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
Well, I do not know if he is looking at being killed as his punishment. If so then the argument for the guillotine has its reasons de etre. We had a guy who looked this bad in the dock in France. His name was Chuc Finn. He claimed he was a relative of some American named Huck Finn and changed the first name to Chuc to throw off the anti americans. When he was sentenced to Devils Island he said something which translates from French into english as: Never The Twain Shall Meet. As he was in the row boat going off to the island he was struck by lightning and died. This happened a while back.
As a general answer to several questions here, there is evidence and then there is “highly prejudicial” evidence. What we’re talking about here is the latter, in the form of the defendant’s appearance. In cases where it’s the only way to assure a fair trial, the courts can take extraordinary steps to achieve that goal. In THIS case, I think that would reasonably include hiding the defendant’s appearance from the jury. Maybe a CG ‘fuzzy dot’ would work. 😉
Porkchop – there have been so many changes in the electronic courtroom since I was last on a jury (my courtroom had a spittoon) that you could very well be right. However, I seem to remember a trial where the defendant was removed from the courtroom and there was a video feed to him, but I seem to remember that the jury was getting a video feed of the defendant (could be wrong here).
NIck Spinelli & Paul Schulte —
I think you have it wrong: Juries don’t have “rights”. Juries consider the evidence and arguments presented to them. The trial is all about finding facts relating to guilt or innocence while observing procedures necessary to conduct a fair trial — that is protecting the presumptively innocent defendant.from prosecutorial over-reach.
Paul, jurors may well draw conclusions by observing a defendant, but that does not mean there is a “right” to observe the defendant. Sometimes defendants are physically removed from the courtroom, sometimes jurors are screened to prevent their identities from being revealed to a defendant who is, say, a gang member, or to that defendant’s associates. Unless there is a separate video feed, a defendant who cannot see the jury cannot be seen by the jury either. In neither case can the jury observe the defendant, but I don’t see how that abridges a right belonging to the jury collectively or to jurors individually.
John Oliver,
There are times when witnesses (especially expert witnesses) will be provided with their notes or report, without those notes or the report being submitted as evidence. — I understand that you are referring specifically to evidence (and I concur), but thought I’d add that for the benefit of others.
@jack
I actually agree with you more than you think. The rules that were set down in The Decalogue have pretty much been adopted by all major belief systems and societies to some degree, and for the same reason that Moses brought down the stone tablets. Things were going to pot out there in the desert, and they had to have a hard and fast set of rules or they were going to fizzle out as a society.
The putting of God into the rules is to put the rules beyond the tinkering of man. For example, Bill Clinton could come up with a thousand excuses why it is OK to commit adultery. The looters in Ferguson could similarly justify stealing and tearing things up. But somewhere, in their heart of hearts, they still know it is wrong.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
CR,
Wouldn’t the jury be allowed to see any evidence presented at trial?
Jill, Silly people will always file or threaten to file law suits. That doesn’t mean the suit has merit. Please let us know if you find that they actually filed the suit. That’s one I would thoroughly enjoy reading.
Woo hoo! Now that’s the Squeekers I like and admire.
I think this case should be a test of the jurors and judge. As a people, we need to learn how to evaluate evidence presented in a court of law. This is a call for christians, jews, muslims, etc. to do justice.
Each religion has had the experience of being judged based solely on membership in that religion. People have been murdered over that judgment. I therefore find it amazing when religious people seem, by and large, unable to recognize that they are engaging in this same, senseless judgment of others. The purpose of a trial is not to find someone guilty if they are innocent. It is to find out the truth.
Just FYI, here is some interesting information about one group of Satanists: “Remember how satanists are building a statue of a 19th century goat-man occult symbol to place outside the Oklahoma State Capitol because there is already a Ten Commandments monument on display? Well, those same satanists are now using the Supreme Court’s sweeping Hobby Lobby decision to challenge coercive mandatory counseling laws by requesting a religious exemption for satanists (and non-satanists).
