Victim's husband screams as 'Melrose Place' actress is sentenced
SOMERVILLE, N.J. (AP) - A former "Melrose Place" actress who was drunk when her SUV plowed into a car and killed a woman was sentenced Thursday to three years in prison, infuriating the victim's relatives, who had hoped for the 10-year maximum.
"What a travesty!" the victim's husband, Fred Seeman, yelled after the sentence was read.
"This is not justice," the victim's 26-year-old son, Ford Seeman, told the judge before he stormed out of the courtroom.
A jury in November convicted Amy Locane-Bovenizer of vehicular homicide in the 2010 death of 60-year-old Helene Seeman in Montgomery Township.
Locane-Bovenizer will be eligible for parole after 2 1/2 years and will be credited the 81 days she has already served. She also had her license suspended for five years and will be on probation for three years after her release. She must pay several thousand dollars in fines.
Locane-Bovenizer, who didn't testify at the trial, appeared in 13 episodes of TV's "Melrose Place" and in movies including "Cry-Baby," ''School Ties" and "Secretary."
Prosecutors say she was driving with a blood-alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit when her SUV slammed into a Mercury Milan driven by Fred Seeman as he was turning into his driveway. Fred Seeman's wife, Helene, was killed, and he was seriously injured.
During the trial, the defense argued that Fred Seeman was making a slow turn, which contributed to the crash. They maintained that it was an accident, not a crime.
The defense also shifted blame to a third motorist who they say distracted the actress by honking at her and chasing her after being rear-ended. They said the chase led Locane-Bovenizer to drive 20 miles over the speed limit on a dark two-lane road.
The judge lowered the maximum sentence citing the hardship on Locane-Bovenizer's two young children. One has a serious medical and mental disability. The defense went into detail about how her sick child was deteriorating physically and psychologically since the actress' incarceration and about how a prolonged sentence would make it worse.
"I'm just glad her little girls will have their mother back soon," Locane-Bovenizer's mother, Helen Locane, said as she walked out of the courtroom.
In an emotionally charged statement, Fred Seeman told the court that the defense contention that his vehicle was turning slowly added "salt on the wound," and he said he was appalled that Locane-Bovenizer took no responsibility for killing his wife.
The actress, in turn, apologized to Seeman's family and said she did take full responsibility.
"I am truly sorry for all of the pain I have caused," she said, struggling to get through her statement, as she looked toward the family that packed one side of the courtroom while her friends and family packed the other. "My own suffering will never go away."
Judge Robert Reed said that he had no sympathy for the actress but that the children should not suffer even more because of her actions.
The Seeman family said after the sentencing that the decision was a "mockery" and only added to the suffering they've endured since the accident.
"What's one more punch in the gut?" Ford Seeman said.
"What a travesty!" the victim's husband, Fred Seeman, yelled after the sentence was read.
"This is not justice," the victim's 26-year-old son, Ford Seeman, told the judge before he stormed out of the courtroom.
A jury in November convicted Amy Locane-Bovenizer of vehicular homicide in the 2010 death of 60-year-old Helene Seeman in Montgomery Township.
Locane-Bovenizer will be eligible for parole after 2 1/2 years and will be credited the 81 days she has already served. She also had her license suspended for five years and will be on probation for three years after her release. She must pay several thousand dollars in fines.
Locane-Bovenizer, who didn't testify at the trial, appeared in 13 episodes of TV's "Melrose Place" and in movies including "Cry-Baby," ''School Ties" and "Secretary."
Prosecutors say she was driving with a blood-alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit when her SUV slammed into a Mercury Milan driven by Fred Seeman as he was turning into his driveway. Fred Seeman's wife, Helene, was killed, and he was seriously injured.
During the trial, the defense argued that Fred Seeman was making a slow turn, which contributed to the crash. They maintained that it was an accident, not a crime.
The defense also shifted blame to a third motorist who they say distracted the actress by honking at her and chasing her after being rear-ended. They said the chase led Locane-Bovenizer to drive 20 miles over the speed limit on a dark two-lane road.
The judge lowered the maximum sentence citing the hardship on Locane-Bovenizer's two young children. One has a serious medical and mental disability. The defense went into detail about how her sick child was deteriorating physically and psychologically since the actress' incarceration and about how a prolonged sentence would make it worse.
"I'm just glad her little girls will have their mother back soon," Locane-Bovenizer's mother, Helen Locane, said as she walked out of the courtroom.
In an emotionally charged statement, Fred Seeman told the court that the defense contention that his vehicle was turning slowly added "salt on the wound," and he said he was appalled that Locane-Bovenizer took no responsibility for killing his wife.
The actress, in turn, apologized to Seeman's family and said she did take full responsibility.
