By DENISE LAVOIE
Associated Press
May 09, 2008 12:54 am BOSTON (AP) — A father and son who shot and killed four family enemies at a crowded restaurant asked for a new trial yesterday, arguing the jury at their trial should have been allowed to hear more evidence about violent episodes in the victims' past. In arguments before the Supreme Judicial Court, lawyers for Anthony and Damien Clemente said the jury should have been allowed to consider details from the victims' past that could have supported the defense claim that they were the aggressors in the shootings at the 99 Restaurant & Pub in Boston's Charlestown neighborhood on Nov. 6, 1995. Killed were: Robert Luisi Sr., 55; his son, Roman Luisi, 26; Luisi's nephew, Anthony Sarro, 32; and a family friend, Anthony Pelosi, 53. A fifth man, 28-year-old Richard Sarro, was shot in the stomach, but recovered. Richard and Anthony Sarro were brothers. Anthony Clemente's lawyer, Rosemary Scapicchio, cited a 2005 SJC ruling that prompted a judge to throw out the manslaughter conviction of former Harvard graduate student Alexander Pring-Wilson for killing a man during a fight. In that ruling, the SJC said juries may consider a victim's violent history if it sheds light on a self-defense claim. Scapicchio argued that although the jury was told about violent incidents in the victims' pasts, they were allowed to consider the evidence only as part of their reputation, not whether they were the aggressors in the restaurant shooting. Prosecutors said the shootings were part of a longtime feud between the Clementes and the Luisis over drugs. During the trial, the defense said the Clementes armed themselves out of fear of the Luisis. Anthony Clemente testified his son called him from the restaurant and said he was afraid because the Luisis were there. When the father arrived, the two families exchanged words before the Clementes shot the men. Anthony Clemente testified that he shot the four men because he saw Roman Luisi reach for what he thought was a weapon. Scapicchio argued to the SJC that because the jury was given an instruction that limited how they could consider the violent episodes in the Luisis' past, prosecutors portrayed the Luisis as innocent victims who were "just sitting eating lunch and got blown away by my client." "These people were repeatedly first aggressors," she said. Assistant District Attorney David McGowan argued the jury was given extensive details of the Luisis' past, including information that Roman Luisi had been charged but acquitted of killing two men in California. "The jury was well aware about their reputation for violence in the community and about specific acts," he said. Jake Wark, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley, said prosecutors believe the Clementes received a fair trial. "Evidence that could have supported their self-defense claim was admitted, and the jury rejected that evidence," Wark said. "We find the new claims without merit." The court did not indicate when it would issue its ruling.
—
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.