GUILTY MA - Colleen Ritzer, 24, brutally murdered, Danvers, 22 Oct 2013 #2

[trixandhoney]

wow. He was trying to kill her too.

Sure seems like it. It really sounds like conduct disorder likely to develop into antisocial personality disorder, IMO.

 

[atthelake]

Well, he was diagnosed with a psychotic episode as the trial was starting. One day early in the trial he claimed to be so psychotic that he was afraid he'd hurt someone if he was forced to appear in court. When the judge made it clear that he could waive his right to be present during the trial, but that the trial wouldn't stop, he suddenly got a lot less psychotic (hmmm). But in any case, he could be totally mentally ill now and not have been mentally ill at the time of the crime.

I never knew that he claimed to be psychotic that day.

Link please

 

[Skigirl]

I hadn't heard details of his attack on the other woman:

BOSTON (CBS/AP) — A Massachusetts teenager charged with killing his teacher last year after following her into a bathroom similarly followed a worker at a youth detention facility into a locker room last month before choking and beating her, prosecutors said Wednesday.

Philip Chism, 15, made sure he wasn’t being watched, took off his footwear to muffle his footsteps, then crouched down as he made his way along a corridor before following the 29-year-old woman into the locker room at Metro Youth Services facility in Boston on June 2, prosecutor Mark Zanini told a judge in Boston Juvenile Court.

Chism, with a pencil in his hand, pushed the woman against the wall in the bathroom, choked her, and then hit her in the head with his fists, he said.
“The victim was trying to scream but it was ineffective because her airway was closed by virtue of the defendant’s strangling her,” Zanini said.

After getting Chism’s hand off her neck, she screamed and other facility workers pulled Chism away from her, Zanini said.

She suffered injuries to her face, jaw, neck and back, and got a hole in the back of her shirt that was the same size as a pencil, which was found on the floor, Zanini said.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/07/...rs-teacher-murder-in-court-on-assault-charge/

Chillingly similar, especially now that I've seen video of him stepping into a hallway, checking both ways, and stalking CR and then creeping around barefoot. Sick. We need AnaTeresa back to tell us the likelihood of the CR evidence coming in at the next trial. I fear that it will be found inadmissible/too prejudicial, but I think it speaks to a dangerous pattern and should, in a perfect world, keep him in for longer. MOO.

 

[Skigirl]

I never knew that he claimed to be psychotic that day.

Link please

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...urder-trial/mEPa6IwKVDem5IStn0UphP/story.html

 

[TupeloMz]

IMO. PC is an evil, murdering, sexual predator. There ain't no cure for that.

 

[pappa rob]

IMO. PC is an evil, murdering, sexual predator. There ain't no cure for that.

Oh yes there is, but since he's a minor it's been taken off the table so to speak!

 

[Steleheart]

It still amazes me, after following so many cases, that too many good people do not believe that anyone can be so evil minded.
He is.
He is as evil as Satan himself. So what that he may be disturbed. That doesn't make him insane.
If he didn't know right from wrong he would have killed her and not tried to hide, change clothes and etc.

Too often I cringe when people say "he is so 'sick'.

No, he's evil and needs to be accountable.

MOO

 

[pappa rob]

It still amazes me, after following so many cases, that too many good people do not believe that anyone can be so evil minded.
He is.
He is as evil as Satan himself. So what that he may be disturbed. That doesn't make him insane.
If he didn't know right from wrong he would have killed her and not tried to hide, change clothes and etc.

Too often I cringe when people say "he is so 'sick'.

No, he's evil and needs to be accountable.

MOO

I think he's sick, and evil. he still needs to be accountable for what he did. Some countries have insane and guilty, I don't really care if someone's insane, if they did the crime they still need to be accountable. Put them in the hospital until they're well enough for prison, or wait until they're no longer dangerous and the times up.

 

[trixandhoney]

PC might prefer prison to Bridgewater State Hospital:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgewater_State_Hospital

There are Boston Globe articles on the facility as well, but I've gone through my 5 free ones. :/

 

[TupeloMz]

I personally would never feel safe with PC as a neighbor no matter how much time has passed, even if someone says he is "cured", and even if he does his time and is paroled. Never. MOO

 

[future criminologist]

I found it a little convenient that his mother collapsed the second the camera was put on her.

Also, how is a 14 year old so calm and emotionless hearing the verdict??

 

[katydid23]

How is he so calm? Through the world of chemistry most likely.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I was off the internet from about 4pm yesterday and everything happened after I left! I am so, so glad to come back to the verdict this morning. I had thought it would take longer, so it was a real surprise to see a verdict so quickly. You really are psychic, Skigirl!

I will try to answer the questions you all posted as best I can. I've missed about a hundred posts on the thread. I am truly thrilled by the verdict!

