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
Karen, What I’ve seen in many hardcore atheists is a bad experience w/ religion. It’s like anything; many man haters, woman haters, etc. had bad experiences w/ the opposite sex. Many former smokers are smoker haters now. Pretty basic stuff.
No Karen, one isn’t better than the other. Why make that assumption? You get your direction from religion, more power to you and your higher power, I find my own direction ( and spark) from within. Who said anything about not teaching children values? We’ve been talking about it for hours actually. Do Buddhist families have immoral children because they don’t teach the ten commandments? Do you really find no values teaching in other orientations other than Judeo Christian?
So just to clarify, it’s better to get your “spark of direction” from an atheist than from religion? Parents are no longer to teach their children the 10 Commandments? And if atheists are really teaching their kids the 10 Commandments, is that OK because they don’t reference it?
Some guy shows up with horns and Satanic tattoos, and the response is to bash Christians? Odd, we weren’t even talking about Muslim extremists . . .
The relevance of Muslim Extremists is high here, since they also present a distinctive look many times and are the subject of intense feelings and often prejudice.
>
Porkchop, I think you’re correct about questions by jurors, filtered through a judge, being primarily civil cases. That was my personal experience. However, there was one judge in my county, now retired, who I think allowed questions in both his civil and criminal trials. I will ask attorneys in town about that. Understand, the judge did control the questioning and they would just wastebasket some questions. Of course, the judge determines what is, or is not, admissible or permissible. But, a judge is in many respects the representative for the jury. They are always tending to their needs and I just don’t see a judge not allowing a jury to see the defendant. And, if a judge did, I believe it would be overturned on appeal. COULD a judge allow the defendant to hide. Of course, it’s their courtroom.
Maybe his defense attorney should invest in some Wrecking Balm. And a can opener.
In this case, I’d suggest placing a screen on jurors emphasizing looks outside the norm.
Katy:
“I think often individuals on the “right” hide behind religion because they are the ones with no true values of their own.”
Pardon? People on the right are religious because they don’t have their own values? What about religious Democrats? What about the atheists like Stalin who murdered over a million people? Mao?
Do you only lack values if you’re a Republican, but not a Democrat? Is there an entrance exam to vote Democratic? Because I recall quite a few Dixiecrats when I lived in the South that might not have lived up to your standard of values . . .
Katy, I agree. My son in law who happens to be a fiscal conservative, but mostly a social liberal has said something that made a lot of sense to me. He said that churches and religion are a great idea because there will always be people who can’t find their own spark of human decency without direction from religion. That it keeps these ‘amoral’ people from causing harm to society because they adhere to laws written by Gods, interpreted by holy men and preached in a God’s house. So I guess religion is a good idea, unless it forces those of us who know humans are capeable of great acts of decency and kindness all on their own, to adopt their religious belief system.
Well, people who do this to themselves enjoy the shock value. Hope he gets his money’s worth at trial.
I think often individuals on the “right” hide behind religion because they are the ones with no true values of their own. They aren’t able to believe that people can be accepting of others and understand the difference between right and wrong without believing that something “bad” (i.e., the wrath of G-d) will happen to them if they don’t treat others kindly and with respect.
Nick Spinelli:
A jury has the “right” and duty to hear and see the evidence that the judge rules to be admissible, but they don’t have the right to tell the judge which evidence should be admitted. Then they have the “right” and duty to make a decision based on the evidence and the law as set out in the jury instructions given by the judge. Some judges will accept questions from jurors, others won’t — I think that is a lot more common in civil cases. I think, but haven’t researched it, that it would be constitutionally impermissible to allow jurors to question witnesses in criminal trial.
Jurors have the power to engage in jury nullification, but that’s not a “right” — it’s just that there is no punishment for ignoring jury instructions (and there is no jury instruction on nullification). Normally, jury nullification consists of something like acquitting an obviously guilty defendant in disregard of the law and the facts.
I support the idea that any evidence can be introduced into a trial. ( any ) And any defense is allowed. And that the prosecution is not allowed to hold any information back. ( None ) And that the prosecution is not allowed to outspend the defense. ( Even if it means funding the defense ) Somehow prosecutors must be given incentives to seek the truth … rather then get convictions. And that the jury is allowed to ask questions ( and get answers ) . And that there are penalties for the prosecutor to pile on charges or play the “plea bargain” game. 777FairTrial
This is where law goes nuts. The predudice is reasonable, he did it and it fits the crime. You can instruct a jury to go by the evidence, but if evidence were teetering on the fence of ‘he done it’/’he ain’t done it’ there is a motive staring everyone in the face; HIS FACE! (& that evidence should not be hidden)
I’ve always been a big fan of temporary tats when it comes to weird satanic stuff and obscene messages on the face.
Tom. I agree. I think it best for people to try out a henna tattoo for what they might be thinking of becoming permanent. Yet, personally I think most tattoos are a bad idea; people at war with their bodies it seems to me. Why not appreciate natural beauty. But, my generation growing up in a semi-rural area associated tattoos with low class individuals other than a couple here and there on men inked when in the military. Women with tattoos at that time and place were regarded highly unfavorably. Now, it seems where I live presently it is becoming ubiquitous with those under 30 or so.
To me it does not look professional to have many tattoos on visible portions of the body. Neck or face tattoos especially. The state patrol here will not even consider an applicant who has any tattoo on a part of the body that is visible wearing a short sleeved shirt. But this is all my belief and others of course are free to do as they please with these.
So I can fully understand the situation discussed in this article as to the defendant’s appearance as being prejudicial. When I see neck tattoos two things come to mind of someone I encounter based upon my past experience: Arrest Warrant; Suspended Drivers License; or both. We can do our best effort to be objective, but the subconscious sometimes dictates otherwise.
This guy looks like he has furuncles on his forehead. Now this guy, has horns! Here is the link because I don’t know to to seamlessly insert a photo, as Annie has done: http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/stretchbaldy/Jordu/Jordu_Satan_02.jpg
Although, I live in very liberal Dane County, Wi. I put your odds much better here.
Jurors have very important duties but no rights?? Preposterous. They don’t have a right to be able to hear and see the witnesses and defendant? Preposterous. They don’t have a right to inspect the evidence? Preposterous. They don’t have a right to hear testimony and reject it? Come on. Hell, some judges grant jurors the right to ask questions. I’ve had questions from jurors. The judges I’ve testified in front of who do that have the jurors submit the question to them and they read the question to the witness.
Mr. Krieger, You sound like the type of attorney I might consider hiring. But, Vegas has the odds @ 250-1 that the judge would grant your motion for the defendant to hide from the jury.
If jurors don’t have rights, if only the defendant (and presumably the state) have rights, then how can these non-existant rights be abridged?
Just for fuel on the fire: in the case of a man with chest wounds who normally wears a shirt, there may be assumed an expectation of privacy in regards to that aspect of himself.
A person who displays things or modifies their face and head, and then go about in public displaying these things or modifications are in fact making them quite public, one might even say public knowledge. Being public knowledge can a privacy right, even if it tends to be incrimatory, be reasserted?
I don’t know the answer (though I lean towards he has the right to not appear), I am rather curious about this and asking a legal question
The tatoos on the right cheek throws the whole scene out of balance. Fox News would cover this if he would remove the right cheek tatoo. Then he would be fair and balanced.
CR – how about a big emoticon smiley face mask over his face for the entire trial?