Judge prders a daily $125 tattoo coverup for Neo Nazi's murder trial

[RamboLiberal]

John Allen Ditullio Jr., an avowed neo-Nazi whose face and neck are covered with tattoos -- including a swastika -- will appear at his murder trial this week minus the lurid markings thanks to a $125-a-day taxpayer-funded make-over.

Ditullio's attorney persuaded the judge that the "scary" tattoos would prejudice the Florida jury. The state is paying a cosmetologist to cover the tattoos every day during the trial because Ditullio is indigent.

Ditullio could face the death penalty for the stabbing death of a teenager in 2006, in an attack prosecutors call a hate crime motivated by racism and homophobia.

The judge's decision to camoflauge Ditullio's tattoos angered family members and victim's rights advocates.

"Taxpayer dollars should not be paying for this," said Greg Wims, president of the Victims Rights Foundation, a national group based in Gaithersburg, Md. "People should be able to see these tattoos. The jury should see what kind of person he is. Of course those tattoos are central to the case."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/neo-nazi-accused-hate-crime-murder-makeover/story?id=12324409

Hateful dumbass got the tattoos - let them show to the jurors!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Why not just bill him for the coverup?

[Posteritatis]

3. The article answers that question. (nt)

[Mimosa]

2. Alan Dershowitz says covering the tattoos may be misleading the jurors.

From the OP link:

Alan Dershowitz, the renowned criminal attorney who teaches at Harvard Law School, said it would seem that the swastika and other tattoos are an extension of Ditullio's persona, and masking the marks could be construed as misleading to a jury.

"He is alleged to have attacked people on the basis of sex orientation and race. The court has the chance to make its rulings based on whether the tattoos are relevant to the case," Dershowitz said. "It depends on what the prosecution is trying to prove. If they are saying his Nazi ideology drove him, then you could argue that seeing the tattoos is relevant."

Dershowitz said one could argue that his tattoos are the way he chooses to present himself publicly. "It's not like the swastika was on his rear end," he said.

[SoCalDem]

5. and NOT covering them may lead to a more likely appeal of the eventual trial outcome

Juries are always asked to consider the FACTS of the case...not necessarily the appearance of the defendant.

Is this all that unusual?

Wild & crazy people get all gussied up in nice suits (probably cost more than $125)... Women who normally dress in a very "suggestive" manner, often show up at court, looking like the local schoolmarm.

Covering tattoos with make up will not be enough to make that guy "innocent".

But it will remove one extra reason for his attorneys to howl about how he did not get a fair trial..

[DesertFlower]

4. WTF? he is what he is -- a POS.

[hayu_lol]

7. Seems as if 'Free Speech' would be the issue here...

He got the tatoos because he wanted to send a message. He has the right to be heard...seen as he wishes.

By covering, seems as if his attorney already has an appeal ready to go.

Let his message be seen by everyone.

[CurtEastPoint]

6. Show'em with [white] pride, you asshole.

[flvegan]

8. During the hearings over the proposal to do this, they had to decide *which* tats to cover.

Prosecution okayed covering up those that he got AFTER the crime (got in jail) but not the ones he had before.

[elehhhhna]

14. THat sounds reasonable but what if the tat he got after the crime

says "I offed a _____ "(use your imagination to fill in the blans)

[flvegan]

15. One of the tats that stayed was a teardrop (under the eye)

which jurors, having seen enough gangster flicks, believe to mean that the wearer killed somebody.

So seating the jury took a lot of time.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

9. K&R, I agree, ""People should be able to see these tattoos."

[JBoy]

10. Just let him keep his white hood on.

[niyad]

11. I think a scarf would be cheaper

[The Doctor.]

12. Unfortunately, the tattoos signal intention.

As much as I completely agree that this scumbag animal need not be allowed to participate in civilization any longer (a personal belief exclusive of guilt), I also believe the judge erred on the side of jurisprudence.

As the tattoos show intention, they might induce a response beyond what the hard evidence makes available. Think of it this way; suppose all of the evidence were circumstantial and there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit. Such markings could actually be enough to move the jury beyond doubt.

That would actually be a conflation between expression and intention, and he might be found guilty for expression rather than certainty of commission of murder.

[The Doctor.]

13. Another interesting point; He apparently received the tattoos *after* being arrested for the crime.

How he came to get them might be another story entirely.

[Nye Bevan]

19. Fine. So have the judge explain that to the jury and don't bother covering them (nt)

[The Doctor.]

21. It would be especially powerful if his attorney used a coercion argument.

If they were exposed, they could become a point of argument. A clever attorney could use that as a very effective distraction.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, My client has already been irreparably scarred by convicted criminals who, without moral direction or civilized reason, wanted to destroy his image so that you would be so influenced. My client was coerced into believing he might be in danger if he did not accept the vandalism of his face. I hope that this jury can recognize this attempt to manipulate and deceive them by those that have maliciously defaced my client."

