GUILTY MA - Vanessa Marcotte, 27, murdered, Princeton, 7 Aug 2016 #8 *Arrest*
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
Yes.
During the motion hearing, both sides will argue for, and against evidence that should/should not be allowed if the defense files a motion to suppress.
Any evidence regarding the motion will be examined/ heard at that time by the Judge.
That may be audio/video, witness statements, documents, or photos.... things like that.
So, for example, If someone at the Post Office gives a statement saying he heard Ortiz speaking English, or, his employment records have been requested by subpoena, and the job application was filled out in English, that all counts as evidence.
Once all the evidence is presented, the Judge will decide on what/what will not be allowed.
If the affidavit Ortiz submitted was signed, and untruthful, Ortiz could face perjury charges. It's the same as testifying under oath.
Once again, the unsigned affidavit is meaningless. The reason for the signed affidavit in this case would be to show that the information submitted is true, and one reason you'd hire an attorney would be to make sure all legal documents submitted are legally binding. To me anyway, there would only be one reason not to sign. Imo, not signing was no overlooked mistake. Even a rookie attorney first year out of law school wouldn't be that inept.
Steleheart
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2013
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 3,299
That wicked big red flag.
OldCop
Verified Law Enforcement (retired)
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2016
- Messages
- 2,440
- Reaction score
- 60,427
As @Rocky1 pointed out above, signing an untruthful affidavit is akin to lying under oath which is a very serious charge. An unsigned affidavit may be an attempt to slip in a lie without the risk of being charged with perjury.
Even though he is facing first degree murder, the perjury charge would still be important in this or any case. Testifying under oath, is one of the most important aspects of our criminal justice system. When you take an oath you are giving your word that you are speaking the truth. Your word used to be the most important aspect of your character. It defined your integrity. It was often enough to seal a deal or a contract. Sadly, some people have no qualms about lying anymore. During a trial, it is important that witnesses be truthful in their testimony. A jury should know the truth in order to make their decision on an accused’s guilt or innocence. This is why the courts continue to come down hard on people who commit perjury.
One question is why is it unsigned? Again, I doubt it was overlooked by the attorney. If he was being truthful, then why not sign it?
It would be unethical for the attorney to tell Ortiz to sign if he knew he was lying. That's called "Subornation/Suborning Of Perjury," and can lead to disbarment, so it wouldn't only affect Ortiz.
The other question is why did the Attorney attach it to his paperwork? I hope he didn't think the Judge was going to overlook the signature. Both would check to make sure it's signed to be legally binding.
The Judge is no rookie. To me anyway, it's not a smart thing to do right out of the gate. It insults the Judge's intelligence if he thinks the attorney is trying to dupe him/her.
Ortiz is innocent until proven otherwise. Let's say for example, he is found not guilty. It wouldn't be a good thing to lie under oath and then have to serve time on a perjury charge. The objective thing for him to do is to get out of this mess, not dig himself deeper.
weepingangel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,449
- Reaction score
- 21,687
Killing of Vanessa Marcotte in Princeton sent shockwaves through small town 4 years ago
More at link
In tiny Princeton with a population of fewer than 4,000 people, crimes like the killing of Vanessa Marcotte, 27, are very unusual. But when they happen, they turn the quaint New England town into a frightening setting and draw attention from across the country.
More at link
In tiny Princeton with a population of fewer than 4,000 people, crimes like the killing of Vanessa Marcotte, 27, are very unusual. But when they happen, they turn the quaint New England town into a frightening setting and draw attention from across the country.
Michael Gargiulo, the "Hollywood Ripper", was arrested for murder on June 6, 2008 and didn't go to trial till May 2, 2019 almost 11 years later. Is that unusual? Could the trial of Angelo Colon-Ortiz be delayed that long?
Yes, that's unusual, but not unheard of.
It took Charles Ng 8 years to go to trial and another 8 months for the trial itself. He did everything he could to delay the outcome. He kept firing his lawyers, tried to represent himself, swapped venues, and played sick a lot, delaying the process. To date, that's California's most expensive trial ever. It cost the taxpayers 10 million dollars.
Of course we don't know how long it will take for this trial, however, I doubt it will take that long imo.
Covid may slow the process down some.
mlhenn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2019
- Messages
- 15,622
- Reaction score
- 70,792
Arkansas woman killed while running: What women should know to stay safe on outdoor runs
Informative article; mentions Vanessa
Informative article; mentions Vanessa
Some of the cases called this week are five or six years old, with some lawyers saying their clients are eager to have their day in court.
The county’s highest-profile murder cases aren’t likely to be tried next spring, as lawyers agreed Tuesday that the cases of Angelo Colon-Ortiz (accused of killing Vanessa Marcotte) and Carlos Asencio (accused of killing Amanda Dabrowski) are not ready for trial.
Worcester judges, lawyers grapple with logistics as delayed murder trials mulled
The county’s highest-profile murder cases aren’t likely to be tried next spring, as lawyers agreed Tuesday that the cases of Angelo Colon-Ortiz (accused of killing Vanessa Marcotte) and Carlos Asencio (accused of killing Amanda Dabrowski) are not ready for trial.
