Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
Demagall murder conviction reversed
Appeals court orders new trial
By Andrew Amelinckx
ALBANY — William Demagall, the Massachusetts man convicted of second-degree murder in December 2006, will have another day in Columbia County Court in Hudson.
The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court has reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial with a new judge.
“Obviously we were delighted to see my client’s conviction reversed,” said attorney Richard Mott, who is representing Demagall.
The attorney said he tried to reach his client, who is currently serving a 25 years to life sentence at the Great Meadow Correctional facility in Comstock, but was unable to contact him as of Thursday evening. He said he hoped to speak with him Friday morning.
Demagall was charged with second-degree murder in February 2006 after killing 56-year-old George Mancini in the man’s Hillsdale home. The victim was stabbed 30 times and allegedly struck repeatedly by Demagall with a paperweight in a sock.
Demagall had a three-year history of “severe psychiatric problems” according to the Appellate decision and had escaped from a Berkshire County, Mass. secure mental facility at the time the crime occurred.
Demagall also tried to set Mancini’s body on fire and stole various items from the house.
The case was tried over the course of eight days in December 2006 before Judge Paul Czajka.
Dr. Stephen Price, a psychiatrist who was a defense witness at the trial, stated that Demagall believed he had been told by God to kill Mancini, whom he had met briefly a few weeks before the killing. Demagall also believed Mancini was giving drugs to minors.
Price and another psychiatrist, Dr. Thomas Qualtere, stated that in their professional opinions, Demagall’s behavior was consistent with “acute mental infirmities,” such as paranoid schizophrenia.
Additionally, they both concluded the defendant was delusional. He allegedly believed he was Merlin. He also claimed to be, at various times, Robin Hood, Sir Galahad of the Arthurian legends, a ninja, and the slayer of the white stag. He told Price that since he ate the heart of the white stag he had become invisible.
Because of this, the two defense witnesses said, the defendant lacked the capacity to know or appreciate that his conduct was wrong.
After being indicted — but before the case went to trial — the Columbia County District Attorney’s Office, which was prosecuting the case, consented to Mott’s entry of a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect for his client. The decision was based on a forensic psychiatric report by Dr. Stuart Kleinman that was prepared at their request.
The County Court rejected the plea. This decision, although not directly responsible for the reversal, seems to be at the heart of the Appellate Court’s decision, written by Justice John A. Lahtinen, along with Justices Thomas Mercure, Robert S. Rose, Bernard J. Malone Jr. and E. Michael Kavanagh.
Kleinman’s report indicated that Demagall, in the doctor’s opinion, understood he was breaking the law, but couldn’t comprehend that his actions were wrong.
Czajka disagreed.
“County Court rejected this opinion based upon its interpretation of the law as providing that, if defendant knew his conduct was illegal, then he necessarily knew it was wrong,” stated the Appellate decision.
The higher court stated that the law, which they called “nuanced,” does not “compel the conclusion that knowledge of wrong necessarily follows knowledge of illegality.”
The Appellate Court went on to state that Czajka wasn’t necessarily wrong in refusing to accept the plea, since he is allowed to use “sound judicial discretion” in his decisions.
“It is apparent from its written decision that the court was unpersuaded by some of the evidence accepted by Kleinman in his analysis, and the court also supported its rejection of the plea by its own observation of defendant’s demeanor,” the decision reads.
It goes on to state that the defendant wasn’t unduly prejudiced since he was allowed to present his insanity defense to the jury.
The jury, for their part, rejected the defense and convicted Demagall.
But, stated the Appellate Court, the “misapprehension of the law” made by the County Court contributed to “a prejudicial error at trial.”
When the case went to trial the prosecution decided not to use Kleinman, but instead produced psychiatrist Dr. Alan Tuckman, who opined to “a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that Demagall knew killing Mancini was both illegal and wrong. Tuckman stated that Demagall showed this by acts he believed proved he had tried to cover up the crime, including setting the body on fire and initially lying to police about his name when first approached.
