Parole Denied for Driver Convicted of Dragging Man to His Death

The state Parole Board rejected Gerson Chavez’s request for parole.

On Feb. 16, 1998, Chavez drove his car into a crowd of people outside of Bazooka’s Bar at the corner of Central and Walnut streets. He ran over Anna Marconi of Peabody three times and dragged her boyfriend, Paul Cunha, to his death.

In a decision first reported by the Salem News on Saturday, the Parole Board said Chavez was “not a suitable candidate” for parole. On Nov. 16, 1998, Chavez, who was then 24, pleaded guilty to second degree murder in Essex Superior Court for the murder of Cunha and pleaded guilty to armed assault with intent to murder for “seriously and permanently” injuring Marconi, according to the state Parole Board.

He received a life sentence for the murder and a concurrent sentence of eight to 10 years.

Cunha was a part-time manager and Marconi was a waitress at the bar. Chavez was a regular customer.

At closing time on Feb. 1998, a customer, Wilson DaSilva, exchanged words with Cunha and Cunha confronted him in the nearby Dunkin Donuts parking lot. They chased each other through the parking lot and a fight ensued in the back of Bazooka’s Bar. The fight spilled into the street and a crowd formed.

The fight was broken up and DaSilva fled the scene. At the same time, Chavez drove his vehicle down the wrong way on Walnut Street and sped toward the crowd. An intoxicated Chavez screeched his car to a halt and then moved forward, knocking down both Cunha and Marconi with the car. Marconi was under the car and Chavez reversed the vehicle and then sped forward.

Chavez sped down Walnut Street with Cunha hanging onto the front bumper. His legs and lower body were pinned between the road and undercarriage of the car.

Cunha screamed for Chavez to stop, but the driver dragged Cunha about 400 feet until Cunha could no longer hang on. Cunha let go of the bumper and was crushed under the vehicle.

Chavez lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a gutter. He fled the scene and hid in a Peabody apartment.

Cunha was pronounced dead on Walnut Street. Marconi was MedFlighted to Boston Medical Center where she was a patient for weeks. She suffered serious injuries and has permanent brain damage.

Police found Chavez later that morning hiding in a closet. At the time, he denied driving the vehicle. Chavez is currently serving time at MCI-Norfolk.

During the parole hearing, Chavez, now acknowledging that he was driving the vehicle, said he did not know he struck Cunha and Marconi. He said he was drinking the entire day and was drunk.

“I don’t remember striking the victims; I didn’t notice hitting them; I thought there was something mechanical that was wrong with my car; if I had noticed people I would have tried to save their lives; I didn’t know what happened until I learned in court; there were a lot of people there and I got scared so I left; if I knew people were hit, I would have called police and helped them,” Chavez said at his hearing, according to the Parole Board.

The Parole Board didn’t buy it.

“You were placed on bail in California for deportation proceedings and you fled as far away as you could; you were arrested for OUI in Peabody and used an alias; four months later you took an innocent life and ruined another life; the statement that you would administer assistance to the victims if you had known you hit them is an outright lie,” one Parole Board member said.

In its decision, the Parole Board said:

“Gerson Chavez committed an egregious and tragic drunk driving homicide for which he was convicted of second degree murder. He also maimed a second victim. The facts establish knowledge, malice and considerable intentional conduct. Despite good conduct in prison and moderate program participation, Chavez does not present as a viable candidate for parole because of his lack of candor. Based on the evidence and the convictions, the Parole Board cannot accept Chavez’s testimony that he had no knowledge that he struck the victims. His untruthful testimony, which minimizes his responsibility, is a clear sign that he is neither remorseful nor rehabilitated. He has completed some programs, but they have not had the intended effect of helping him reform his character, thinking and conduct.”

Read the full Parole Board decision.