Worcester judges, lawyers grapple with logistics as delayed murder trials mulled
MassGuy
The Monsters Aren’t The Ones Beneath The Bed
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2018
- Messages
- 25,024
- Reaction score
- 590,467
Yup, par for the course around here. It’s absolutely ridiculous, and Covid hasn’t helped things at all.
ACO is most likely being held in Worcester County House of Correction. If he is found guilty and sentenced to maximum security prison at Souza-Baranowski Correction Center how will his day to day life change from where he is being held now.
Fred.
The WHOC is for those waiting to post bail, and to house those that cant until their trial date. Inmates are sent there for misdemeanors with a sentence for up to two and a half years. The building is older.. I think it was built in the early 70's, but I may be wrong. There are drug rehab programs, and work release programs etc. Those are the guys that you see picking up litter on the side of I 290 and 190.
The Worcester County Sheriffs run the WHOC.
Souza-Baranowski is a Maximum security prison .. the only maximum post conviction prison in the state. It's run by the Mass Department Of corrections, and not the Sheriffs. Cedar Junction (used to be called Walpole) is a maximum security prison too, but there are pre-trial inmates there as well.
Both places you can have visitors 3 times a week (pre covid) You can make phone calls in both places and you can send money to inmates for their commissary/canteen.
The inmates are hard core criminals in Souza-Baranoski, and there are a lot of gang members. If ACO is sent there, he, or anyone else from there will not be picking up litter on the side of the highway. Seeing as the sentences are much longer there, there's more time to select who you want to hang with, and you get to know your neighbors more than in the WHOC. in the WHOC, the doors are always swinging both ways.
I doubt if ACO knows anyone that was there in the WHOC when he first arrived, unless it's someone that's still awaiting trial. It's coming up on 4 years since he's been there.
I'm with you. I think if ACO is convicted, he'll be sent to Souza-Baranowsli and he'll be there for a very long time.
If he get's Life without parole, that will be automatically appealed. If he dies there like Arron Hernandez did, he'll die a convicted man. Before Hernandez, The supreme court ruled that anyone that dies in prison before their appeal, dies an innocent man because the ruling is vacated, ("abatement ab initio") and in Hernandez's case, that meant the Patriots would have had to pay his estate (his girlfriend) the millions of dollars he lost after his arrest due to the Patriots firing him. That ruling was overturned, and that no longer applies in Massachusetts.
Suspect in Vanessa Marcotte slaying due in court for suppression hearing this week
WORCESTER – A suppression hearing for Angelo Colon-Ortiz, the man charged in the killing of Vanessa Marcotte in 2016, will be held Wednesday and Thursday in Worcester Superior Court.
Colon-Ortiz, who pleaded not guilty, is asking that DNA evidence linking him to the crime be thrown out, alleging that the circumstances of his DNA collection by police in March 2017 were unlawful.
Marcotte, 27, was visiting her mother in Princeton when she went missing during a jog Aug. 7, 2016. Her body, partially burnt and unclothed, was found hours later in the woods off Brooks Station Road. Authorities said Colon-Ortiz's DNA matched DNA found under the victim's fingernails. He was arrested in April 2017, initially charged with aggravated assault and battery and assault with intent to rape.
In June 2017, he was indicted on a murder charge and held without bail.
Colon-Ortiz, a Worcester delivery man, says he speaks only Spanish and didn't fully understand the Spanish-speaking officer when police came to his house to collect his DNA. He claims he couldn't read and understand the consent form he signed for a DNA sample and believed he had no choice, but to "let them take a swab."
Colon-Ortiz first filed the request in 2018, but the hearing for it was cancelled when his lawyers were replaced in early 2019.
WORCESTER – A suppression hearing for Angelo Colon-Ortiz, the man charged in the killing of Vanessa Marcotte in 2016, will be held Wednesday and Thursday in Worcester Superior Court.
Colon-Ortiz, who pleaded not guilty, is asking that DNA evidence linking him to the crime be thrown out, alleging that the circumstances of his DNA collection by police in March 2017 were unlawful.
Marcotte, 27, was visiting her mother in Princeton when she went missing during a jog Aug. 7, 2016. Her body, partially burnt and unclothed, was found hours later in the woods off Brooks Station Road. Authorities said Colon-Ortiz's DNA matched DNA found under the victim's fingernails. He was arrested in April 2017, initially charged with aggravated assault and battery and assault with intent to rape.
In June 2017, he was indicted on a murder charge and held without bail.
Colon-Ortiz, a Worcester delivery man, says he speaks only Spanish and didn't fully understand the Spanish-speaking officer when police came to his house to collect his DNA. He claims he couldn't read and understand the consent form he signed for a DNA sample and believed he had no choice, but to "let them take a swab."
Colon-Ortiz first filed the request in 2018, but the hearing for it was cancelled when his lawyers were replaced in early 2019.
DeDee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 7,179
- Reaction score
- 40,963
Greetings, Fred. Where did you watch the troopers' testimony? I'd like to view it. TIA