Mott alleged that County Court erred when it refused to give a missing witness charge and when he wasn’t allowed to point out in his summation that Tuckman wasn’t the first psychiatrist used by the prosecution to evaluate his client.
“I asked for a missing witness charge twice,” said Mott.
Mott also pointed out that when the jury sent a note during deliberations asking why they hadn’t heard from Kleinman, the court instructed them not to speculate “as to why you did not hear from [Kleinman].”
A missing witness charge requires that “the uncalled witness is knowledgeable about a material issue upon which evidence is already in the case; that the witness would naturally be expected to provide noncumulative testimony favorable to the party who has not called him [or her], and that the witness is available to such party.”
The Appellate decision states that the prosecution’s failure to call Kleinman met the preconditions for a missing witness charge.
“He had been retained by the People to provide a forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendant. After examining defendant and pertinent medical records, he prepared a detailed report. His opinions as reflected in his report were not merely cumulative of the other experts. In the context of this analysis, the People offered no explanation for not producing Kleinman,” reads the decision.
The Justices stated that had Mott been given the opportunity to comment on Kleinman’s absence during his summations, the court’s refusal to give a missing witness charge would not have “resulted in a prejudicial error.”
The decision concludes that Demagall’s sanity was the “key issue” in the case and “resolution of that issue turned upon the opinions of the psychiatrists who had examined him.”
“Review of the record reveals that this was a close and difficult issue in this case,” stated the Justices. “Under the circumstances, we are constrained to conclude that the cumulative effect of the errors as discussed herein require a new trial. While the remaining issues are academic, we find merit in defendant’s request for a remittal to a different judge under the circumstances of this case.”
Mott did not know when the retrial would begin, but expected that he would be getting a phone call on the matter soon.
He said he hoped to see his client in a state facility where he could receive proper care for his “debilitating” mental illness.
By Andrew Amelinckx
ALBANY — William Demagall, the Massachusetts man convicted of second-degree murder in December 2006, will have another day in Columbia County Court in Hudson.
The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court has reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial with a new judge.
“Obviously we were delighted to see my client’s conviction reversed,” said attorney Richard Mott, who is representing Demagall.
The attorney said he tried to reach his client, who is currently serving a 25 years to life sentence at the Great Meadow Correctional facility in Comstock, but was unable to contact him as of Thursday evening. He said he hoped to speak with him Friday morning.
Demagall was charged with second-degree murder in February 2006 after killing 56-year-old George Mancini in the man’s Hillsdale home. The victim was stabbed 30 times and allegedly struck repeatedly by Demagall with a paperweight in a sock.
Demagall had a three-year history of “severe psychiatric problems” according to the Appellate decision and had escaped from a Berkshire County, Mass. secure mental facility at the time the crime occurred.
Demagall also tried to set Mancini’s body on fire and stole various items from the house.
The case was tried over the course of eight days in December 2006 before Judge Paul Czajka.
Dr. Stephen Price, a psychiatrist who was a defense witness at the trial, stated that Demagall believed he had been told by God to kill Mancini, whom he had met briefly a few weeks before the killing. Demagall also believed Mancini was giving drugs to minors.
Price and another psychiatrist, Dr. Thomas Qualtere, stated that in their professional opinions, Demagall’s behavior was consistent with “acute mental infirmities,” such as paranoid schizophrenia.
Additionally, they both concluded the defendant was delusional. He allegedly believed he was Merlin. He also claimed to be, at various times, Robin Hood, Sir Galahad of the Arthurian legends, a ninja, and the slayer of the white stag. He told Price that since he ate the heart of the white stag he had become invisible.
Because of this, the two defense witnesses said, the defendant lacked the capacity to know or appreciate that his conduct was wrong.
After being indicted — but before the case went to trial — the Columbia County District Attorney’s Office, which was prosecuting the case, consented to Mott’s entry of a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect for his client. The decision was based on a forensic psychiatric report by Dr. Stuart Kleinman that was prepared at their request.
The County Court rejected the plea. This decision, although not directly responsible for the reversal, seems to be at the heart of the Appellate Court’s decision, written by Justice John A. Lahtinen, along with Justices Thomas Mercure, Robert S. Rose, Bernard J. Malone Jr. and E. Michael Kavanagh.
Kleinman’s report indicated that Demagall, in the doctor’s opinion, understood he was breaking the law, but couldn’t comprehend that his actions were wrong.
Czajka disagreed.
“County Court rejected this opinion based upon its interpretation of the law as providing that, if defendant knew his conduct was illegal, then he necessarily knew it was wrong,” stated the Appellate decision.
The higher court stated that the law, which they called “nuanced,” does not “compel the conclusion that knowledge of wrong necessarily follows knowledge of illegality.”
The Appellate Court went on to state that Czajka wasn’t necessarily wrong in refusing to accept the plea, since he is allowed to use “sound judicial discretion” in his decisions.
“It is apparent from its written decision that the court was unpersuaded by some of the evidence accepted by Kleinman in his analysis, and the court also supported its rejection of the plea by its own observation of defendant’s demeanor,” the decision reads.
It goes on to state that the defendant wasn’t unduly prejudiced since he was allowed to present his insanity defense to the jury.
The jury, for their part, rejected the defense and convicted Demagall.
But, stated the Appellate Court, the “misapprehension of the law” made by the County Court contributed to “a prejudicial error at trial.”
When the case went to trial the prosecution decided not to use Kleinman, but instead produced psychiatrist Dr. Alan Tuckman, who opined to “a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that Demagall knew killing Mancini was both illegal and wrong. Tuckman stated that Demagall showed this by acts he believed proved he had tried to cover up the crime, including setting the body on fire and initially lying to police about his name when first approached.
Mott alleged that County Court erred when it refused to give a missing witness charge and when he wasn’t allowed to point out in his summation that Tuckman wasn’t the first psychiatrist used by the prosecution to evaluate his client.
“I asked for a missing witness charge twice,” said Mott.
Mott also pointed out that when the jury sent a note during deliberations asking why they hadn’t heard from Kleinman, the court instructed them not to speculate “as to why you did not hear from [Kleinman].”
A missing witness charge requires that “the uncalled witness is knowledgeable about a material issue upon which evidence is already in the case; that the witness would naturally be expected to provide noncumulative testimony favorable to the party who has not called him [or her], and that the witness is available to such party.”
The Appellate decision states that the prosecution’s failure to call Kleinman met the preconditions for a missing witness charge.
“He had been retained by the People to provide a forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendant. After examining defendant and pertinent medical records, he prepared a detailed report. His opinions as reflected in his report were not merely cumulative of the other experts. In the context of this analysis, the People offered no explanation for not producing Kleinman,” reads the decision.
The Justices stated that had Mott been given the opportunity to comment on Kleinman’s absence during his summations, the court’s refusal to give a missing witness charge would not have “resulted in a prejudicial error.”
The decision concludes that Demagall’s sanity was the “key issue” in the case and “resolution of that issue turned upon the opinions of the psychiatrists who had examined him.”
“Review of the record reveals that this was a close and difficult issue in this case,” stated the Justices. “Under the circumstances, we are constrained to conclude that the cumulative effect of the errors as discussed herein require a new trial. While the remaining issues are academic, we find merit in defendant’s request for a remittal to a different judge under the circumstances of this case.”
Mott did not know when the retrial would begin, but expected that he would be getting a phone call on the matter soon.
He said he hoped to see his client in a state facility where he could receive proper care for his “debilitating” mental illness.
Share this Article
 |
 |
|
| Hudson Fabrics looking to sell facility | Latest tally shows Murphy leading Tedisco by six votes |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of registerstar.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
