There is an interesting debate going on in a Massachusetts courtroom over prejudicial evidence in a murder trial. No, it is not pictures of the victims or crime scene. It is the appearance of the defendant himself. You see, Caius Veiovis, 33, had himself implanted with horns and had a satanic tattoo put on his face. Now this defense counsel is understandably concerned that the jury will recoil at the very sight of him. However, there is only so much that a court can do to protect a defendant against his own appearances, particularly when he spent considerable time and money to look satanic.
Veiovis is accused of participating in the kidnapping, torture, and murder of three men: David Glasser, Edward Frampton and Robert Chadwell (shown right). Adam Hall, 37, a member of the Hell’s Angels, was convicted in February of first-degree murder and kidnapping, and sentenced to three consecutive life terms, plus 42 years. That should cover any longevity issues in his family.
Veiovis allegedly helped Hall kill Glasser because he was expected to testify against Hall. The other men were killed to allegedly eliminate witnesses to the Glasser killing. A third co-conspirator has also been convicted and sentenced to three consecutive life terms.
Veiovis likely has no good option since, given the gruesome murders, any plea would leave him in prison for life regardless of the deal. He might have concluded that he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by throwing himself on the mercy of the jurors.
That takes us back to Veiovis’ appearance. The court has struggled how to address the initial shock at seeing Veiovis. The judge understandably was reluctant to have a picture of Veiovis shown throughout voir dire since that could raise other prejudicial questions. However, this issue was raised by the defense in how to avoid a shock to the jury members. Moreover, jurors are ordinarily allowed to see the demeanor of the accused not only in testifying but in response to testimony as part of their deliberations.
Veiovis has two rows of bumps on his forehead, a ‘666’ tattoo between them, and other facial and neck tattoos. He even surgically altered the shape of his ears to make them elf-like.
Defense lawyer James Reardon Jr. has quite a challenge there but I cannot see any way that the court will be able to protect Veiovis from his chosen appearance. He went through a great deal of trouble to look Satanic and he succeeded. It is just not the best look when you are trying to establish a presumption of innocence.
Source: Berkshire Eagle and originally found on ABA Journal
You have to be a special kind of idiot to do that to yourself.
Stupid is as stupid does. Wow.
From time to time, courts screen juries to prevent defendants and their adherents from being able to see and identify jury members. Why not just put up the same type of screen so that the jury cannot see the defendant?
Porkchop – part of being on the jury is being able to watch the reaction of the defendant to the various witnesses.
Makes you wonder about the doctor who performed the plastic surgery.
That’s what he wanted the world to see him as. He likes Satan and stupidity.
Trying to rationalize is moot.
He killed because he wants to.
Maybe the defense can rid him of his ghastly appearance with an exorcism.
Darren – he can’t have thought this was going to help him pick up women, so did he think it would make him invisible to the police?
Thanks Nick. Silly me. I’ll put my head back in the sand now.
slohrss, Here are answers to your questions. You can hire anyone to do anything if you have the $’s. He got the money selling crystal meth. The hat would be cheaper, but not as “cool.”
How do you do that?? Where would you get the money to do that?? Wouldn’t coming up with a new silly devil hat be cheaper? Then you could “lose it” if need be.
Squeeky, Spit coffee on my keyboard.
Well, the defense attorney could tell a little fib, oops I mean “distinguish” the horns a tad. Ala. . .
The Horn’ed’ Geat???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
Said the shill for the guy dressed like Satan.
The prosecutor is mis – statin’ !
Those bumps are not horns,
My client has corns,
On his head, so now don ‘t be a hatin’!!!
(Thanks to T.S.Eliot for the title!)
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
If one really supports fairness and justice, there should be some accommodation for the man’s physical appearance. He should not be treated badly by a jury because of his appearance.
Were I representing him, I would seek an accommodation that would put him at no disadvantage because of his appearance, assuming that he would want to do so. If he does not acknowledge that his appearance is a significant strike against him (perhaps three strikes), that alone might indicate something about his psychological processes.
Did he make all of these changes to look like a devil because he intended to act like a devil, or is there a psychological problem that should be explored? At the very least, he should have a thorough psychological evaluation before the case proceeds.
I think they should ship him off to Devil’s island.
Maybe he can actually get a jury of his peers. Tattooed people with horns emplanted. They might be able to get enough to make a pool.
sapel, The prosecutor sees it as Pennies From Heaven.
You cannot make this stuff up. Since it was he who changed his own appearance, I would say he is stuck with it. Let the defense–and the court–give some (admittedly weak) instruction that the jury cannot find him guilty on his appearance alone. Bet the prosecution is happy.
There’s no right to be judged by a jury of no-nothing automatons.
mespo should have chosen this shitbird as a “subhuman” example. “Your honor, my client is obviously subhuman and an idiot.”
I worked on a classic fraud case. A guy who was of this ilk claimed he was horrible injured in a motorcycle accident. The plaintiff had done time for manslaughter. He beat a guy to death w/ a Louisville Slugger. I had videotape of the guy lifting 150lb. engine parts out of a truck and doing all sorts of heavy physical labor. He presented himself @ trial hunched over and writhing in pain. Prior to calling in the jury, the defense counsel was allowed to view the tape. He calmly watched the video but you could see the disgust on his face, knowing he had just wasted a week on trial. The plaintiff’s attorney approached the bench and said, on the record, “Your honor, obviously my client is a fraud.” Pretty close to a Perry Mason moment. This was 20 years ago and almost every time my client, a very good attorney, sees me he utters that memorable line.
Need to think before you ink…and horn…and pierce.
Judging by his appearance and the crime he is accused of, I think it’s perfectly reasonable and even preferred if jurors would be prejudiced by his appearance.
Maybe they could have a stand-in play the part of the defendant during the trial?