 

[AnaTeresa]

AnaTeresa, they have 3 murder charges they can decide. 1st degree deliberate premeditated, 1st degree extreme atrocity and cruelty, or second degree murder.

What happens if they find PC guilty of deliberate premeditated murder and not guilty of extreme atrocity and cruelty murder?

This is moot now, but I wanted to answer it for you in case it comes up in another trial. Usually, in cases like this, these are charges in the alternative - the jury needs to just find one. So they can find he acted with premeditation OR with no premeditation but with extreme atrocity and cruelty OR neither of those two factors apply, but they find him guilty of second degree murder.

Basically, the State is hedging their bets and putting multiple choices on the table for the jurors.

 

[AnaTeresa]

The guilty verdicts mean that Colleen's rape and murder can be brought up in his upcoming attempted murder trial. Correct?

The true lawyer answer: it depends.

I've put a link below that discusses the issue in more detail, but there are rules relating to prior convictions for defendants at trial. A conviction for a prior crime cannot be admitted to impeach a witness unless it is a crime involving dishonesty. So, for impeachment purposes, 1) Chism would have to testify, 2) Chism would have to lie on the stand, and 3) Chism would have to have had a conviction for a crime involving dishonesty (e.g., fraud) for a prior conviction to be admitted. A crime of violence is very unlikely to be considered a crime involving dishonesty. Courts are reluctant to admit evidence of prior convictions because they can be so prejudicial.

A jury has to determine if someone is guilty based on the facts in evidence for those charges, not what happened before. However, while the prior convictions won't be detailed to the jury, they will be a significant factor at sentencing.


http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...dmissible-against-defendants-who-testify.html

Chillingly similar, especially now that I've seen video of him stepping into a hallway, checking both ways, and stalking CR and then creeping around barefoot. Sick. We need AnaTeresa back to tell us the likelihood of the CR evidence coming in at the next trial. I fear that it will be found inadmissible/too prejudicial, but I think it speaks to a dangerous pattern and should, in a perfect world, keep him in for longer. MOO.

Like you said, it does show pattern and should keep him in longer - but the length of the sentence is up to the judge. The jury decides whether or not he is guilty, and then the judge sentences. While the jury may not know about the priors, all judges want to know a criminal history for the defendant in front of them to help them determine what type of sentence to hand down. The fact that Chism has done the same thing before is very significant, and if this second case goes to trial, the sentence will be heavy.

In all likelihood, I would expect the defense in the second case to take a plea, rather than go through a trial, but one never knows how these things will develop.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/publications/evidenceiii/comment/priors.htm

 

[AnaTeresa]

When someone has time, can someone explain why juries are polled? The verdict has to be unanimous anyway, right? So what is the point of asking every juror?

The way it was described to me, by my attorney father, was that once a juror says it on the record, they cannot alter it later on and say they did not really want to vote Guilty. They are polled and if they say GUILTY then it is considered that they agree with the decision.

Yes, that's exactly right. Here's a good link which discusses jury polling and how it's done.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/polling-a-jury-to-confirm-a-verdict.html

 

[AnaTeresa]

Anyone know what happens at a pre-sentencing hearing in this situation? Is the interval between now and his parole eligibility at issue? (I thought it was 15 years). Are other things at issue, like the conditions of his parole?

If Massachusetts is like Ohio, once a defendant is found guilty, sentencing is usually set out a few weeks for a few procedural issues. First, the court will conduct a pre-sentencing investigation (in my state, it's an interview by a probation officer) where a full background check is conducted, family and social history is collected, and an assessment of the likelihood the defendant will reoffend is completed. This report is usually 10-20 pages long, and a copy is provided to the prosecutor and defense attorney, along with the judge. Then, both the defense and prosecution write a sentencing memorandum for the judge, which argues their position on sentencing. Most often, the prosecution is asking for a stiff sentence, while the defense attempts to mitigate as best they can.

Once the judge had reviewed these materials, there is a hearing where both sides get to make a short, oral argument and the defendant can choose to speak. Often, you will also see a victim or their families making a statement at this time. Rarely, you may also have someone from the defendant's family make an oral statement. After all of that, the judge hands down his or her sentence in open court.

The parole eligibility issue is a bit tricky, as it is a newer issue in Massachusetts. I believe the judge sets when Chism is eligible for parole, and it sounds like both sides are crafting a legal argument based on precedent what that parole eligibility should be. There may be a hearing prior to the sentencing hearing for both sides to argue about the procedural side of things - that may be what they mean when they say pre-sentencing hearing.

He can get parole from 15 to 25 years. I think the defense wants to argue that he should be eligible for parole in 15 years and the prosecution will want 25 years. Since he was found guilty of multiple charges I don't know if that increases the time until he can be paroled or if the juvenile sentencing guidelines in MA will keep his maximum sentence between 15 to 25 years.