"I am truly sorry for all of the pain I have caused," she said, struggling to get through her statement, as she looked toward the family that packed one side of the courtroom while her friends and family packed the other. "My own suffering will never go away."
Judge Robert Reed said that he had no sympathy for the actress but that the children should not suffer even more because of her actions.
The Seeman family said after the sentencing that the decision was a "mockery" and only added to the suffering they've endured since the accident.
"What's one more punch in the gut?" Ford Seeman said.
If she wasn't a celebrity, she would have gotten the 10 years instead. Talk about bias.
Hardship on her kids? SHE should have thought about that before she started drinking. We all know right from wrong. She ain't no better. Sorry. She isn't any better than we are. My backwoods coming out.
I'm appalled that they will give her license back to her in five years. That should be revoked for life.
@Ankle Biter Â
Revoked for life?, seriously, get a grip...
@DoctorPCÂ @Ankle Biter Yes..seriously. Anyone who kills someone driving drunk should never drive again legally. I think licenses should be revoked for life after 3 DUI's too.
@DoctorPC @Ankle Biter Seriously.  Mentally impaired don't get gun licenses, chronic drunks need to stay away from cars.
A few things to consider before letting our emotions get the best of us here - on either side. Any one of us could easily find ourselves - or someone close to us - on the wrong end of the proverbial stick here. Why? Because our legal definitions for what constitutes "drunk" are grievously arbitrary. All 50 states have now set .08% BAC as the legal limit for Driving Under the Influence. For commercial drivers, a BAC of .04% can result in a DUI conviction nationwide. For those under 21, there is a zero tolerance limitâany amount of alcohol is grounds for a DUI arrest. Also bear in mind that before the legal blood alcohol level was .08, it was .10. And before that it was .15.  Yet we're going to convict the 20 year old or the truck driver at .04, even though he/she can drive 10 times better than a sober spastic or the senior who backed over a group of schoolchildren last year? Where's the due diligence? Our roadways are loaded with drivers who have no business driving even when sober. Do we account for this? Negative. What makes more sense; being a cheerleader for grievously incoherent laws that amount to nothing more than money making schemes? Or creating laws with the requisite due diligence behind them? In a society where more than half the population drinks, it might be worth the effort.
@zipmont  You recite this big excuse to yourself when you drink and drive? Â
@JaylikeBird @zipmont Â
No, but you'll be reciting it when someone close to you gets a DUI for a blood alcohol level of .04, even though he/she could drive perfectly well after a couple of beers. Meanwhile, never mind that 2/3 of auto accident fatalities are sober people.
@zipmont @amomto4 @JaylikeBird Not to worry, we just made grass legal. I bet I could smoke several pipes and still blow a zero.Â
@amomto4 @zipmont @JaylikeBird Â
That might work for those you feel comfortable beating on. But it won't help anyone else.  Â
@zipmont @JaylikeBird If it's MY kid, I'LL be the one beating the crap out of them--because they've been taught better and there wasn't alcohol in the house while they were growing up (still isn't)...  hopefully, that's a lesson they'll remember...
@zipmont You do realize this filth killed somebody and then tried to blame it on the victim with a "slow turn" and a mysterious third honking car. But yeah, lets not let our emotions get the best of us here.
@thatsjarrod2@zipmont I realize it, but I don't recall defending this woman's actions. There is little ambiguity about a blood alcohol level "nearly 3 times the legal limit," wouldn't you say?
What I did point out is the ambiguity in our legal code, which is a large part of the problem. It seems that a country where half the citizenry drinks (in other words the vast majority of adults) might merit a bit more due diligence. As it stands, it sure does look like the laws have but one objective. We could start by actually assessing sober driving skills, instead of giving a license to anyone with a pulse. Then we could come up with a working definition of "drunk," ie; too drunk to drive, one that doesn't assume that body weight is the only other factor involved.Â
Pathetic. There should be no difference in punishment between one case and another when it comes to driving drunk and killing someone. There should be one punishment in particular, the loss of their license. Operating a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Operating a vehicle while under the influence should result in the loss of the driver's license permanently. Then the judge should say: "you performed an act that has cost too many lives, and hurt too many people, and yet you chose to do it. The families of those who were killed by driving drunk have to live with that. I think you can live without a license."
3 years??? That's it???? A beloved family member is killed by a drunk and she only gets 3 years? What kind of lesson will she learn from that? Her selfishness got her into this predicament, and that needs a stronger punishment. The judge made en error in judgment here.
@Julemry How about you think how you'd feel if you had to spend 3 years of your life in jail..
@DoctorPC @Julemry I wouldn't drive drunk and be in that predicament to begin with!
@DoctorPC @Julemry How about you think how you would feel if you were held accountable for your poor decisions in life?
