It is currently 05/13/24 1:30 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 12 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/09/09 7:32 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Intellectually, I fully understand the problem with Ditullio's tattoos being "probably offensive" [no "probably" for ME] and I agree those tattoos "could influence a jury" ~ I'm sure the case can be made using other evidence ~ but emotionally, I still see Ditullio's choice of tattoos as being an important factor ~ Sooz


Neo-Nazi in murder trial gets makeover for trial

Associated Press


NEW PORT RICHEY, Fla. - John Allen Ditullio is a walking billboard for the neo-Nazi movement: a large 6-inch swastika tattooed under his right ear, barbed wire inked down the right side of his face, and an extreme and very personal vulgarity scrawled on one side of his neck.

Jurors will never see any of it. A judge has ruled that the state must pay a cosmetologist up to $150 a day during Ditullio's trial on murder and attempted murder charges and apply makeup to cover up the black ink.

Judge Michael Andrews, acting on a request by Ditullio's lawyer, ruled that the tattoos are potentially offensive and could influence a jury's opinion in the state's death penalty case against the 23-year-old accused of donning a gas mask, breaking into a neighbor's home and stabbing two people, killing one of them.

Since his arrest in the March 26, 2006, crime in this suburban county just north of Tampa, the self-described neo-Nazi has added tattoos to his body that are prominently displayed and not easily concealed. Ditullio doesn't have the money to pay to have the tattoos covered up, said his public defender, Bjorn Brunvand, who was worried that a jury might be biased against his client on the basis of the tattoos alone.

"Whenever someone is facing the death penalty, they should get a fair trial," Brunvand said. "The jury can judge this case on the facts and the law and not base their decision on being offended."

Any tattoos Ditullio had before his arrest won't be covered, such as a small cross under his right eye. Earlier this week, he wore a neatly pressed blue shirt and gray slacks yet several tattoos on his hands and wrists were still visible.

As is common with defendants on trial, Ditullio's appearance had been scrubbed clean: his hair was trimmed, and his unruly beard was cut into a neat goatee.

The trial began Tuesday with opening statements. Proceedings are expected to stretch into next week.

Prosecutors allege that Ditullio broke into his neighbor's home and stabbed two people - injuring 44-year-old Patricia Wells, the home's owner, and killing Kristofer King, a 17-year-old visitor and friend of Wells' son.

Wells lived next door to a mobile home that was commonly known as "the Nazi compound," which had large swastika flags flying on the property, authorities said. Ditullio was arrested at the mobile home after a SWAT standoff.

Authorities called the stabbings a hate crime, and Wells agreed, previously telling local media that she believed Ditullio attacked her because she had a black friend - and because her own son was gay and Ditullio may have mistaken King for her son.

Brunvand said his client is innocent and plans to tell the jury that someone else inside the neo-Nazi compound could have committed the crime.

In 2007, while awaiting trial in the Pasco County Jail, Ditullio was charged with attempted escape; authorities found smuggled saw blades, sheets made into a rope and a hole sawed into the stainless steel toilet inside Ditullio's cell.

A similar case involving a tattoo makeover happened in Laredo, Texas, in 2007, when a teenage assassin for a powerful Mexican drug cartel was charged with murder. Rosalio Reta was charged with murder and wore makeup in the courtroom to cover his facial tattoos; he pleaded guilty to a 40-year sentence before the case actually went to the jury.

Covering tattoos for a trial is rare, said Michael Siegel, professor of law at the University of Florida, especially in a case like this when the content of the tattoos - neo-Nazi symbols - mesh with the facts of the case.

"The defendant did initially make the choice to communicate to the world through the tattoos on his body," said Siegel. "Now he's asking for protection from his own decisions."

Siegel said he believes the judge was trying to be "conservative" in his judgment in case the trial results are appealed.

"Judges bend over backwards to be fair," said Siegel. "It's human nature when you're a judge."

What doesn't bother Siegel, however, is the fact that taxpayers will foot the bill for the hourlong makeup session each morning before court proceedings begin.

