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
And plenty of those so called Libertarians/libertarians ARE religious.
*not for me or some others*
Squeekers, Commies put the squeeze on churches here in THIS country? Im asking here. The church provides a buttress against bad governments, maybe so, but what does that have to do with OUR government? If our government fails should we hav a Theocracy? Im asking. When the government and the church get too intertwined we violate the principle of separation of church and state. I don’t recall saying Christianity was provincial, it’s simply not or me or I have no issues with you practicing your religion, but when YOUR religion steps on my toes, I’ll complain.
@annie
Quit putting words in my mouth. The church exists outside of government and provides a buttress against bad governments. Why do you think the commies put the squeeze on churches???
And your crusade for an arbitrary value system will do nothing but rip the fabric of society. Like it or not, people learn their values from their families and from churches. For an example, parents teach their kids to not have sex before marriage. It ‘s an uphill battle as it is, but that message is reinforced in church. Then, here come an Annie, decked out in robes of tolerance, to tell people all that Christian stuff is sooo provincial, and no better than Wicca or Satanism, or whatever. If you are believed, guess what gets thrown out with the belief system. . .the don ‘t steal, the don ‘t commit adultery, and the love thy neighbor as yourself stuff.
Gee, where do you think the increasing numbers of Libertarians are coming from. People who create their own value system based on. . .themselves!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
When did they arrest this guy? He looks like one of the perps who burned the Quik Trip in Ferguson and his face was in the video.
And Squeeky, I agree that there is right and wrong, that is pretty basic, don’t you think? I certainly taught my children right from wrong. It’s not necessarily related to Christian Judeo principles.
Annie – you preach secular humanism which is a religion. I foresee a time soon when secular humanists will be asking for religious exemptions. They already have opened a church and asked for exempt tax status.
Excuse me Squeeky? Most Americans are Christian or Judeo Christian, any links as to percentage? You may very well be right. So are you indicating it’s a State religion? Sounds mighty close to it. People DO get to make their own value system. This is a Democracy. We abide by laws, but our value system is our own.
@annie
You say one religion isn ‘t better than another, yet you ignore the fact that most Americans are Christian and/or Judeo Christian. When you attack and demean Christianity, and its related morality, you do a disservice to the country. Why don ‘t you go to a Buddhist country, and start teasing them about their religion and try to convince them that you have a brand new system, where people get to create their own value system. See what kind of reception you get.
People need to hear that there is a right way and a wrong way to live and to behave. Particularly young people. It is how a society perpetuates itself. While atheists in small numbers can maintain a moral compass, if atheism was the chief belief system we would be living in worst morass than we are now.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Yeah sure, whatever.
JohnO. There is no “hijacking” here. The conversations often take twists and turns. You can always skip comments.
Boy oh boy, I was enjoying the legal opinions and then all of a sudden someone with an agenda hijacked the thread…again.
John,
Lmao – I don’t deny Clooneys popularity. I am quiet secure in my appearance, and those who matter like it too.
Respectfully – You don’t matter.
My son is a devout athiest, largely as a result of a very bad experience with fundamentalist Christianity and the outrages of Fundamentalist Muslims. I know other Athiests who distain some sects of the religious who reject aspects of scientific theory or “fact” in favor of a book written 1800 or more years ago, by people who did not understand what caused the wind to blow, the sun to rise, or the rain to fall. A book that was written by fallible people with agendas, then which parts to use or to reject selected by other people with agendas… All in all written much more by man than God.
This does not mean it is not a valuable book, as a Christian who claims that title because I feel compelled to listen to, and follow the actual words of Christ as recorded in that fallible book, but not the modern day Pharisees who would like to tell me what it says, just as I also listen and heed the words of Buhdda and LaoTzu without conflict, I feel it has lessons to teach.
However there are those who would pervert those lessons to achieve their own agendas. They drive as many away from faith as they attract followers regardless if their religion.
These scientific minded people are Athiests not because of a bad religious experience. Others I know are Athiests because their parents were, or because religion simply did not make sense to them.
They are as many moral Athiests as there moral Christians, in fact perhaps more, since they do not feel that their judgements of others are endorsed by God.
Nick,
Your wife would tell Clooney, “don’t let the door hit ya, where the Good Lord split ya!”
Am I right or what?
WRX – typical denial.
It’s not about the narcissist.
It’s about the revenue.
I don’t say Clooney’s a star or that you or anyone is a fan,
THE DOLLARS DO.
PS. Were I you, I would not display my picture then denigrate George Clooney.
I’m just sayin’…
John, My wife would NEVER convict George Clooney. But, she would also be honest during voir dire and never be on his jury.
I’m an agnostic, hardly a hardcore atheist.
Annie, I agree.
Karen S.: no bashing of Christians, Muslims, Republicans, or Democrats. The point is, there are a lot of people out there who seem to believe that if a person is not a “Christian,” than they can’t be a good, decent, moral person. And that is simply untrue. Most of the people I have encountered with that view are coservative Republicans, but that certainly is not always the case.
That presumes one is a George Clooney fan, a fact not in evidence.
OK. So George Clooney would not be allowed to appear to preclude any potentially, inordinately exculpatory prejudice.