Then there is his second attempted murder trial to consider. If he is found guilty on that charge and he is already sentenced to life with parole in 25 years, can the parole time be increased? Maybe AnaTeresa can answer.

A defendant is not eligible for parole if he is still serving a sentence on another case. So, if he is found guilty and sentenced on the second case, the first issue is whether or not the sentences will be run concurrently or consecutively. If they are run consecutively, once Chism is done serving the sentence in Colleen's case, he must serve the second sentence before he's eligible for parole. If he serves the sentences concurrently, and the second sentence has been fully served, when he is eligible for parole the second sentence cannot lengthen it.

The one issue I see with the consecutive sentences is the fact that Chism is a juvenile and the new parole eligibility legislation. We may see a procedural argument at the second trial against consecutive sentences because it violates the "spirit" of the legislation. I'm not sure how that will turn out.

As a caveat about parole - just because Chism will be eligible in however many years, it does not mean the parole board must grant it or that he will be released.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I agree with you that it is a very civilized and fair process and I wouldn't want our system to operate any other way. I only wish that all defendants got a capable defense and I am not convinced that we provide enough resources to public defenders to ensure that -- in this case I do believe his defense was adequate even though Regan didn't wow me.

As to mental health care, I think that it really depends on whether he is diagnosed with anything treatable. I think if he has symptoms of psychosis he will receive some treatment, especially anti-psychotic meds. I have my doubts what is truly wrong with him is treatable enough to ever make him safe for release, even if he is released by a parole board.

My limited understanding is that in most states, juvenile offenders are usually housed with juveniles until they turn 18 and then are transferred. If i recall, Michael Skakel (in his 40s at the time) wanted to be tried as a juvenile and was denied, in part, because there was no juvenile facility in CT that could hold him, even though he was a juvenile at the time of the original crime: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94243&page=1

I'd be interested in hearing what AnaTeresa has to say about mental health care in prison and in what type of facility Chism might find himself.

Ok, last one. Whew!

This is something I only know a little about. I worked on a case involving a juvenile defendant for a serious crime that had a documented mental health condition which truly needed attention. In the year leading up to the plea deal we took just before trial, the juvenile was held in a juvenile jail facility. The juvenile was given some medications to treat their mental health condition, but there was no ongoing therapy, counseling, or any real programs at the juvenile facility to help. It was my understanding that the juvenile prisons were much the same because of budget cuts.

No inpatient programs in our state had beds to begin with, and none were able to commit to the long-term care that this juvenile needed. Ultimately, after reaching a deal with the state, the juvenile was placed in an out of state program that their parents paid for out of pocket. This juvenile was lucky that their parents were still invested in their care after the crime against them, and were wealthy enough to afford incredibly expensive inpatient therapy for a number of years.

This juvenile had committed a serious violent felony, but was nowhere near the level of Chism. The juvenile also had better documented, treatable mental health issues. Despite all that, it was a real struggle to find a mental health facility to care for them. That was truly the only option, as the juvenile prisons really had nothing that could help. While there are mental health facilities that a juvenile could be confined to, it's usually for stabilization when they are threatening harm to themselves or to others. The facility gets the juvenile stabilized, and back to juvie they go.

It's a huge problem here. Rehabilitation programs have been slashed, prisons have been privatized, and people are housed rather than treated.

ETA: Sorry for the grammar butchering upthread - was trying to talk in generalities about that case so I didn't give away any identifying details.

 

[Elainera]

Interesting that the author refers to his "severe mental health issues" even though the jury did not find him insane.

In my understanding he can be severely mentally ill but still not legally insane because he still knew right from wrong. Is this correct?

It still amazes me, after following so many cases, that too many good people do not believe that anyone can be so evil minded.
He is.
He is as evil as Satan himself. So what that he may be disturbed. That doesn't make him insane.
If he didn't know right from wrong he would have killed her and not tried to hide, change clothes and etc.

Too often I cringe when people say "he is so 'sick'.

No, he's evil and needs to be accountable.

MOO

This is why I don't like the word 'evil'. Satan is a mythical figure, he doesn't exist. I find it unhelpful to compare a person to Satan, it gives the whole thing an air of something mysterious and overly dramatic. He's mentally ill, sick, broken, isn't that enough?

I write this respectfully, of course you're entitled to your opinion, Steleheart.

 

[Elainera]

AnaTeresa, thank you for clarifying so many questions for us! It is truly appreciated.

You said above that usually prior convictions are not allowed to be admitted in another trial, which means, if I understand this correctly, the jury should not hear about it. But how do you make sure that they didn't? Do they just take people's word for it that they never heard of PC and CR before? This case was all over the news, was it not?