Chieppa found not guilty (MA)
This is a discussion on Chieppa found not guilty (MA) within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Preface: Be sure to take note of the comments in the 'Reader Reaction' area at the bottom of this story.
As reported by SouthCoastToday.com:
March 27th, 2007 05:15 PM
Chieppa found not guilty (MA)
Preface: Be sure to take note of the comments in the 'Reader Reaction' area at the bottom of this story.
As reported by SouthCoastToday.com:
Chieppa found not guilty
March 26, 2007 4:55 PM
TAUNTON - A jury found Charles D. Chieppa, 57, not guilty of second-degree murder for the killing of a suspected burglar in 2004.
Jurors needed just over 3½ hours to return the verdict in a case where all parties say intent was the most crucial issue.
Mr. Chieppa remained impassive as the verdict was read. His family members, who filled up one side of the gallery, hugged each other and pulled out cell phones to share the news after court was dismissed.
The family of the slain burglar, Frank Pereira Jr. reacted in a manner just as emotional. His father, sisters and long-time companion wept at the verdict. As they exited the courtroom, sister Missy Cimbron yelled “you (expletive deleted) murderer” in Mr. Chieppa’s direction. Once outside the courtroom they pleaded with a victim witness advocate for any further legal recourse.
Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington packed up a box of evidence with Mr. Chieppa as the courtroom emptied out. Picking up the weapon Mr. Chieppa shot Mr. Pereira with, a semi-automatic Walther P38 handgun, he said “I’ll hang on to this for now.”
Earlier today witnesses in the case have said Mr. Chieppa awoke at about 4 a.m. June 17, 2004, to the sounds of an intruder in his 134 Ashley Blvd. home. After waking a tenant who rented a second-floor apartment, Mr. Chieppa went to his backyard with a semi-automatic handgun, according to testimony. There, he encountered Mr. Pereira, 24, who had apparently broken into Mr. Chieppa’s basement, according to testimony in the case.
Mr. Pereira was seen fleeing from Mr. Chieppa’s yard before collapsing in the street with a fatal bullet wound, witnesses said.
The intent behind that shooting took center stage in court today, with the prosecution saying it was anger, the defense saying it was fear, and Judge E. Susan Garsh telling jurors that whatever they decided about Mr. Chieppa’s motive would determine whether he faced murder or a lesser charge.
In his closing argument, prosecutor Bill McCauley said the circumstances behind the shooting show Mr. Chieppa’s intent. He pointed out that the defendant fired four rounds, and that the state Medical Examiner’s Officer determined that Mr. Pereira was shot in the back. Of the two shots that hit him, the fatal one entered through his back and exited his chest.
“This was anger, this wasn’t fear. He reacted that night in anger, it wasn’t fearful,” he said.
The prosecutor accused Mr. Chieppa of choosing to “take the law into his own hands,” saying he “decided if there was going to be a problem in his property, he would take care of it.”
Additionally, Mr. Chieppa’s tenant heard him yelling, swearing and asking if Mr. Pereira was trying to break into his house, Mr. McCauley said. However, that witness gave several accounts of the shooting in court last week, prompting Judge Garsh to later say his testimony was damaged.
As he has throughout the trial, defense attorney Kevin J. Reddington told the jury today that his client, a decorated Vietnam veteran, believed he was in mortal danger and that he was protecting himself when he fired on Mr. Pereira.
“When you consider his state of mind, when you consider the circumstances, this was a justifiable homicide by a citizen protecting himself,” he said.
Mr. Reddington also said Mr. Chieppa, experienced a “complete and total withdrawal emotionally” after the shooting, explaining grand jury testimony he gave in 2004 when he said he could not remember key details of the shooting and repeatedly said the gun ”just went off” in his hands.
The defense attorney also called witnesses today who testified about past encounters that shed a negative light on Mr. Pereira’s character. A Fairhaven man told the court he was in an argument with Mr. Pereira in 1995 and the then-15-year-old swung a baseball bat at him. A New Bedford man said Mr. Pereira broke his finger and stole money from him in 1998.
