- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
I was grabbing text from another case for another thread and ran across this gem. Basically the shooters were not allowed to submit expert testimony on self defense. The reasoning is specious but the DA prosecuted because there was a prior relationship between the "victim" and the "defendants".
Here is the DA's take.
David R. Pepicelli (Massachusetts). The chairman authorized on September 19, 2006 the expenditure of up to $2500 to cover the preparation and filing of an appellate amicus brief. David R. Pepicelli, was an NRA firearms instructor. He and his brother, Paul, were assaulted by five men, one carrying an unlicensed revolver with an obliterated serial number, who had come to their home to confront a family member about a minor car accident. David believed that he saw several of the men draw handguns and heard a shot fired. He then shot one of the men. Most of the others fled. The one with the revolver stayed and pointed the gun at David and Paul from the cover of a parked car. David and Paul, both licensed to carry concealed firearms in Boston, fired at the man and drove him away. The Boston Police conducted a substandard crime scene investigation. They were unable to locate any trace of the first shot fired by the five men, but were also unable to locate any trace of about a third of the shots known to be fired by David and Paul. David and Paul were arrested for assaulting the five men and for the death of the man David shot. At trial, the trial judge disallowed defense testimony by Thomas Aveni, a former instructor at Smith & Wesson Academy about common standards for self-defense. Paul was convicted of assaulting the man with the revolver using a cane he walked with after surgery. David was convicted of manslaughter of the man he shot. One of the key issues in the appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying David's expert's testimony. This will be one of the first appellate cases on this issue, which is of importance to every person forced to use a firearm in self-defense. NRA’s amicus curiae brief was filed on November 18, 2006. The court held that expert testimony concerning the reasonableness of the use of firearms by civilians for self-defense in various situations was inadmissible. The admission of expert testimony lies largely in the discretion of the trial judge. The judge did not abuse his discretion. Commonwealth v. Pepicelli, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 87, 872 N.E.2d 1142 (2007).
Here is the DA's take.
APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS NORTH END MURDER CONVICTION
September 6, 2007
The Massachusetts Appeals Court today affirmed the 2004 convictions of two North End men found guilty for their respective roles in the shooting death of David Stivaletta and the beating of another man on Michaelangelo Street in September 1999, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley announced.
DAVID PEPICELLI (D.O.B. 3/13/62) and PAUL PEPICELLI (D.O.B. 11/26/59) were found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, respectively, after a month-long trial between Nov. 15 and Dec. 14, 2004. The two brothers had been charged with first-degree murder for the daylight shooting, which occurred two days after the beating victim was involved in a minor car accident with the girlfriend of a third Pepicelli brother.
In affirming the convictions and denying their request for a new trial, the Appeals Court ruled that the judge in the original proceedings was correct in removing from the jury a man who acknowledged speaking about the case to a stranger, who told the juror that the victims had been using cocaine. The MAC also ruled that the judge’s instructions to the remaining jurors were appropriate and was not suggestive of his own feelings on the case.
“The judge found the violation [of his instructions not to discuss the case outside the jury room] to be ‘egregious’ and to have exposed the juror to extraneous information he should not have heard concerning the trial’s participants,” Justice William J. Meade wrote in the 10-page decision. Moreover, “Neither defendant lodged an objection to the instruction” the judge gave to remaining jurors not to consider why the juror had been removed.
The MAC also ruled that the exclusion of an “expert witness” who would have testified about the use of firearms in self-defense was appropriate, given that they “offered the trial judge no authority in support of the propriety of their request. The trial judge excluded the evidence based on his determination that the jury did not need the assistance of an expert in deciding whether the defendants acted reasonably.”
Finally, the MAC ruled that the 2005 SJC decision in Commonwealth v. Adjutant, which allows the introduction of a victim’s prior violent conduct to support a claim of self-defense. “Both defendants sought only to impeach testifying Stivaletta group members with their prior convictions, and they explicitly denied an intention to introduce any other evidence of the group members’ prior bad acts,” Meade wrote, noting that “such reputation evidence is inadmissible and does not qualify as Adjutant evidence.”
"The case against these defendants went to a jury of 12 men and women who followed the evidence and found the facts,” Conley said. “The trial was fair, and their decision will stand.”
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Sounds like they got screwed. 