“While we feel we have a strong case for an exemption regardless of the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact,” Satanic Temple spokesperson Lucian Greaves said in a Monday statement. ”This was made clear when they allowed Hobby Lobby to claim certain contraceptives were abortifacients, when in fact they are not. Because of the respect the Court has given to religious beliefs, and the fact that our our beliefs are based on best available knowledge, we expect that our belief in the illegitimacy of state mandated ‘informational’ material is enough to exempt us, and those who hold our beliefs, from having to receive them.”
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/satanists_want_hobby_lobby_style_religious_exemption_from_anti_choice_counseling_law/?source=newsletter
C.R. “Even then, the witness could be handed a photo and asked to identify it without showing it to the jury.”
It cannot happen that way. Good thought though.
squeeky, For me, it doesn’t really matter if it’s God’s Law, or just that we have come to recognize it as the way things need to be in a prosperous civilized society.
I learned a long time ago that it was unfair to inject one’s spiritual beliefs as the basis of authority. It’s much easier, and a lot more fruitful, to just base the argument on the benefits to society. Everything falls into place. That doesn’t mean the selfish attitudes of some won’t cause frustration and debate, but it doesn’t prevent them from ignoring your argument on the basis of their right to have their own religious beliefs, and to not be forced to accept yours.
Mr. Spinelli, and others, I think you’re assuming a constitutional corollary that I don’t believe exists.
Certainly, jurors are there to assess the testimony of WITNESSES, but when is the last time you saw a competent defense attorney put a murder defendant on the stand? In spite of all the recent high profile cases out of Flori-DUH, it rarely happens. So the jury doesn’t have to assess the defendant’s demeanor while testifying. I would suggest that it has no right to even lay eyes on the defendant unless there’s a possible eyewitness to identify him by appearance. Even then, the witness could be handed a photo and asked to identify it without showing it to the jury. It’s the jury’s job to assess the testimony, not the identification.
Then, there’s the DEFENDANT’S 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, but I see nowhere in the Constitution a reciprocal right of witnesses or juries to confront the defendant. In fact, I see this as his right to waive – to the extent that I don’t believe a court could even compel him to appear in person, if he is represented by counsel.
Suddenly, we have a situation where the defendant is NEVER seen by the jury – because he may choose not to be seen. I know that if I were representing him, that would be MY approach.
C.R. Krieger – in the one jury trial I was on, two people were asked to identify the defendant as the person they saw or knew. So the defendant had to be present and we had to see that he was the one they were pointing at. I would disagree with you. The defendant has a right to be at the trial and the jury has a right to see the are convicting the right person.
@annie
You said “Maybe Buddhists think that some of the good things Christians do is because Buddha has touched their hearts.”
And if they do, that is their perfect God-given right. I am neither insulted nor hurt by their belief.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Maybe Buddhists think that some of the good things Christians do is because Buddha has touched their hearts.
That’s what I was asking Jack. If the appearance is evidence (witness descriptions, etc.) then can a defendant be compelled to be in the courtroom? We’ve already seen over the weekend where just remaining silent can be held against a defendant so why not being absent from the courtroom?
@annie
Buddhists can believe whatever they want to, as will I. Personally, I believe the second chapter of Romans, where it says:
14 When outsiders who have never heard of God’s law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience.
15 They show that God’s law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God’s yes and no, right and wrong.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Darren, I’m pretty sure it was on cross, and was intended to be used as impeachment. The Defendan’t height, bullet trajectory through soft tissue, and things like that are relevant physical evidence….Not testimony. As such, I would strongly disagree with the Judge’s ruling. –Had the prosecutor had need to submit pictures of the wounds, I doubt an objection would be sustained as a Fifth Amendment violation.
**Correction**
…. that their particular God isn’t up to snuff **and that might be somewhat insulting or hurtful to them**?
http://righteousatheist.hubpages.com/hub/Atheist-Charities
Squeeky, while I am not an atheist, but agnostic, I thought this site was very interesting. It lists many non religious humanitarians, decent people displaying values. I wonder what they would say about your premise that the Christian Judeo God’s laws are written on their hearts too. Do you ever think that non Christians would find the notion that their particular God isn’t up to snuff, that instead the Christian Judeo God usurps the God of their orientation? Can you think outside your own Christian orientation for a moment?