Man accused of shooting suspected burglar acquitted of murder

Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
10,089
Likes
851
Location
New Ipswich, Finn-Land
Feedback: 19 / 0 / 0
[party]


http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070327/APN/703271996

Man accused of shooting suspected burglar acquitted of murder


The Associated Press


TAUNTON, Mass.— A New Bedford homeowner who fatally shot a man he thought had broken into his house has been acquitted by a Bristol Superior Court jury of second-degree murder.

Jurors took just 3 1/2 hours on Monday to decide that Charles Chieppa, 60, was justified in killing Frank Pereira Jr. in June 2004.

Chieppa's voice cracked with emotion after the verdict was read as he thanked his family and friends.

Chieppa's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, told the jury during closing statements that his client, a Vietnam War veteran, acted in self defense.

"When you consider his state of mind, when you consider the circumstances, this was a justifiable homicide by a citizen protecting himself," Reddington said during closing arguments on Monday.

The prosecution, while acknowledging that Pereira was a "thief," noted that Chieppa kept a loaded gun in his bedroom and that he shot Pereira in the back.

"He reacted that night in anger, it wasn't fearful," Assistant District Attorney William McCauley said during closings. "What does that say about his intent? He decided if there was going to be a problem in his property, he would take care of it."

Pereira's family was outraged at the verdict.

"No matter the circumstances, nobody deserves to die over property," said Marcey Lugo, Pereira's girlfriend and mother of his 6-year-old son.

Chieppa awoke at about 4 a.m. on June 17, 2004, to the sounds of an intruder in his basement, according to trial testimony. He went to his backyard with a semiautomatic handgun where he shot Pereira, who had broken into the basement.
 
"What does that say about his intent? He decided if there was going to be a problem in his property, he would take care of it."

And that is bad because? It's not like the police are instantly there at the scene of any break in. IMHO if you break into someone's house, you should expect to be shot by the owner... even if you didn't intend any physical harm on the person they don't know your intent, you have to assume the worst of anyone who breaks into your house.

-Tom
 
"No matter the circumstances, nobody deserves to die over property,"

Some people do, like the criminals who break into other people's homes!! Those are the risks of being a crook, deal with it!!!

This jury did the right thing!![smile]
 
I suspect anyone who breaks into my home while I am there is doing so with the intent to do me harm, and will follow through accordingly. And while he's within the confines of the house, even if he's heading away from me, I have to assume that he's armed and will present and turn at any moment, and that his intention in moving away from me is to gain valuable distance from me before doing so.
 
He decided if there was going to be a problem in his property, he would take care of it.

There it is folks. In the statist mind, there is no property. All property belongs to the state. You have no say in what happens or does not happen on it.

I am amazed that a Mass jury found in favor of the defendant.

I need to get to work to pass Castle Doctrine in Ohio.
 
He is VERY LUCKY if it went down like posted here. Going looking to confront the person by going outside and then back down to the basement really doesn't fit the MA version of the Castle Doctrine.

I'm glad that he got off, but I would NOT bet on a "repeat performance" like that.

IIRC, Kevin Reddington normally defends LEOs. Check out where he teaches here:
http://www.lawyers.com/Massachusetts/Brockton/Kevin-J.-Reddington-Attorney-at-Law-670896-f.html

Agreed. This fellow walked because of jury sympathy, not correct adherence to the law. Based on what was reported of the facts, Mr. Chieppa fired to impose a penalty, not to disable an attacker.

It is inherent in our criminal process that a jury has the power to "nullify" -- i.e., to acquit when the law requres conviction on uncontested facts -- beyond the capacity of any court to reverse. That is what happened here. While we may privately applaud this result, it is nothing to bet your freedom on.
 
Here's a link to today's New Bedford paper: http://southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070327/NEWS/703270352

Everyone here thought it'd go the other way. The paper dragged it out for weeks after it happened and just a little while ago when the trial began they had a picture of someone holding what looked like a P38 which was I'm guessing the gun he used.
I remember driving down one of the main roads here where it all happened and there would be cluttered makeshift memorials outside the guy's house. I feel bad for the guy's kids but he was a known drug addict and thief. If his family really loved him as much they say they did they would have gotten his sorry ass some help and the whole thing would have never happened.
 
Here's a link to today's New Bedford paper:...

...If his family really loved him as much they say they did they would have gotten his sorry ass some help and the whole thing would have never happened.

Typical how the paper continues to state "Alledged Burgular" . [thinking]
Hey, he was caught red-handed ! [angry]

"So it's all right to shoot someone in the back?" she (Ms. Burchell) said.
Apparently so. [smile] (Not that I advocate this.) [thinking]
If indeed this happened as described then Charles D. Chieppa is one very lucky man .

One way or 'tother its...
wav.gif
Party time !
wav.gif
 
Agreed. This fellow walked because of jury sympathy, not correct adherence to the law. Based on what was reported of the facts, Mr. Chieppa fired to impose a penalty, not to disable an attacker.

