Hits: 0
WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. Commentary By S. Richard Blassberg, WPCNR Legal Affairs Correspondent. With Introduction by John F. Bailey. May 8, 2003: The jury spoke yesterday at the Westchester County Courthouse, handing up a verdict of Guilty on All 14 Counts in the matter of the capital punishment Murder Trial of Dennis Alvarez-Hernandez, finding him to have committed First Degree Murder in causing the deaths of Patricia Torres and two of her children.
The jury’s decision makes the death penalty an option for the twelve to sentence Mr. Alvarez-Hernandez to death after they begin deliberations on the sentence next Wednesday. The two summations offered Monday were in stark contrast, and clearly pointed to two paths the jury might have taken on their way to a decision. Herewith, WPCNR’s Legal Affairs Correspondent S. Richard Blassberg examines the summations to determine the jury’s path to judgment as he observed them take place in court Monday:
WPCNR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT
S. RICHARD BLASSBERG
Photo by WPCNR News
It appeared in discussions with Mr. Blassberg, after the verdict, that of the two summations offered by Mr. Alvarez-Hernandez counsel and the Prosecution, and the highly explicit 2-hours of instructions Judge Kenneth Lange presented to the jury, that the jury reacted and responded and only saw the drama of the Prosecution’s relentless recreation of the crimes. They took less than 24 hours to come to their unanimous verdict. The early verdict concerned defense attorneys Spiegel and Aiello when they arrived for the verdict Wednesday.
Now Mr. Blassberg, picks up the court action:
The Final Arguments
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure in the State Court, the Defense presented its summation first. Defense counsel Robort Aiello delivered an account of the events which led up to the killings of Patricia Torres and two of her children, as well as the scenario by which they died.
Aiello commanded the rapt attention of each juror from the moment he opened by holding up enlarged photographs of each of the victims declaring, “Ladies and gentlemen, Dennis Alvarez-Hernandez did this, did this, and did this!” He held their intense interest thereafter for more than two hours in a presentation distinguished in its organization and brilliant in its common logic.
Appeal for Rational Analysis
Aiello gently appealed, “All any defendant can ask for is that you will be fair and impartial.” He went on, “His actions were the result of a blind rage, not planned or calculated.” He suggested that excessive alcohol consumption, instability, and impaired judgment all contributed to the tragedy. He quickly focused the jury’s attention declaring, “The only issue is: What was Dennis’ state of mind on September 3, 2003?” He urged that the conduct was not the result of some “grand scheme” but rather a blind rage fueled by excessive alcohol consumption.
Highly Irregular Objections by the Prosecution During Defense Summation.
At several points in Aiello’s presentation, prosecutor Bolen interrupted with objections, some of which he quickly withdrew. It appeared to this reporter, that the Prosecution was uncomfortable with the effectiveness of the Defense effort and was attempting to break their momentum. Nevertheless, Aiello went on calmly, if dramatically, reasoning that all of the evidence which had been presented in nearly four weeks of testimony was “completely consistent with a frenzied madness.”
Time of Death Critical
Aiello consistently kept the Defense argument that the killings took place around 2:30 A.M. in bold relief before the jurors, frequently referring to the statements of the Prosecution’s own expert witnesses as scientific proof. The time of occurrence had been a matter of great dispute throughout the trial, with the Prosecution claiming that the killings occurred around 6:30 A.M. The issue, of course, would speak to the level of the Defendant’s intoxication at the time of the killings given the fact that he had a .09 blood-alcohol reading when tested at 8:19 A.M. when taken to the hospital.
The Prosecution Steps Up the Pressure.
Following a break for lunch, it was Patricia Murphy’s turn to present the Prosecution’s version. In a presentation described by one highly qualified observer as “a litany of everything a prosecutor should not do in a summation,” Ms. Murphy declared “Patricia Torres, William Santiago and Ashley Dominguez were not just killed, they were slaughtered.” While conceding that alocohol fueled Dennis Alvarez-Hernandez’s rage, she insisted that it was his “urge to control his girlfriend that led him to kill her and two of her children.”
Murphy once again led the jury through the model of the apartment laid out before them throughout the trial. She reminded jurors to re-examine photographs of blood stained walls in an effort to establish the brutality of the Defendant’s acts. She did her very best to inflame and motivate the jurors, as had been the Prosecution’s approach from the start. She made an effort to rehabilitate the testimony of Detective William Craft as well as that of a neighborhood “pothead,” each of whom had been effectively discredited by Aiello earlier.
The Abused Woman Syndrome Invoked.
Describing the victim, Patricia Torres, Murphy observed, “She’s not the first woman who thought she could work things out with an angry drunk man.” This was an obvious reference intended to overcome Defense evidence that Dennis had tried to move away from Patricia, following a violent incident two months before the killings, but was prevailed upon by her, and brought back by her from Maryland.
Call for a Mistrial Based on the Prosecution’s Summation.
Tuesday morning, before the Judge’s charge was delivered, Defense attorney Spiegel moved for a mistrial based upon numerous improper and misleading statements which he went on to detail for the Court from the Prosecution’s summation. Many of Spiegel’s examples involved vouching, and violation of the Unsworn Witness Rule. Additionally, Spiegel was outraged by Ms. Murphy’s reference to the Defendant’s failure to tesitify, a very serious instance of prosecutorial misconduct.
After listening to prosecutor Bolen’s response, the judge denied Defense’s application.
The Judge’s Charge
Judge Kenneth Lange, who throughout the trial had taken great pain to be both even-handed and careful in the discharge of his duties, was not disappointing in any aspect of his charge.
Taking approximately two hours to inform carefully and fully the jurors of their responsibilities, and their options under the law, he went on to discuss thoroughly the necessary elements of each crime with which the Prosecution had charged the Defendant. He explained that in each instance, they would have to find that each and every element of a crime had been satisfied “beyond a reasonable doubt” if guilt were to be found.
Judge Lange had obviously taken great care in the preparation of his instructions and now took the time and effort to inform the jury fully. He was compelled to repeat the definitions and elements of each of the fourteen counts of the original indictment which involve First Degree Murder, Second Degree Intentional Murder, Attempted Murder and Attempted Assault. To all of the charged offenses he then proceeded to add six counts of Depraved Indifference Murder, an alternative finding, which more closely conforms to the Defense theory of the killings.
The Jury Decides
Upon completion of the charge, the jury retired Tuesday afternoon to consider their verdict, which they delivered Wednesday, rejecting the Defense theory, and finding the client guilty of murder in the First Degree.