On The Horns Of A Dilemma: Massachusetts Defendant Raises Potential Prejudice In Jurors Seeing . . . Him

1408728555478_wps_9_Caius_Veiovis_unique_appeThere 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.

1408728545064_Image_galleryImage_This_panel_of_undated_phoVeiovis 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.

1408728546047_wps_7_This_panel_of_undated_phoVeiovis 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.

1408728546051_wps_8_This_panel_of_undated_pho 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

155 thoughts on “On The Horns Of A Dilemma: Massachusetts Defendant Raises Potential Prejudice In Jurors Seeing . . . Him”

  1. Annie, thank you for you comments. Alas some folks believe life is all about determining what “truth” is and then ” teaching the truth” to others good and hard ! ( And even more amazing… some of them communicate with invisible entities that tell them what “truth” is ) #AmygdalaFantasies

  2. I sent the photo of the guy back to Remulak as an example of “the average American Joe”. I hope you dont mind.

  3. Squeeky, We must all travel out own road. But, every so often I will remind you, the time you spend discussing w/ people unworthy of your wit and intelligence is time you will never get back. And, for someone like you, time is precious.

  4. Annie “Well Squeekers, it’s a free country, and Christianity is NOT the state religion.” The fundamentalist religion is the state religion in Texas. These days most of the statewide elected officials are. Jews and Catholics don’t have much of a chance statewide, but catholic hispanics can win local or congressional races. and don’t even think about a muslim or a buddhist being elected to a state or congressional office. Texas is not representative of the country at large.

  5. Well Squeekers, it’s a free country, and Christianity is NOT the state religion. Aren’t you glad I have the freedom to carp? And also because we live in a free society, we get to raise our children as we see fit, we are not controlled by Priests, Pastors, Rabbis, or Mullahs, Praise the Lord! And you get to carp about my carping. Thank you Flying Spaghetti Monster! Or more seriously, thank you to the Founders, who were so wise in understanding that church and state must remain separate.

  6. @annie

    Sure Buddhist parents teach their kids values, and they wouldn’t appreciate somebody like you constantly carping about them and their religion anymore than Christians do. When you attack a country’s or society’s religion and try to substitute The Book of Annie for the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the I Ching, whatever, you do a tremendous amount of destruction to that country’s social fabric.

    The fact that almost every society has a religion, and labels certain behavior as wrong, and beyond the arbitrary whims of ordinary people, ought to clue you in that this is how societies manage to hold themselves together. Instead, you prefer to label it as busybody-ness. There is an African saying, “Don’t tear down a fence until you know why the fence was put up.” Good advice IMO.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  7. Huh? I asked if Buddhist children ended up being immoral just because their parents do no teach them the Ten Commandments out of the Christian Bible. I I indicated that Buddhist parents are capable of teaching values despite not teaching Christian values. Where in that sentence did I say I thought you or anyone said they were immoral?

  8. Annie:

    “Where did I say I think you said Buddhist kids are immoral?”
    You said, “Do Buddhist families have immoral children because they don’t teach the ten commandments?”

    So . . .

  9. Karen I see you can’t sleep either. My son in law’s comment did and does make sense to me but I don’t necessarily agree with it entirely. As for the rest of your comment, it makes far less sense to me. Where did I say I think you said Buddhist kids are immoral? What the heck are you talking about? Didi claim you said children should be brought up only in a religious Setting? Again what are you talking about. You are attributing statements to me I did not make. As for my son in law IS a fiscal conservative and mostly a social liberal, he votes Republican. Why is this important to you? You don’t think conservatives are atheists or agnostics? This conversation was enjoyable with Squeeky as she appears to be more rational, you have a tendency to attribute what you THINK someone said as fact.

  10. Katy:

    “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.”

    Yes, over-generalizing is a mistake. Yes, some Christians have a holier-than-thou sanctimonious attitude.

    There are also Liberals who think that if a person is not a Liberal they are not a good person. If they don’t like Hillary or Ronald Reagan. Same goes for Muslims for non-Muslims, French for everyone else, etc. And, in fact, you engage in the same thought pattern in regards to Christians – they are not as good as non-Christians because they’re too judgmental.

    It’s human nature, and the religious are not the only ones to do so.


