.
Feedback

New Charges Filed Against Westfield Men Involved in Fatal Accident

Charles Casiere, 84, was charged today with vehicular homicide and assault by auto, while John Diaz, 74, was charged with second degree leaving the scene of an accident.

Charles Casiere, 84, and John Diaz, 74, both of Westfield, were served with additional charges earlier today in connection with thethat took the life of , 68, of Scotch Plains, in late January, announced Union County First Assistant Prosecutor Albert Cernadas, Jr.

Casiere, who stopped at the scene, was previously charged with driving while intoxicated, failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and reckless driving. Today, he was charged with vehicular homicide and assault by auto.

Diaz was previously charged with driving while intoxicated, failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, failure to report an accident and reckless driving. Today, he was charged with second degree leaving the scene of an accident. 

According to the investigation, around 6:05 p.m. on January 25, a car driven by Currie was passing through the intersection of North Avenue at Tuttle Parkway when it appears she grazed a pedestrian as he crossed the street, said Cernadas. Currie immediately stopped and offered assistance to the man, attempting to lead him across the street.

Witnesses reported that as the two walked across the road, a Chevy Cavalier, driven by Casiere struck the pair causing injuries and propelling them several yards down North Avenue.

Almost immediately after, a second vehicle, a GMC pickup, driven by Diaz struck Currie, who was now in the roadway, said Cernadas, causing further injury.

Currie was taken to a local hospital and pronounced dead a short time later. The male pedestrian was transported to University Hospital in Newark for treatment.

Union County Superior Court Judge Scott J. Moynihan set Casiere's bail at $50,000 with a condition of bail that he have interlock, a car breathalyzer, on any car he drives. Judge Moynihan set Diaz's bail at $25,000 with a condition of bail that he have interlock on any car he drives as well.

Both men surrendered to the earlier today and posted bail. 

These criminal charges are mere accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Jon June 21, 2012 at 06:51 pm
Bail is too low for murder. I love drinking and driving if I kill someone I expect more punishment. A person can loose everything getting drunk driving and not even be dangerously drunk like these two idiots.
Betty June 21, 2012 at 08:04 pm
How do they know who was responsible for killing the woman? Both cars hit her but only one driver was charged with killing her.
Janet Martin June 23, 2012 at 09:42 pm
Betty, Charles C was charged with murder because he hit her first, placing her in the roadway to be hit by the second driver
dotherightthing June 23, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Where were these two were being served alcohol to the point of being drunk? Does the bar bear any responsibility?
A.John Blake June 24, 2012 at 01:04 am
Has it ever been determined why Ms. Currie was leading the pedestrian to the farther side of North Ave.? Why were these two "pedestrians" now attempting to reach the far side of North Ave. rather than seek the safety of the side closest to them?
Did any officials ever seek the hospital records of both Ms. Currie and the pedestrian to see the results of the blood tests that had to have been performed on each? If either of them had any substance in their system, it would have to be in those reports. This might help explain the original accident that set this tragedy in motion. There is no reason to excuse the offense of drinking and driving as has been done against the two accused. It is another thing to charge them criminally if there is culpability on the part of the victims? Some explanation should be made concerning how and why the first accident occurred. Certainly the blood tests of both victims will be discoverable during the preparation for trial. It will be interesting to find out why Ms. Currie struck Mr.Kervik and why the two of them tried to go to the far side of the street. John Blake
Frank Esq June 24, 2012 at 03:19 am
A. John Blake: as much as you may like to think so, you are not an expert on every matter that you comment on on this site. It is the job of the Prosecutor's Office to examine the facts in the case and make the decision whether or not to press charges. I am sure you are not the first one to look at anomalies in the case and obviously the Patch does not have access to all the details, especially at this point in the investigation. If the prosecutor did not think the gentlemen committed the crimes they were charged with and did not believe there is evidence to prove them guilty, then they would not have been charged in the first place. If the men are innocent, then they will be proven so at trial (assuming they plead not guilty).
A.John Blake June 24, 2012 at 10:12 am
To Frank Esq.
I have no doubt there is evidence that these men committed offenses but there is a big difference between that and proof " beyond a reasonable doubt". The cause of the original accident between Ms. Currie and Mr.Kervik has never been explained nor has the problem created by their attempt to reach the far side of North Ave. Also Mr. Diaz is not charged with Ms.Currie's death. What facts lead one to believe he was not a cause? Why is he charged with leaving the scene when he was still there when the police arrived? John Blake
faith June 24, 2012 at 03:38 pm
i feel so sad for the currie family......
Wally Westfield June 24, 2012 at 08:09 pm
AJB,
While I usually enjoy and agree with your posts from your laptop @ 16 Prospect, I must say this one disappoints. Mr Kervick was excercising by taking a walk around Roosevelt Middle School and was crossing North Ave on his way back to his residence on the south side of town when he and Ms Currie had their unfortunate encounter. Ms Currie was being a good samaritan and aiding Mr Kervick in his journey back to his residence. Shame on you for implying anything else.
A.John Blake June 25, 2012 at 09:53 am
To Wally Westfield,
I have no doubt that Mr.Kervick was crossing North Ave when struck by Ms Currie. The question is "why did she strike Kervick". She cannot explain and he has not made any public statement and, in truth, may not remember. One of the things the investigators will do is to check the blood tests on all the parties. It will be interesting to learn the results. A desire to obtain facts is reasonable and no shame is attached to the search. I also thought Mr. Diaz stopped at the scene and was given permission to leave. His Identity was known to the police immediately. If he struck Ms.Currie, why was he charged with only "leaving the scene"? It was perfectly proper for Ms.Currie to help Mr.Kervick but the nagging question is why they did not seek the safety of the closest sidewalk. Mr.Kervick must have been hurt to need assistance. Why try to get to the far side of the street. These are all questions which must be answered in a trial, I see nothing "shameful" in asking them here.There had to be a reason for the original accident. It has never been explained.If Diaz stopped and was told he could leave, then why is he charged as he is? John Blake