Oh, wait, that's what you so passionately speak out against.Â
@DoctorPC @Julemry 1.5 years with good time.  For murder!
" "I'm just glad her little girls will have their mother back soon," Locane-Bovenizer's mother, Helen Locane..." Â Really??? Â Their mother wasn't thinking about the little girls when she decided to go out, get drunk, then drive. Â And Ms. Locane obviously doesn't care a whit that her daughter has killed someone, so obviously never taught her daughter compassion for others and responsibility/consequences for your actions. Â Now Locane-Bovenizer can teach her daughters the same thing, so now they can grow up and not care how their actions affect other people and their families. Â Such a sentence for killing Mrs. Seeman is such a slap in the face to her family!
This is absurd. Families broken apart and the judge offers consolation to the defendant and not the victim. Shame on him. When someone gets behind the wheel that drunk they have made a decision (an impaired one, but impairment by ones indulgences is not a legal defense) to engage in an activity that is known to end in death. In my book that is intent. Its not like she had a beer or two or a glass of wine. She was hammered. To try to divert blame to the victim should have told the judge, despite her statements to the contrary, that she did not, in fact, take full or maybe even any responsibility. I feel bad for her children but Seeman's children are also deprived of their mother, her husband a wife, etc. The judge did the Seemans a disservice. He did their family a disservice and he did a disservice to the people and the voters of the State of New Jersey.
We have to consider the chilllllllldren! What a dumb, dumb, stupid judge. I'll bet her kid's "serious medical and mental disability" was due to her drinking or drug use during pregnancy.
Why is this any suprise? And why is it any different than banning nasty assault rifles and extended magazines?
Because it was a car and alcohol was involved? Someone who worked in TV? A kid under 16 years old?
No punishment = more crime.
Tuba man killers?
Welcome to the United States of Liberal-immoral America......You wanted it...you got it.....
@BusyhandsExactly what does this have to do with politics? That's right...nothing! Of course, don't let the facts get in the way of your woe-are-the-conservatives whining...the U.S. is waaaaaaaaaaay more conservative than many other Western countries. If you want even more "conservative morals", please go move to Saudi Arabia.
So she had already rear-ended one person and was driving 20mph over the limit on a dark two-lane road. If her kids were that important to her she wouldn't have been 3x the legal limit and driving. She deserves no mercy from the court.
Light sentences for this kind of thing just keeps on going. Â I just don't understand it. Â So someone drunk who kills someone with a gun or knife or bare hands would likely get life....get behind the wheel while drunk, kill someone with your car, Â serve a few years (if that) and you're free to go. Â This is seriously messed up.
THREE years? That's it? She took someone's life because of her recklessness.
"I'm just glad her little girls will have their mother back soon," Locane-Bovenizer's mother, Helen Locane, said as she walked out of the courtroom.Â
What about the family of the woman who is dead? They will never get their mother and wife back. NEVER,
DUI's that murder by car should pay the max, but to do that we have to get the drunks off the bench first.
Justice comes in many forms, and sometimes it isn't at the level one party would like. If everyone got what they liked, it wouldn't be justice then, would it?
@ETSubmariner What are you talking about? There is a clear-cut set of facts here. Don't try to muddy the waters to try to appear deep. Besides, you need to try to state some kind of logical argument to substantiate your conclusion, because it doesn't stand on its own.
@ETSubmariner Ok, how is this just?
Typical DUI defense attorney tactics - shift blame to the victim and throw anything and everything out there in an attempt to divert from the truth & responsibility.
Scumbags.
@Throbbinhood  Yup and that's why they (The Lawyers) make the big bucks...
Three years?  Guess Washington State isn't the only place that hands down despicably short drinking and driving sentences.
I believe people make mistakes without any intent to harm. I believe in second chances. I believe in forgiveness. I believe people can change. BUT.... I also believe in CONSEQUENCES. Whether you meant to or not, whether you are sorry or not, whether you have changed or not, there should be consequences. I don't believe the consequences for drunk driving are harsh enough. The penalty for driving drunk should keep drunks off the street and prevent people from being killed. Nothing will bring this woman back but harsher penalties in could have prevented this from happening. I think anyone caught driving drunk, whether they have broken a law or not, whether they have caused an accident or not, whether they have been convicted of manslaughter or not, should be automatically sentenced to 10 years in prison. No trial, no maybe, just a review of the evidence by the judge to verify that they were drunk and then off to prison for 10 years. If a death or injury occurred due to their drunk driving then there should be a trial to determine how much ADDITIONAL time they get. Would this stop all drunk drivers? Of course not. Once you're drunk you're not thinking straight. But I think it would get people thinking BEFORE they get drunk. Because every person old enough to drive knows getting behind the wheel while drunk is dangerous.Â
@justathought There have been times when I've had a few too many. I've opted not to drive, even in that sorry state. There are taxis, buses, your own two feet. Lots of other ways to get home after a night out. Sad thing is, most people who choose to drink & drive end up hurting or murdering others, not themselves.Â
Let's make no mistake - DUI is not a "mistake", but rather a fully conscious, most importantly DELIBERATE decision one chooses to make. By making that decision, what they are doing is essentially committing attempted murder.