It is inherent in our criminal process that a jury has the power to "nullify" -- i.e., to acquit when the law requres conviction on uncontested facts -- beyond the capacity of any court to reverse. That is what happened here. While we may privately applaud this result, it is nothing to bet your freedom on.

And thank god that they knew about nullification.... IIRC some judges
seem to be coy about jury nullification. The problem with it is, is the
defense even allowed to mention that possibility? Jury Nullification seems
to be a little known facet of the justice system.

-Mike
 
He is VERY LUCKY if it went down like posted here. Going looking to confront the person by going outside and then back down to the basement really doesn't fit the MA version of the Castle Doctrine.

I'm glad that he got off, but I would NOT bet on a "repeat performance" like that.

IIRC, Kevin Reddington normally defends LEOs. Check out where he teaches here:
http://www.lawyers.com/Massachusetts/Brockton/Kevin-J.-Reddington-Attorney-at-Law-670896-f.html

I don't consider what MA has as being a "Castle Doctine". The states that have or are in the process of adopting those laws pretty state that no retreat is necessary within your home or other property.

Kevin Reddington has a very good reputation. If I were in deep criminal doo doo, he'd be high on my list of people I'd call. I don't think that he specializes in LEOs though.

Gary
 
And thank god that they knew about nullification.... IIRC some judges
seem to be coy about jury nullification. The problem with it is, is the
defense even allowed to mention that possibility? Jury Nullification seems
to be a little known facet of the justice system.

-Mike

The Scriv can fill us in, but I believe that any attempt to mention jury nullification would result in sanctions against defense counsel.

In fact, mere mention of the term "jury nullification" will almost certainly disqualify you from jury service - but remember, the judge has the authority to require you attend the trial as a spectator if they think you are trying to get out of it (not sure if MA judges do that though). The only reason to dodge jury duty is if you feel other citizens can do a better job of seeing that justice is done than you can.
 
I didn't get my opportunity for jury service today. My pool was not required to report. And I so did want a chance to hang some perp! Damn!! [devil]
 
I don't consider what MA has as being a "Castle Doctine". The states that have or are in the process of adopting those laws pretty state that no retreat is necessary within your home or other property.


2 laws, check them out:

G.L.c. 278, § 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense.

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

G.L.c. 231, § 85U. Death or injury to unlawful dwelling occupants; liability of lawful occupants.

Section 85U. No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
 
I don't consider what MA has as being a "Castle Doctine". The states that have or are in the process of adopting those laws pretty state that no retreat is necessary within your home or other property.

MA also has no duty to retreat, although the standard justification for
deadly force still applies. So if a guy smashes your door down and
stands in your living room at 2AM playing a harmonica, you're screwed if you
shoot him. [laugh]

-Mike
 
So if a guy smashes your door down and stands in your living room at 2AM playing a harmonica, you're screwed if youshoot him.



G.L.c. 278, § 8A.

"it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling,"

Who knows what he'll do when he stops playing...
 
...it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling...

...So if a guy smashes your door down and
stands in your living room at 2AM playing a harmonica, you're screwed if you
shoot him.
Depends upon how well he's doing. Who's to say that really bad harmonica playing would not inflict great bodily injury or death.
 
Realize that what I would call a "REAL Castle Doctrine" vs. MA version:

- REAL: No need to retreat AND NO PROSECUTION.

- MA Version: No need to retreat, but YOU WILL be (99% of the time) prosecuted and YOU get to raise an "affirmative defense" that you shouldn't be convicted!
it shall be a defense

This is NOT a subtle difference when you get indicted, arrested (stays with you for life in MA regardless of outcome) and wait 3-4 years to get vindicated. Meanwhile you could lose your job, any security clearances, all your guns/LTC, and all your savings to win this case.

BTW: I also see nothing that would prevent a FEDERAL Civil Lawsuit for "civil rights violation" (killing the perp)!
 
Though he may have won the criminal trial, the bullet in the back probobly almost guarantees a win in civil court.
so sadly he will likely be supporting the thiefs 6 year old bastard child and his unwed GF for the next 12 years minimum...
 
Happy to hear this guy got off. There may be some hope for this shithole after all.
The taxi driver case in Lowell or Lawrence (or where ever it was) should be an interesting one when it comes up.
 
Realize that what I would call a "REAL Castle Doctrine" vs. MA version:

- REAL: No need to retreat AND NO PROSECUTION.

- MA Version: No need to retreat, but YOU WILL be (99% of the time) prosecuted and YOU get to raise an "affirmative defense" that you shouldn't be convicted!

Len, isn't that mostly a matter of the DA posture/prosecutorial discretion?

IMO the same law in a gun friendly state would have different outcomes.

-Mike
 
Mike, I am not a student of other state's laws, but I do believe that they are written such that self-defense is a no-prosecute. MGL is written as "prosecute" and let the defendant claim self-defense under that specific law.

Very big difference.

Yes, a DA can refuse to indict, even in MA and it does sometimes happen . . . but it is the exception here rather than the rule.
 
Back
Top Bottom