Dithers:
There are a lot of misconceptions about the "Hockey Dad."
There is no disagreement that the victim, Michael Costa, was the first to start the fight.
So? What relevance does that have? Junta raised the defense of self-defense, which the jury (which heard all of the evidence) rejected. In a civil suit, the fact that the victim initiated or escalated the fry might be relevant. In a criminal case, it's immaterial, once the jury finds that the defendant did not have a reasonable fear of harm and was not justified in defending himself with deadly force.
There is a lot of disagreement about what happened afterward, as between witnesses for the defense and for the prosecution.
There may have been disagreement between the witnesses (there usually is in a trial - eyewitnesses are typically considered among the least reliable sources of proof of what actually happened. The jury was charged with deciding resolving the conflicts in testimony and deciding what happened. They did, and they convicted Junta.
The victim had a long record of violence, such as assaulting a police officer, and a history of psychiatric problems. These were not revealed to the jury.
And that is appropriate. The victim's past actions are irrelevant to whether a particular defendant in a particular case used excessive force and/or acted with disregard for human life.
Still, the jury brought in a verdict of involuntary manslaughter, for which the sentencing guidelines call for 3 to 5 years. In the guidelines, the 5 years applies to persons with long criminal records; i.e., repeat felons. Junta had not been convicted of anything, although he had been charged once with beating his wife 10 years ago, as well as assaulting a cop. The judge doubled the maximum guideline sentence for involuntary manslaughter with the 6 to 10 year sentence.
I am not familiar with the Massachusetts sentencing guidelines. I can only surmise that since the trial Judge imposed a sentence in excess of the guidelines and in excess of the prosecution's recommendation, such a sentence is permitted under Massachusetts law. If not, the sentence is likely to be overturned on appeal.
It appears that the judge nullified the jury's verdict by imposing a sentence more appropriate to a case of voluntary manslaughter, a more serious crime.
The jury's verdict was that Junta was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Imposition of a sentence, however harsh or whatever the term does not constitute nullification of the jury's finding that the defendant was guilty. The sentence the Judge imposed is a matter for the sentencing guidelines under Massachusetts law. If the guidelines allow the judge to exceed the standard sentence range if reasons are given (which is likely), there hardly has been a nullification of the verdict.
The judge said he was influenced by Junta's previous incident of wife-beating, but this raises the issue of why that should be relevant, if the victim's previous criminal history was not. The judge in his sentencing remarks characterized the case as "beating another man to death," even though the jury's verdict by definition was that Junta did not intentionally and knowingly try to kill someone.
Again, I am not familiar with Massachusetts law regarding sentencing in criminal cases, but I can tell you that all manner of issues regarding a defendant's past history are relevant in a sentencing recommendation in federal court. For trial purposes, the defendant's past actions are generally irrelevant to the question of whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. Once the defendant has been found guilty, in the sentencing phase, the defendant's life is an open book, and his or her past actions are definitely relevant issues for the judge to consider in imposing a sentence.
This case is not nearly so clear-cut as a big burly truck driver grabbing an innocent bystander and beating them to death. Most guys get into a few altercations or shoving matches in their lifetime. One unlucky shove that happened to send a person to the floor where they hit their head and died from a blood clot on the brain could land you in court facing a manslaughter charge ... a million to one shot. But it could happen. And you could deserve punishment, but not on the order of ten years in prison.
If someone engages in a fight, and death results, then the person who caused the death is, and should be, held responsible for his or her actions. People are entirely too cavalier in their actions, and they need to realize there are consequences. Obviously, it's more likely that someone will die in a gun fight than in a fist fight, but that does not change the fact that if someone engages in a fist fight and the other person dies, there can be serious legal consequences. "You take your victim as you find him." Let's not forget, Junta left and then came back to the rink and engaged in a fight. If he'd taken his kids to McDonalds for a Big Mac after practice, he wouldn't be a guest of MCI at the moment.
IMO, the judge was unduly influenced by all the publicity surrounding this case.
Every judge is influenced to a greater or lesser degree by what he or she reads. That doesn't mean that in carrying out their duties they are wrong.
This judge sat through the entire trial, heard all the evidence, read the presentence reports and arrived at a decision on the sentence to be imposed. Did you attend the trial? Did you read the reports of the probation officers or pretrial services department? I think not.
I think the trial judge imposed a sentence that he believed was justified under the circumstances in light of the evidence. If he was wrong, he'll be reversed on appeal and Junta will be resentenced.
What do you think Dagwood Bumstead would say about all this? |
