"Marjorie Reitzell took the stand ... to testify in her defense, telling the court that she is capable of driving safely while intoxicated."

I have no words.

I have words: Guilty, punish to the full extent of the law!

Nor I. This person is delusional - she needs to be put away some place where she is not a danger
to herself or others in the community.

Yet another example of how dangerous a drug alcohol is. Not sure there's another one that causes more harm and more pain.

She seems to have taken a path away from reality. She left three teenagers without their parents. Has she ever expressed remorse?

She needs to go away for a very long time.

Regardless of being on probation, regardless of what the probation officer told her, regardless of what the prior judge told her, she is going to drink, drive and do whatever she wants. So, the answer is state prison for a very long time.

Ms. Reitzell is a recidivist offender. She is also an alcoholic. She is also in denial. She is also already on probation for prior drunken driving offenses.

Given the current charges alone (to say nothing of her past offenses), Ms. Reitzell should be PUT AWAY FOR LIFE!!!

I have yet to meet or hear of a felony drunken driver who feels any remorse for running over, and in this case killing, their victims.

I am happy to pay for 3 hots and a cot for the incarcerated Ms. Reitzell for the rest of her life!!!

Reminder - the accident that tragically resulted in the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Singh, wasn't Ms. Reitzell's first car accident THAT DAY.

Reitzell is the clearest example of an unrepentant menace I have ever seen.

I agree with Pogo and Menlo Voter, and her testimony seals it.

unrepentant menace, put her away.

Who is paying for this trial?

This is a complete waste of money and time. She is crazy, but what about the lawyer representing her and the legal system that is allowing this case to go to trial.

How can this lawyer/human being in good conscience put the family of the victims through a bogus trial? How much money will he make from this case?

She was undisputedly over the legal limit and she ADMITS to drinking while intoxicated at the time of the accident.

This is surreal. Why is there even a trial?

And why did she still have a license? And does she still have a valid license, is she still driving around?

@Suzanne:

We, the taxpayers, are paying for this trial. Our taxes pay for the services of the San Mateo County DA's Office, plus our taxes will also pay for the services of court-appointed attorney, Richard Keyes.

The reason we go through the charade of a trial (even though Ms. Reitzell is obviously guilty), is because in our legal system everyone is "presumed innocent until proven guilty". So, we go through the motions of a costly trial...though, if this case is handled like the larger percentage of cases here in San Mateo County, it will most likely be "plea-bargained" down to some lesser charge(s) before the trial even gets started, therefore saving us taxpayers some money.

The one thing taxpayers can do: if a case is plea-bargained down to a lesser charge and lighter sentence, we can write to the sentencing judge letting him/her know of our objections and disapproval. On the other hand, if the sentencing judge metes out a stiff sentence, be sure to write a letter to the judge, thanking him/her for doing so.

The legal system here in California is woefully liberal, thus it's important to write to our judges who mete out stiff sentences, expressing our thanks to them.

And, the next time you vote for a judge, do your homework; don’t vote for a judge who has a track record of handing out light sentences.