The jury began its deliberations at 12:20 p.m., after receiving instructions from Judge Garsh.
The story with pictures can be found at; http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/.../NEWS/70326005
"Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy
"A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing
March 27th, 2007 05:15 PM
March 27th, 2007 05:20 PM
Man, sure are a lot of people that want to defend a criminal. It's murder because he shouldn't be allowed to shoot someone that's breaking into his home.
Give me a break.
...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller
March 27th, 2007 05:36 PM
"The family of the slain burglar, Frank Pereira Jr. reacted in a manner just as emotional. His father, sisters and long-time companion wept at the verdict. As they exited the courtroom, sister Missy Cimbron yelled “you (expletive deleted) murderer” in Mr. Chieppa’s direction. Once outside the courtroom they pleaded with a victim witness advocate for any further legal recourse."
Now the family of the deceased scumbag will sue in civil court for all the money their beloved relative would have made as a brain surgeon after he "turned his life around."
Glad i live in OK.
March 27th, 2007 08:44 PM
Glad he got off, but it showcases ONE of the many problems with our legal system. The homeowner's intent or emotional status in this case shouldn't be relevant. More so the "victim's" intent was the real issue. If you break into my home in the middle of the night, my intent or emotional status means absolutely nothing. Your's however, is a different story. If you broke in because you just wrecked your vehicle, are injured and need assistance via phone and no one else is around, YOU MIGHT survive, IF you can articulate it fast enough, or I can tell from obvious signs. Either way, once you're in my home uninvited...I officially own your life and the decision to end it with extreme prejudice is mine. There's no If's, And's, or But's about it. The simple fact of the matter is that our society has become bass akwards in relation to our morals. I don't care if you're the Queen of England or the Pope. No man's rights give them the right to trump mine and especially in my own home in the middle of the night. You enter my home uninvited and you've officially given me your life to do with as I choose in the manner that I choose. I know where I stand and have no qualms with following my deep-rooted and morally correct beliefs.
"My God David, We're a Civilized society."
"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
-The Mist (2007)
March 27th, 2007 08:58 PM
Here's some legal recourse: DON'T BE A CRIMINAL. That's perfectly legal, right?
Once outside the courtroom they pleaded with a victim witness advocate for any further legal recourse.
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
March 27th, 2007 08:59 PM
The Trial Was A Farce...
This man should have never gone to trial...the criminal BROKE IN...at that point his personal rights were terminated, as so was he...no mercy...
I'm glad the victim was found not guilty...they should have the Castle Doctrine too, to avoid law suits!
Stay armed...stay safe!
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
March 27th, 2007 10:20 PM
Better read MGLs. We ONLY have a right to use deadly force (by law) on a home trespass where we FEAR IMMINENT serious bodily harm/death . . . and this is (by law) an "AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE" to a murder charge.
Translate into English:
- Unless they threaten to harm/kill you/family, in MA, you have NO RIGHT to use deadly force . . . even in your home.
- If you've left your house (gone to the back yard), going back in to confront an intruder just blew you (legal) chance to use deadly force.
- Per MGLs you are Supposed to be charged with murder and YOU get to try to mitigate the charge by claiming self defense! Only in very rare instances in MA will they "no bill" you upfront, and that flies in the face of the way the law is written.
- You get to spend 3-4 years under indictment, lose all your guns and LTC (they all get confiscated upon the indictment or arrest), arrested (the arrest record in MA is NEVER expunged, even in mistaken identity cases), possibly lose your job, lose any security clearance you might have had, and lose all/most of your savings to defend yourself.
- You will then no doubt face a civil lawsuit, Federal Civil Rights violation (killing) and lose.
So a "win" in MA is rather hollow at best, but you do beat Bubba (maybe) out of a lover.
By miklcolt45 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: January 8th, 2010, 03:29 PM
By Sig 210 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: December 20th, 2009, 11:47 AM
By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: January 24th, 2009, 12:01 AM
By ArmyCop in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: December 12th, 2008, 02:04 PM