... or something like that.

I know, I'm just a simple caveman lawyer who gets spooked by flashing traffic lights, but this could happen.

[Jim Lane]

26. That defense argument would be impermissible.

The attorney isn't permitted to just make stuff up. The issue would be whether there was any evidence in the record that would support the contention that there was coercion. The obvious source of such evidence would be the defendant's testimony, but there's a good chance he wouldn't testify at all. If he did, he might not say, under oath, that he was coerced to get the tattoos.

What happens if there's no supporting evidence? The defense attorney utters those words, the prosecutor jumps up and says "Objection!", and the judge says, "Sustained. The jury will disregard the claim that the tattoos were coerced." That's probably worse for the defendant than if the subject were never raised at all.

If the defendant does testify that he was coerced, then the issue is the extent to which that jurisdiction allows impeachment on a collateral matter. I don't know whether the prosecution would be permitted to present the testimony of the guy who supposedly coerced him so that that guy could deny it.

[The Doctor.]

29. Well, it's all Latin to me.

It would seem that it would not be difficult at all for the defendant to testify that he was coerced, under oath, that he believed that such adornment would somehow 'protect' him in his incarceration.

After that, there are only if's and but's.

As for the 'collateral matter'; are you suggesting that a jury cannot be so ultimately 'informed'?

You seem to know a bit more about this than I, but when it comes to a jury the law goes straight to psychology.

[Jim Lane]

32. I'm just guessing because I don't do criminal law

A defendant could testify that it was coerced but the jury might well not believe this convenient story. The net effect could be to call even more attention to his tattoos, along with undermining his credibility on more important issues.

You write: "As for the 'collateral matter'; are you suggesting that a jury cannot be so ultimately 'informed'?" I'm talking about this scenario: Defendant testifies he was coerced. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks him who coerced him, and he identifies some prisoners who explicitly or implicitly made him feel threatened. The prosecutor then puts one or more of those prisoners on the stand to testify that defendant is lying, that no one coerced him, that the ink was solely his idea, and that he was really enthusiastic about it.

That might not be permissible. It's collateral because his reason for getting tattooed (after allegedly committing the crime) isn't directly relevant to his guilt or innocence. The prosecutor would be allowed to cross-examine him on the subject, but I think there's a good chance that the prosecutor would not be allowed to bring in the other prisoners to testify. Courts are afraid that, without some limits on the inquiry into collateral matters, a murder trial will end up hearing testimony about who soaped Mrs. Jones's car twenty years ago. Therefore, there are limits on the matters as to which a jury can be "informed".

[The Doctor.]

33. That does make sense.

I stand enlightened.

[The Doctor.]

34. Dupe

[FooshIt]

16. lets all hate the poor

they don't deserve a fair trial

[Truth2Tell]

20. Let's not. You can go it alone. nt

[The Doctor.]

23. Hate hate,

Fear Fear,

Love Love,


-Garthism '01

[Maru Kitteh]

25. Yes, because all poor people plaster themselves with Nazi tattoos.

everyone knows that.

[Tx4obama]

17. Give him a turtle neck sweater and a five dollar bottle of Cover Girl foundation for the face ones.

That would save a ton of money ;)

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. Oh HELL no! Turtleneck sweater = cruel and unusual punishment :-)

[The Doctor.]

22. Won't someone think of the Turtles?!?!

My God... will we stop at killing any of God's creatures just to create someone's defense wardrobe?

[Maru Kitteh]

24. Should a defendant be entitled to present themselves as tall? white? female? good-looking?

on the taxpayer dime to avoid prejudice of the jury? Lacking these attributes has also been shown to lead to higher conviction rates, after all.

[blueamy66]

27. $125?

Go buy a bottle of makeup for $10 and be done with it.

[Liberal_in_LA]

28. Why couldn't they just give him some foundation, let him cover them up himself for a fraction of the

cost?

[TorchTheWitch]

30. I don't think they should be covered at all

It's one thing to alter one's appearance with their wardrobe or a haircut, but altering permanent stuff goes too far and way too far on the tax payer's dime. Other defendant's don't get the luxury of being able to disguise their permanent features that may sway a jury's opinion especially when those permanent features aren't something that was a choice for them - and neither should he especially when the nature of his crimes coincides with the evil tattoos he chose to put on himself.

Those tattoos and where he put them are a statement of his beliefs and character that he intended the public to see and the jury should be able to see them.

[ck4829]

31. From now on, all defendants will use Shirley Temple-like kids to answer questions for them

DA: So, Bruno the Stab Maniac, where were you when the victim was stabbed?
Defendant motions to Shirley Temple clone
Shirley Temple: Oh gee gosh, why I was licking my oversized lollipop, I'd never stab anybody because that's not nice.

Can't let the jury be prejudiced, right?