vehicular homicide counts, and second on the claim that Lau moved assets from her own name in an effort to put them beyond the reach of a civil lawsuit filed by the victims’ family.

Related: Why is the driver in fatal West Portal crash likely to avoid jail? Experts weigh in as outrage erupts

Article continues below this ad

No contest pleas have the same effect as guilty pleas in criminal cases, but unlike guilty pleas, they are not admissions of guilt for civil case purposes. And because her plea was no contest, Lau can still deny responsibility in the pending wrongful death suit.

Last week, Judge Chan expressed sympathy for Lau, saying that she “is going to spend the rest of her days living with the knowledge of the harm she has caused to others.” He added that Lau had shown great remorse and that she told medical staff at the hospital following the crash that she wished she could trade places with the victims. Remorse is always a powerful factor in sentencing.

See more S.F. Chronicle on Google

But according to attorneys for the family of the victims, Lau moved several pieces of real property to new entities after they filed the wrongful death suit. If true, that action belies Lau’s claims of true remorse. (The family has also filed a separate lawsuit accusing Lau of attempting to hide her assets.) It’s one thing to say you’re remorseful and quite another to show it by allowing your assets to remain in play in a civil lawsuit — or, to quote an old adage, putting your money where your mouth is.

While Chan has already set forth his thoughts about sentencing, he can still change his mind. I believe that he has two fair and reasonable alternatives to simply giving Lau a straight probation sentence with no jail time.

Article continues below this ad

First, Chan could insist on requiring, as a condition of her probation, that Lau recapture any properties she transferred out of her name. While this might be a somewhat unusual probation condition, it would hardly be unique, and it’s well within the judge’s discretion. The California Supreme Court has long held that trial judges have “broad discretion” when it comes to sentencing: A probation condition is valid “unless it has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted.”

The state penal code says that a judge may set any “reasonable conditions” of probation, anything “fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach … and for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer.”

Judges can and do impose probation tailored conditions, including requiring the probationer to abstain from alcohol or drug use, find and maintain a job, undertake psychiatric therapy or counseling and even mandatory acupuncture or wellness therapy. Judges often require restitution as a condition of probation, but restitution relates to a specific amount of damages, as in a theft — not the case here.

Still, under California law, requiring Lau to regain her assets in her own name is an appropriate probation condition and one that makes a lot of sense under these circumstances. Getting back the property that Lau transferred elsewhere has a clear relationship to the crime.

A related approach is for Chan to require a further sentencing hearing to determine whether Lau moved assets out of her name. Again, the judge has broad discretion. Chan could allow Lau to try to prove she didn’t transfer assets and even allow lawyers for the family to show that she did. The relevance is clear: If she didn’t transfer assets, her remorse may be genuine. But if she did, the extent of her remorse is severely compromised. In a situation where the only legal recourse for the family’s relatives is to sue Lau for money, transferring funds to new accounts in other people’s names is the height of manipulation.

Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership.

Read more about our transparency and ethics policies

Nothing, of course, will bring back the four people who were killed. Allowing their family to seek recompense from the perpetrator of their deaths may be small satisfaction, but it is, sadly, along with the sentence itself, the only measure of compensation that our system has to offer.

Judge Chan still has time to reconsider his approach. I hope he does so.

Richard Zitrin is an emeritus professor of legal ethics at UC College of the Law San Francisco. His latest book is “Trial Lawyer: A Life Representing People Against Power.”

© San Francisco Chronicle