"It's the responsibility of the taxpayers, whether we like it or not, to provide people with a fair trial," he said. "And it costs a lot of money."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091209/ap_ ... oo_coverup



Top
  
PostPosted: 12/09/09 9:42 am • # 2 
I think the ruling sucks. A fair trial would show the defendant as he REALLY is and not as the jurors, defense counsel or the judge would like to see him.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/09/09 11:47 am • # 3 
Editorialist

Joined: 08/04/09
Posts: 660
I agree. If this person is so proud of his "neo-Nazi" affiliation that he is willing to have offensive tattoos displayed on his person, then let him be proud of them when his butt is on trial for murder. As Sid says, let the jury see him as he is, in all his disgusting glory. Damned if I would want my tax dollars spent to beautify that profanely decorated arsehole. I would consider it "evidence" that goes to demonstrate his need to externalize his hateful personality. Yeah, I know. No such law, but there oughta be a law against taxpayer money covering up his propensity to public display of offensive adornments.

jd


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/09/09 12:03 pm • # 4 
He's on trial for his actions, not his beliefs. If jurors seeing the tattoos might result in prejudice toward him, then he's not receiving a fair trial on the basis of the facts of the case.

The jusge probably is making the right decision, because if he were to escape on the basis of the jury being prejudiced, it woulld prevent justice from being done.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/09/09 2:40 pm • # 5 
Editorialist

Joined: 08/04/09
Posts: 660
gopqed,

I may be wrong on this, but isn't it appropriate for the prosecution to use indications, or evidence, of prior behaviors and tendencies towards violence, anti-social activities, antagonism, or provacatively offensive behaviors as support for the contention that the person is capable of acts of violence?

To tell you the truth, I can't remember which way the law went on this particular subject at the moment. Maybe I'm just having fading memories. It seems an exceptional accommodation for the State to find itself required to "pretty up" the defendant in a murder trial.

If the guy didn't have a problem displaying the tattoos in front of the public, and the jury is the public, then I don't see why he should suddenly be put on trial while, in essence, in disguise???

How can it be unfair? It's seems more unfair to mislead the jury with a fraudulent representation of the accused.

jd


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/09/09 5:06 pm • # 6 
Aren't things allowed that show the person's character? The tattoos show his character.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/10/09 12:29 am • # 7 
What I find a little strange is that they are only covering the tattoos he acquired since arrest.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/10/09 12:54 am • # 8 
Yeah... the ones he got from his buddies in jail. Sounds like a real upstanding citizen worthy of a makeover.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/10/09 3:01 am • # 9 
Much as it goads me to say it, it is right that he should be tried as fairly as possible for the offence he's accused of, rather than for being an obnoxious, knuckle-dragging, asshole.
That approach is ultimately in society's favour.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/10/09 3:39 am • # 10 

I agree, FF. Preventing appearance-based prejudice on the part of the jury is important so they consider the facts of the case rather than their reaction to his appearance. I suspect the reason they are only covering the tattoos he obtained after the crime in question is because they came into being after the crime took place and are thus irrelevant to the facts of the case.

The reactions of a couple of people here should be all the explanation people need for why the judge has approved the request for the covering of the tattoos.



Top
  
PostPosted: 12/10/09 4:20 am • # 11 
Considering it a little more, I suppose the covering of the tattoos he acquired since arrest might also be an attempt to restore his appearance to the time the alleged offence took place for the purposes of witnesses confidently identifying the perpetrator in court.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/10/09 6:09 am • # 12 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Jeanne, I see no reason for you to remove your post, and in fact I hope you change your mind about that ~ it makes a very valid point ~ any juror in any case, especially an incendiary case like the op, can and likely will battle their own both intellectual vs emotional reactions ~ I'm fairly certain there is an automatic appeal if/when a defendant gets the death penalty ~ I'm not sure if that kicks into place with a "life sentence" ~ but the tattoos are highly prejudicial ~ and it's the criminal trial judge's job to remove as much overt prejudice as possible to limit the grounds for any appeal ~

Sooz


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 12 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.