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Westfield Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Deborah Bell (Editor) June 18, 2013 at 11:48 am
You're welcome! I'm sure you'll enjoy these boards a lot.
CowDung June 18, 2013 at 04:26 pm
The trouble is, that once the 'boards' are off the front page, one can't follow the discussion. TheRead More 'shout stream' has gone away with the redesign of Patch. The 'reply' feature has also gone. Somehow I don't see these boards as being all that useful for public discussion and interaction. The more effective place is on the articles themselves--they get more page space, and they tend to have a more 'discussion friendly' topic for conversation than the random board postings.
Karen Egert June 18, 2013 at 06:06 pm
I agree -- they should have a separate tab for Letters to the Editor
karen egert June 14, 2013 at 03:01 pm
Apparently Mr. Common Sense you were not at the Board meeting because if you were you would knowRead More that it was clearly outlined that all decisions and reporting of this police officer will be from the police department -- not the school. So are you saying that Lucy Biegler is now the new spokeswoman ? You said she is calling out the position for what it REALLY is ? The discrepancy in outlined roles and the vagueness of this position is reason enough to question it. Ofcourse you have an opinion , but because our children will be directly affected I think our concerns should be heavily weighed . .
karen egert June 14, 2013 at 03:05 pm
Rob -- to answer your question , I was never crazy about the DARE program and yes , I was disturbedRead More that the officer carrying a gun in school . I didn't like it . So I am being consistent. I was new to the school at the time .
A.John Blake June 19, 2013 at 06:22 am
I have no problem with a policeman in school. His ability to carry a gun is no different on schoolRead More property than elsewhere. Let us make sure we all understand that the man is a policeman, not a counselor. I think the idea that the children will be safer is absurd. Cameras in every public area in every school, monitored by the police ,would probably provide better surveillance. I object to any understanding between the Board and the Town which creates a hybrid officer who is required to act differently in school than he does on the street. In the past, the police have been hobbled by "arrangements" between the then BOE and the Town that the police would not enter the schools without permission. Investigations would not be conducted until the Board had finished its investigation. A "safe haven" had been created. This is wrong. In school, the children knew they didn't have to worry about police and acted accordingly. This is wrong. If the people want a policeman in school, let him be a policeman. Let him act as he does on the street. He is not a trained counselor . Don't think he will solve children's problems. At the moment, I don't think the entire picture has been given to us. I cannot believe there is not some writing between Dr.Dolan and the WPD which outlines the authority of each towards one another and over the SRO. I don't believe the BOE is about to allow the " fox into the hen house" without promises that restrict the policeman. I oppose any restriction of a policeman in the performance of his duty. I do not want to see the return of the "arrangements" of the past. The BOE and the Town must provide us with the full agreement or we should dismiss the thought of a SRO.
Charles Sullivan June 12, 2013 at 05:28 pm
Maddy, Thank you for your comment and I agree that's a lot of money. I just wanted to let you knowRead More that I wanted to give the board some options to consider in case they felt the need to hire a hybrid public safety officer with experience in security operations. Does the town need one, maybe. Can the WPD do more in regards to daily school security, yes I think so but they don't have to assign a cop they already have on the books for this activity. Thank you again for time.
New perspective June 13, 2013 at 02:45 pm
Mr. Sullivan - thank you for your lengthy explanation and detail. I think one of the statements youRead More made should speak volumes to all "Resource officers are proactive, and they can stop something before it starts, Police Officers are re-active and they respond to locations to enforce the law." Do we really want an armed officer in the school who MAY react to let's say someone who has a watergun but the police officer *thinks* it is a real gun at first quick glance? This happens everyday thoughout this country all by accident. Do we really need WHS to be another statistic? Here's another question....why just have an SRO at the High School? Aren't the middle school aged children MORE prone to peer pressure and stress that can cause them to want to harm others as a reaction? In my Non-Professional opinion, middle school aged kids are more of a danger than High School kids.
John Q. Public June 14, 2013 at 11:17 am
Mr. Sullivan, I believe I read that the SRO position had been eliminated for budgetary reasons inRead More the past but that doesn't really address the first issue I mentioned, nor does your comment about having external foot patrols. (As an aside, I believe the crossing guard in the morning at the corner where the auditorium is is a regular sworn police officer). In addition, I see the presence or lack of such external patrols and the lack of coverage if a single SRO has a sick day as logistical issues that can be worked out as opposed to legitimate objections. I don't really see these as evidence going against the SRO concept.
concerned citizen June 11, 2013 at 08:03 pm
Egert is just against guns, that's it. Everything has to fit into this, her small world, and sheRead More tries hard to make it fit, squeezes it, bends it and massages it. She gets help from the elitist billionaire Nanny Bloomberg for the talking points, but he has none regarding this specific topic, so she flounders.
john June 11, 2013 at 10:28 pm
Karen, karen, karen. it is to easy. never mind.
karen egert June 15, 2013 at 10:28 pm
GGG - I have nothing against the Westfield police . On the contrary, on the few occasions I hadRead More interactions with any of them., they were all professional , courteous and very helpful . I am grateful for our Westfield police . I believe that the wonderful job they do as trained police officers is spectacular . I just disagree with the use of a police officer that has only been trained in the duties of an SRO for 7 to 10 days to be the ones counseling our children. . But please don't say I'm against police officers . That's inaccurate and unfair .