    This is what you wrote: “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.” You said this made sense to you, but now suddenly it has nothing to do with you? Then you said, “That was my son in law, the conservative’s premise.” So now you’re emphasizing that he is a conservative, but earlier you said he was fiscally conservative but socially Liberal. Since religion has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism, his comment, which made sense to you, would be Liberal. And then you implied I thought Buddhist children were immoral, and wondered if I really find no value in teaching anything other than Judeo Christian values.

    So you can bash Christianity, but if I call shenanigans you then claim I think Buddhist kids are immoral? Sorry, but I don’t know how to play the throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks debate paradigm.

    I have said repeatedly that people are free to practice any faith they choose, or none at all, as long as they do not harm other people. That is why I oppose Sharia Law, because it abuses human rights in every country where it is practiced. But Muslims who live here peacefully are very welcome.

    Therefor it is ludicrous for you to claim that I believe that children should only be brought up in a religious setting.

    It is really unfortunate that people at times appear more interested in strife than in an interesting discussion.

  11. Actually no Karen. I did not claim religious people they had no values of their own. That was my son in law, the conservative’s premise. Katy’s comment before that comment of mine reminded me of it. I didn’t say people were born with inherant nobility, I said it doesn’t always take religious teachings to raise a child with morals and ethics. Do you think I want children to be raised atheists? People in this country are allowed to raise their children as they see fit, unless its harmful to the child. To be raised by moral, good parents with a value system, whether it be religious or not is what probably has the best chance of raising a child with morals. I agree ja a child can be taught values wihout church, why do you think I don’t? I haven’t indicated that I don’t think children don’t need to be taught right from wrong, morals, standards, ethics, values. You seem to be attributing to me something you assume I said somewhere. If I said it please point it out to me.

  12. Emotion has nothing to do with religion. Someone is either emotional, or they aren’t, regardless of their faith, or lack thereof.


    “Do Buddhist families have immoral children because they don’t teach the ten commandments?” And yet, you claimed that religious people have no personal values. So would Buddhist children, according to your logic, be immoral or lack an internal compass because they were not raised to be atheist?

    No one is born with an inherent nobility or intrinsic set of values. Set a group of children on a deserted island and you would recreate The Lord of the Flies. Values are internalized in childhood, honed in adulthood through trial and error. You can teach a child the same values taught in church, and remove any religious reference. Or you can teach a child that these values are part of living a good life.

    But the reason why we need to teach children not to hit, lie, cheat, steal, bully, etc is because values have to be taught.

  13. I agree we are ordinary people Squeekers. I have no aspirations to be a goddess in this lifetime, lol. o_O

  14. @annie

    Well, if you agree that people are overly emotional, then why do you think you can pass off the determination of a reasonable moral code to them???

    All religions seem to have one thing in common. The rules are created by God, or some very special persons, like Buddha, and are not amenable to arbitrary tinkering by ordinary people.

    And you and I just ordinary people.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  15. Another thought Squeeky, are you trying to say religious people don’t live their lives being ruled by emotion? You don’t think there isn’t PLENTY of emotion in religion? You haven’t been to many Charismatic services, have you?

  16. You are only 30? Oky doky then. Well, at such a young sweet age perhaps you don’t know it all yet, plenty of time to experience life, perhaps broaden your horizons. You may understand a bit better that secular people do not necessarily think the universe revolves around them any more than religious people do. I don’t dislike religious folks, only those who are obnoxious about it. You have very right to think I’m obnoxious about my values system. It’s a free country…for now.

  17. @annie

    How does religion step on your toes??? Are you a shoplifter and running afoul of the “don ‘t steal ” commandment? Are you making graven images in your spare time? Do you not love your neighbor as yourself and hate hearing people recite the Golden Rule?

    I don ‘t think it is any of the above. I think you suffer from the same problem as the Libertarians. IMO you think you are the center of the universe and can ‘t stand the very concept of a higher power who has rules.

    And this “everybody create their own moral code” foolishness. Have you ever read Justine by the Marquis de Sade??? Plus, I am only 30 and I have already learned that most people make their decisions based kn emotion, not reason. There have even been studies which confirm this. Yet, you want to toss the God – based rules overboard and let people ‘s emotions run things??? That would be a hoot!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

Comments are closed.