The lawyer for a Massachusetts man believes that it will be impossible for his client to get a fair trial because he’s implanted horns and tattooed the number ’666′ on his forehead

Poor guy

Man With Horns (Yes Horns) And ’666′ On His Forehead, Complaining That Juries Might Not Like Him (VIDEO)
AUTHOR: DEWYN AUGUST 24, 2014 5:54 PM

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/manwithhornsd676ct.jpg

The lawyer for a Massachusetts man who is accused of kidnapping, torture and murder believes that it will be impossible for his client to get a fair trial because he’s implanted horns and tattooed the number ’666′ on his forehead.

James G. Reardon, Jr. is worried that the appearance of his client, Caius Veiovis, will distract jurors from the facts of the case, and petitioned Hampden Superior Court Judge C. Jeffrey Kinder to allow him to show potential jurors a photograph of Veiovis before jury selection.

Veiovis is accused of assisting David Chalue and Adam Lee Hall in the kidnapping, torturing, murdering, and dismembering of David Glasser, Edward Frampton, and Robert Chadwell in August of 2011. Glasser had been set to testify against Hall, a member of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang, when he, Frampton, and Chadwell went missing on August 28.

Their dismembered corpses were discovered 10 days later.

Source: Raw Story

The right to fair and impartial jury is in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and at least with racial issues, it is up to the judge and defense attorney to weed out jurors with prejudices, but there’s little case study when it comes to intentional body alterations. An attorney (unrelated to this case) had this to say about tattoos, though:

When the time came to select the jury, my review of the jury pool led me to two conclusions. First, I know from personal experience that potential jurors’ views of tattoos are widely different and quickly changing, especially in a rapidly urbanizing area like this particular venue. For example, a stiff businessman may even have a tattoo hidden away under his finely pressed suit. Second, like other obvious points, jurors are either with you on the issue or it is too dangerous to spend valuable time and creditability on something that could backfire; i.e., something about the other party that is very personal and only indirectly about the case.

Immediately after the jury delivered the verdict, counsel for Plaintiff and I were in the jury room discussing the case with the jurors. Juror number four, a middle-aged woman who worked in a manufacturing facility, had tattoos that were visible on this day but not during jury selection, and appeared by all information to be one of the better jurors for Plaintiff. She asked Plaintiff’s counsel if he “was worried about the tattoos?” Plaintiff’s counsel gave a nice and honest answer trying to deflect attention away from the appearance of his client. After that exchange, the jury foreman, a semi-retired executive, said “Mr. Droog, I am glad you did not call attention to the tattoos. No one cares about that stuff anymore, and we were here to decide this case and nothing more.” My client and I were equally glad to have prevailed on the substance and not the stereotype.

Source: Snipleysnell

Will the tactic work? It’s doubtful. Reardon is also trying to have Veiovis’ home torture chamber type arsenal excluded from evidence. It allegedly has machetes, hatchets and baseball bats with nails sticking out. Veiovis’ co-defendants have already been convicted, but their faces were unadulterated.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/24/man-with-horns-yes-horns-and-666-on-his-forehead-complaining-that-juries-might-not-like-him-video/

He’s someone I would say “Go kill yourself” to and not feel a thing.

Marking and mutilating your body is not a get out of jail free card.

1 Like