10-Year Sentence for ‘Sopranos’ Actor

[RamboLiberal]

Source: NY Times

Lillo Brancato Jr., the former actor who was convicted of attempted burglary for his role in a 2005 incident in the Bronx that left an off-duty police officer dead, was sentenced to 10 years Friday.

Last month, a jury acquitted Mr. Brancato, 32, of felony murder in connection with the death of Officer Daniel Enchautegui. Although Mr. Brancato was unarmed and did not fire the shots that killed Officer Enchautegui, who sprung into action after hearing glass shatter at his neighbor’s house in the middle of the night, prosecutors argued that Mr. Brancato should be convicted of murder because he acted in concert with Steven Armento, the man who pulled the trigger.

Mr. Armento, 51, was convicted of murder in a separate trial in October and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Mr. Brancato faced a sentence of 3 ½ to 15 years in prison for the attempted burglary charge. His lawyers asked Justice Martin Marcus of State Supreme Court in the Bronx to give him the minimum sentence, citing previous cases in which first-time felony offenders like Mr. Brancato were given sentences on the low end of the guideline.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/nyregion/10brancato.html?_r=1&hp

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. I never have understood the logic of charging everybody with murder

when one person did the killing.

If that was not a threat, the accomplices might be inclined instead to turn on and turn in the killer. Instead, it encourages them to not only protect the killer but to silence any other possible witnesses in order to keep themselves from being charged with murder.

[Iggo]

2. But then...

...the punishment fetishists would be sad. :cry:

[nyc 4 Biden]

3. As of now, when an accomplice cooperates they do get

a reduced sentence. Charging everyone with the crime ideally discourages cooperation in the act.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Charging everyone with the crime ideally discourages cooperation in the act.

How well does that work, in reality?

Typical situation: Three kids decide to do a smash & grab at a quick stop. The clerk grabs hold of one who turns around and shoots the clerk. There are three witnesses in the store. Because the other two kids know they'll be charged with murder, for the impulsive murder of the clerk, they figure their best chance is to leave no witnesses, so they kill the three witnesses and grab the video from the surveilance camera.

Instead of a single death you have a massacre. They didn't set out to kill anyone. If they had not been threatened with a murder charge themselves, it is not unlikely that one of the two would have eventually informed on the one who killed the clerk - but facing murder charges themselves they have no incentive to inform.

What about the 4th kid, out in the car, who didn't even know what the other three were up to?

That's how gangs are formed - with the bonding of collective guilt. With this being the policy for the past 4 decades, is it any surprise there has been an explosion of gang membership over that time?

[Strelnikov_]

6. ..

[nyc 4 Biden]

8. Valid points but...

people usually cooperate only after they have been caught. If they do not have pressure on them from the authorities I don't think many simply decide to turn themselves in and inform on their cohorts regardless of the punishment.

And I would have to respectfully disagree about the roots of gang formation. I feel the gang is formed before the act has ever been committed and stems from a lack of family involvement and/or a lack of options for higher education/employment. Not having positive role models also factor in (hopefully Obama helps in this area).

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Keep an eye on your local papers. Time after time you will see

where 'so-n-so' turned himself if and gave information about a worse crime. Almost never happens with gang crime, because of that shared-guilt bonding and the potential for retribution. But the reality is, in a "I Know What You Did..." scenario, one of the kids will usually talk - sometimes even in murder cases. Most people are not hardened criminals, and most people are not sociopaths. They might do terrible things in the heat of a moment, but if the system does not prompt them to do even worse to escape punishment there's a good chance that they will respond to guilt or remorse as most of us would.

[nyc 4 Biden]

12. Well put.

We do agree then that stricter punishments is not a sufficient deterrent to crime.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Absolutely. Three stikes laws, automatic life w/o parole, and especially

the death penalty are, in the long run, counterproductive because they leave the perpetrator with nothing left to lose, leaving him with a 'never take me alive' outlook which often, or even usually takes someone else with him.

The sad fact is, if criminals were good at predicting the consequenses of their actions they would not be criminals, so ever harsher penalties is not, and will never be, a deterrant for real criminals and wind up being excessively harsh for kids whose main crime is being young and stupid.

[Thothmes]

25. I would suspect that those murdered by the "young and

stupid" may disagree. Certainly the survivors of their predations may think otherwise also.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. It's an asinine development of the "tough on crime" conservatism

And I would engage in jury nullification if I were ever asked to serve on a jury for one of these so-called "capital murder" cases. I hold a basic principle: I will only convict you of a crime you actually committed. Call me crazy.

[msanthrope]

16. Dude, the Felony Murder Rule dates back to the 1100s....

at least that's what I learned in first year jurisprudence. Common law...she's a bitch.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Well, they would hang you for stealing a loaf of bread back then, too.

Is THAT something that should be preserved, too?

[depakid]

20. Or transport you to Australia...

-or before that, Georgia.

[msanthrope]

17. Dude, the Felony Murder Rule dates back to the 1100s....

at least that's what I learned in first year jurisprudence. Common law...she's a bitch.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Was it commonly applied in state law before 1970?

:shrug:

There's "history" and there's history. I'd nullify any such charge, period. It's asinine.

You certainly know, I'm sure, that many common law countries have abolished felony murder as a rank stupidity.

[msanthrope]

15. Because when you do inherently criminal actions, you cannot

then claim that you could not forsee the logical consequences of said actions.

Commit a robbery with a person with a gun? Can you rationally claim that it was not forseeable that the gun would be used????

You may not have intended that it be used, but can you not see that it COULD be? The felony murder rule exists because without it, prosecutors would have no leverage against the trigger-puller.....

I've never met a co-defendant inclined to turn themselves or anyone else in---people who commit felonies are not civic-minded.

[Strelnikov_]

7. He starred in 'A Bronx Tale' (1993)

And was part of Chris 'crew' of fuck-ups in season 2 who eventually try to whack Chris and fail. He is ultimately whacked by Tony and Big Pussy a couple of episodes later.




Drugs are bad.

[Doctor_J]

10. Did he play Matthew Bevillaqua (drinkwater)?

I think he was on NYPD Blue once or twice too

[Iggo]

11. Yep...

That was "the Bevilaqua beef" that Pussy was talking about with his FBI handler.

[Doctor_J]

13. Nice looking lad. Too bad.

:-(

[GCP]

22. He was in Crimson Tide, too

Drugs'll fuck you up.

[Leftist Agitator]

23. "Drugs'll fuck you up."

Yeah, if you're a fucking idiot.

:eyes:

[reorg]

24. Also played a drug dealer in Abel Ferrara's "R Xmas",

the leading part, next to Drea de Matteo. What is it with this guy, is he trying to "live the life" in order to get a better feel for future roles?

[superconnected]

14. He had so much going for him and then did a very stupid thing

that resulted in someone else being killed.

Condolences to the family of the guy killed.