ILNews

Prosecutor in Ford Pinto case dies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

LathropCosentino

The Elkhart County prosecutor who took on Ford Motor Co. in criminal court in Indiana died June 14. Michael A. Cosentino was 74.


In 1978, then part-time prosecutor Cosentino called a grand jury that charged Ford with three counts of reckless homicide. Three teenage girls were killed when their 1973 Ford Pinto caught on fire after it was rear-ended. Ford was indicted in September 1978. The trial began in early 1980 and a Pulaski County jury acquitted Ford March 13, 1980.


The idea of holding a corporation accountable wasn’t new, but Cosentino’s tactic of a criminal prosecution of a product design and manufacture was. Some say the case helped make today’s vehicles safer and drove home the notion of corporate responsibility into consumer’s minds like nothing had at that time.


Cosentino served seven terms as prosecutor before he retired in December 2002 to private practice at Cosentino & Christofeno in Elkhart..
“He was my hero, what can I say?” said Bruce Berner, Louis & Anna Seegers Professor of Law at Valparaiso University School of Law.


Berner was one of two people from academia that Cosentino added to the prosecution’s team for the Ford case.


“He was an absolutely true public servant. He didn’t get anything out of it; he was just doing the right thing,” Berner added. “… He was a good person to emulate.”


Berner, who noted that Cosentino’s health had waned in the past few years, said, “I’ll tell you what … you wouldn’t want to mess with him in his heyday!”

“He was a forceful advocate and a darned good lawyer,” said Elkhart Circuit Judge Terry Shewmaker in Goshen.


Judge Shewmaker started working with Cosentino as a law student in 1974. After passing the bar in 1975, Cosentino appointed him as a deputy prosecutor and an associate as his law firm. They worked together for more than 20 years.


“He gave me a chance, and I'm grateful for that chance. I feel very strongly about that,” he told Indiana Lawyer.


“He gave a lot of young lawyers chances as deputy prosecutors with appointments,” Judge Shewmaker said, noting many able trial lawyers got their start with Cosentino. “That will be his legacy.”


Born in Aurora, Ill., June 12, 1936, Cosentino was a U.S. Army veteran. He earned his J.D. at the University of Wisconsin Law School and was admitted to practice law in Indiana in May 1963. Among his activities, he was a member and past president of the Elkhart City Bar Association and a member of the Indiana State Bar Association.


He is survived by his wife of 46 years, Dianne; sons Michael J. and Thomas; and two grandchildren. The funeral was June 18 in Elkhart. Memorial contributions may be made to St. Vincent DePaul Catholic Church, Elkhart County Humane Society, or Cancer Services of Elkhart County.•

This story is an updated version of an Indiana Lawyer daily story.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT