http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=1582071&BRD=1281
| Verdicts in arson often out of reach | ||
|
|
| The state took three cracks at Bontatibus and came up short each time. Prosecutors atempted at three trials to prove he set fire to his Branford business on Thanksgiving Day 1996 and caused the death of a local volunteer firefighter. Yet in two of the three trials, jurors could not agree on his guilt or innocence, providing no closure for either the accused or the family of 36-year-old firefighter Edward Ramos, the fire victim. Interviews with attorneys and jurors involved in each of the trials point out the difficulties of reaching a unanimous decision in arson cases. “These cases are difficult because much of the evidence has been subjected to severe abuse, that being a fire,” said Deputy Chief State’s Attorney Christopher Morano. “Also, fire tends to destroy all the tracks of the person or persons who started the fire.” Several jurors said the charge was difficult to prove, particularly because they said most of the evidence was circumstantial. “Most felt that he probably did it, but the question was whether the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Stephen Sasson of Madison, foreman of the jury in the third trial. He declined to say which way he was leaning. “He was the last person there, he had the opportunity, and no one else was seen there. If the fire was deliberately set, the feeling was that it was him.” It is not impossible for a jury to convict in arson cases, and some judges impose heavy sentences. In the past two years, two people have been convicted by juries of arson in Superior Court in New Haven. In one of those cases, Judson Brown, 51, of West Haven, was sentenced in 1999 to 25 years in prison for setting a home on fire to collect on insurance. In Bontatibus’ case, State’s Attorney Michael Dearington attempted to prove Bontatibus needed the insurance money to pay debts and back taxes and had the opportunity to set the fire. The defense claimed the fire was accidental — and pointed to a persistent natural gas odor in the building in the weeks before the fire as a possible factor. To reach a verdict, juries must agree unanimously. In Bontatibus’ first trial in 1998, jurors deliberated for seven days before a judge declared a mistrial. Jurors said they had last voted 6-5 for acquittal with one juror on the fence. In Bontatibus’ trial last year, a mistrial was declared because of juror misconduct. However, one juror said the panel had been “hopelessly deadlocked,” voting 7-5 for acquittal after one week of deliberations. In the most recent trial, which ended in a mistrial last Tuesday, jurors said they were split 50-50. They deliberated for just more than six days when the judge declared the mistrial. Greenwich attorney Phillip Russell represented Bontatibus during his first trial and calls his prosecution a “terrible injustice.” When asked why he thought it was hard for juries to reach a verdict, he said, “it was never hard for a majority of them,” referring to the fact that, by number, jurors seemed to lean toward acquittal. “The problem that at least a couple jurors have had in each case is that they have a tremendous amount of respect for Mr. Dearington’s office and for the fire department,” Russell said, “and it’s hard for them to accept that the state forensic lab would issue a misleading report and the office of chief fire marshal would stick to his guns so stubbornly if he was completely wrong.” Public Defender Thomas J. Ullmann, who was the lead defense lawyer in the last two trials, said he does not believe arson cases, in general, are always hard to prove. Often, he said such cases have compelling evidence and defendants plead guilty before going to trial. “To me, the difficulty in the Bontatibus case is that there is a very great leap that you have to take to overcome the minimal circumstantial evidence that points to Gene Bontatibus in this case,” he said. However, he said he is not surprised that this is a difficult case for jurors. Some, he said would not be able to get past the evidence that Bontatibus was at the fire scene one-half hour before the blaze was reported. Others, he said, would never buy into the “totally lacking” evidence about Bontatibus’ financial motive. Dearington was unavailable for comment. He has refused to answer whether he will try Bontatibus a fourth time. Edward Ramos’ brother, Gary Ramos of Washington, Conn., could not be reached. Following last week’s mistrial he said, “The evidence is there. To me it was clear.” Bontatibus still faces one count of arson-murder and three counts of first-degree arson. A conviction on the arson-murder charge alone carries a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. At least one juror speculated that someone else might have been involved, he said. The second jury’s foreman, Arthur Baer of Madison, said he was “utterly convinced” that Bontatibus is “a liar, an arsonist and a murderer.” Baer said he felt the jury would have remained deadlocked. “We could have moved from two people (voting) guilty to a majority, but we wouldn’t have gotten to unanimity,” he said. Baer said the biggest problem was that some jurors refused to consider circumstantial evidence. He said all jurors believed Bontatibus lied on the witness stand. “I don’t think it was so much a question of evidence as the attitude two men brought into the jury room,” Baer said. He also said the division was split not along any social, educational or economic lines, but along lines of age. “The older people had a greater understanding of how somebody could get into such a severe financial problem that he could burn down his business,” Baer said. “The younger people couldn’t believe that. They didn’t have the life experience.” Carmine Bracale of Hamden, also a juror during the second trial, said he was among the seven leaning toward acquittal. “The reason why it is so hard to reach a verdict is that it is not a solid case,” said Bracale. “They don’t have an eyewitness who actually saw him do it — so it’s hard to convince 12 people he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.” Bontatibus’ insurance policy on the business’ contents was for $124,000. He did not own the building. Bracale said he didn’t believe this would even cover the materials inside. “So, why would he burn the building?” he said. “As for the back taxes, even if the business burned down, he’d still owe the taxes.” Second trial juror Mark Fawzy of New Haven called it a complicated case. “I am convinced that it was arson, but I’m not convinced that he was the one who set it,” said Fawzy. “He was at the scene for hours, and he had parked his car for everyone to see on a holiday. If he intended to do something like that, I think he would have tried to hide his presence. Other people had keys to the building.” According to his testimony, Bontatibus had been at the building airing it out because of the natural gas odor inside. At the time of the first trial, it was apparent that emotion overtook the group, with one juror calling it the worst experience of her life. One juror interviewed at that time said many on the panel simply did not want to send Bontatibus to prison. She said most were convinced it was arson but unsure that Bontatibus was the guilty party. Shani Peretz of New York City, a juror in the first trial, expressed surprise at the third mistrial. “I would think that by now, the lawyers could make their cases more compelling, to the point that one side would win,” said Peretz. “There wasn’t great evidence that a fire was set and that it was arson.” Bontatibus didn’t testify at the first trial, though he did in the last two. “Because he didn’t speak, I didn’t get a sense of his background,” said Peretz. “I personally felt he did it, but we didn’t have enough evidence to prove it.” |
| İNew Haven Register 2001 |