For that, and for me - no second chances, no forgiveness
@Throbbinhood You obviously don't have a clue how alcohol affects a person's thought processes. It's not like you say to yourself, Gee I am so bored, I think I'll go get drunk and go kill some one.
If she was actually "taking full responsibility", she would have pleaded guilty.
@Travis Hartnett Yep. Or, you know, stopped at the first accident she caused (the guy she rear ended) instead of speeding away at 20mph above the legal limit.... She should've gotten 10 and had her license permanently revoked.
This ruling is ridiculous! The arguments that the defense made and apparently the judge acknowledged are unthinkable. I completely understand why the victim's family is upset and angry. The statement that her incarceration will be a hardship on her children is appalling. What about the family of the victim? Are they not experiencing a hardship at the loss of their mother and wife? Unfortunately, their hardship can never be replaced.  Drunk drivers are given too many chances and then when they do take a life they often receive minimal punishment. There should not be an option for a shorter sentence! She should have received the max!
Welcome to the land of defense attourneys and laws stuck in the 1950's.
Certainly pays to be a celebrity. You can murder,pillage,rape,stalk,ripoff,destoy,lie,cheat,dui,drug yourself up the wazoo,and when you get caught.... cry just a little bit (because you got caught),,, do your itty bitty jail time and carry on with life as you know it.
Sigh, Things are just so wrong with the world
Sickening. So many excuses to make it not her fault. "He was making a slow turn" YA because he was pulling into his driveway! I know I don't haul ass when I pull into my driveway. "A third motorist who they say distracted the actress by honking at her and chasing her after being rear-ended." Yes, I would chase her down too if she rear ended me. ""I'm just glad her little girls will have their mother back soon," Too bad he won't have his wife back anytime soon. Total crap.
Where is the gun control crowd? Where is the outrage? Where are the "ban all cars" or "ban all alcohol" people?
@acepaul I am very pro-gun but this is not the time or place for that discussion. By making the comments that you did you are making pro-gun people look like uncaring idiots. For God's sake man show some tact.
@acepaul
I don't think you are thinking about the difference. A gun, no matter what, is meant to put a bullet in something. It is designed to injure or kill. I think that's the biggest difference. I also think if you are that content on having guns around you should also be content with the consequences that happen from using them. As far as this case goes, this lady made a decision to do something stupid and should pay the consequences. Besides all of that, being so all or nothing makes you sound stupid.
@Dance4good Thanks for a somewhat thought out response. I assumed most people would pick up on the obvious exaggeration that I used to poke at the hypocrisy of the left minded people.Â
The similarity lies in the choice. Buy a gun to hunt, you most likely won't kill somebody. Choose to use that gun to take a person's life and your choice, if acted upon successfully, will kill.
 Buy a car to get to work, the odds are that you wont kill a person. Choose to drink and drive and your choice turns your car into a weapon.
There are no inherent negative consequences to "having guns around you" or for using them responsibly. Same thing applies to a car for that matter. The consequences lie in PEOPLE'S choices since neither the car nor the gun make decisions for themselves.
As far as "sounding stupid", I apologize for your inability to pick up on the satire. Perhaps I will label it next time.
@acepaul @Dance4good With that kind of arrogance, no wonder nobody was listening to your idiocy.
@acepaul @Dance4good Â
Ok, ok I wasn't sure. But since everyone leans more to the rant and rave style on here, I assumed you were doing just that!:)
@acepaul try an original line, this one is old and done. cm257n7 said it best, shut up.
@Phinn @acepaul Old and done, yet you have no credible answer to my question.
@acepaul @Phinn Nic Stevens answered your question quite nicely.  Now you just sound sad and silly.
@acepaul @Phinn Because there is no answer for such an incredibly stupid question.
@acepaul Shut up.
@cm257n7 Such a thoughtful, mature response. But you failed to address the obvious hypocrisy.Â
@Nic Stevens @acepaul @cm257n7 Â
Interestingly, airplanes were not designed to kill either. Yet look at what they've done to our airports! Clearly we cannot trust one another to "use properly." That's the reality.Â
@acepaul @cm257n7 First things first. I am not in favor of banning weapons of any kind. That said a gun is designed to kill. A car is designed for transportation. One when used properly kills, the other when used properly does not.Â