Murder of A Postgraduate at Harvard

哈佛大學(xué)研究生謀殺案Jury convicts Harvard grad student of manslaughter in teen's stabbing CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A Harvard grad student was spared the possibility of life in prison without parole as a jury cleared him of first-degree murder but convicted him of voluntary manslaughter in the stabbing death of an 18-year-old father. Alexander Pring-Wilson, 26, appeared stricken but calm as he was sentenced to six to eight years in prison for the fatal street brawl. He could have received as many 20 years or as little as probation. Family and friends of the victim, Michael Colono, were visibly upset by the verdict and asked the judge for a stiffer sentence Thursday afternoon. "Pring-Wilson may be a smart man, but I think he made a big mistake taking a life for egotistical reasons," Colono's older sister, Damaris, told the judge. The victim's girlfriend, Cindy Guzman, said that whenever she looked at the couple's 4-year-old daughter, Leah Jade, she was reminded of the man who was "the love of my life." Prosecutors claimed Pring-Wilson stabbed Michael Colono five times, once in the heart, during a late-night street fight on April 12, 2003, because he was angry at the teen for making fun of him as he stumbled drunkenly past in flip-flops and a raincoat. But Pring-Wilson claimed he acted in self-defense after being attacked by Colono and Samuel Rodriguez, Colono's cousin. Pring-Wilson maintained he mistakenly approached their car because he thought they were hailing him for directions. He said he reached for the 4-inch Spyderco blade in his pocket after being repeatedly punched and kicked in the head by the Colono and Rodriguez. Pring-Wilson, an honor student conversant in several languages, had no prior criminal record and was planning to attend law school before he was arrested. Colono had recently achieved his GED and was a cook at a restaurant on the Charles River at the time of his death. Damaris Colono highlighted the race, educational and age differences between the two men during an irate plea to the judge. "The power that a white, smart man with money has is quite disturbing. I understand money is power, but money should not define justice," Colono said. But Pring-Wilson's lawyer, Ann Kaufman, blasted the notion that the case was a clash of cultures. "This isn't about race or class or privilege or wealth or whatever," she said. Kaufman sniffled and wiped her eyes, once comparing her client to Gandhi, while asking the judge to spare Pring-Wilson a prison sentence. The defendant's mother, Cynthia Pring, begged the judge for leniency, saying, "I am very frightened that a prison sentence would be a death sentence for him. The panel of seven men and five women deliberated 21 hours over five days before unanimously reaching their verdict at about 10:00 a.m. He said, they said During three weeks of intense testimony, jurors heard vastly different interpretations of what happened between the two men during their 70-second encounter on that rainy spring evening. Rodriguez painted the defendant as a knife-wielding aggressor who viciously murdered Colono because the teen called him "s——faced." He testified that he was unable to come to his cousin's aid until the last minute because of his car's faulty passenger-door handle. But Pring-Wilson's defense team attempted to mar Rodriguez's credibility by pointing out his three prior convictions for assault and battery, as well as Colono's prior conviction on a drug charge. The burly bouncer, who held his dying cousin in his arms minutes after they fled the scene, initially lied to police about his involvement in the fight. Possibly the most damaging blow to Rodriguez's credibility was the testimony of a former neighbor, Shawn Bates, who called police just hours before the stabbing incident after seeing Rodriguez beating up his own girlfriend in front of their apartment building. Rodriguez denied the accusations, and no charges were ever filed. Assistant State Attorney Adrienne Lynch lobbied a tough cross-examination of the defendant, who took the stand for two and a half hours in his defense. She questioned him about his initial inconsistent statements to police, in which he claimed he was simply an innocent bystander who witnessed a stabbing. She also mocked his melodramatic reenactment of being attacked — "You enjoyed acting in college, didn't you " — while pointing out his lack of visible physical injuries, other than a welt on his forehead, although he claimed to have been brutalized. District Attorney Martha Coakley said she was pleased with the jury's decision, but believed a higher sentence was justified. She also spoke briefly for the victim's family. "They were disappointed with the verdict. I'm certain they were disappointed with the sentence," Coakley said. Coakley said her decision to push for first-degree murder stemmed more from the facts of the case and the defendant's behavior after the stabbing than from race or class issues. "Based upon the medical evidence, the wound Colono suffered was a fatal wound. The defendant had to know he was inflicting fatal wounds," she said. Jurors declined comment to the media about the verdict. Pring-Wilson appeared somber and somewhat resolute as he was taken into custody. He will immediately begin serving his sentence at Massachusetts Criminal Institute - Cedar Junction, a maximum security prison. He will be eligible for parole in six years. Jury continues weighing fate of Harvard student who stabbed teen CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A question from jurors and a motion for dismissal from the defense marked the second day of deliberations deliberation(商議)in the trial of a Harvard graduate student who killed an unarmed teenager. The panel(全體陪審員)of seven men and five women deliberated about six hours Thursday before going home for the long weekend. They will start again Tuesday morning at 9 a.m. Prosecutors say that Alexander Pring-Wilson, 26, stabbed Michael Colono, 18, five times, once in the heart, during a late-night street fight on April 12, 2003, because he was angry at the teen for making fun of him as he stumbled drunkenly past in flip-flops and a raincoat. The defendant claims he acted in self-defense(正當(dāng)防衛(wèi))after being attacked by Colono and Samuel Rodriguez, Colono's cousin, who had a history of convictions for assault and battery(毆打). At about 9:10 a.m., Justice Regina Quinlan received a note from jurors asking for a copy of the jury instructions. Their request was denied. Quinlan spent about an hour and a half on Thursday reading instructions to jurors. They are charged with reaching a unanimous verdict on one of four choices: acquittal, first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter(一般殺人罪). Upon reviewing the question, defense attorney Rick Levinson motioned for a mistrial, citing the complex and confusing nature of the instructions. The judge denied the motion. Jurors have 150 exhibits at their disposal, and were allowed to take notes during the nearly three-week-long trial, although the judge asked them to withhold from notetaking during opening statements and closing arguments. They may ask specific questions about the law, but have not done so yet. Pring-Wilson faces life in prison without parole if convicted of the top charge. A manslaughter verdict carries a sentence range of parole to 20 years in prison. By noon, jurors were still working, and court insiders say if they don't reach a verdict by day's end on Friday, they would likely not return until Tuesday after the long holiday weekend. Court TV is broadcasting the trial live.

陪審團定罪的哈佛大學(xué)畢業(yè)生的學(xué)生，故意殺人罪，在青少年的刺傷馬薩諸塞州的劍橋-哈佛大學(xué)畢業(yè)生的學(xué)生是不遺余力的可能性終身監(jiān)禁，不得假釋作為一個陪審團清理他的第一一級謀殺罪被定罪，但他自愿誤殺，在被刺死亡，今年1 8歲的父親。 亞歷山大pring -威爾遜， 26 ，出現(xiàn)了災(zāi)區(qū)，但平靜，因為他被判處六年到八年在監(jiān)獄中的致命街爭吵。他本來可以收到許多二十年或小感化。 家人和朋友的受害人，邁克爾colono ，明顯感到不快的判決，并要求法官為嚴(yán)厲的判刑星期四下午。 “ pring -威爾遜可能是一個聰明的男子，但我覺得他作出了一個很大的錯誤采取了生活egotistical原因， ” colono的姐姐， damaris ，告訴法官。 受害人的女朋友，辛迪古茲曼說，每當(dāng)她期待在該對夫婦的4歲女兒， leah玉器，她提醒該名男子的誰是“我一生的摯愛” 。 檢察官聲稱， pring -威爾遜刺傷邁克爾colono的5倍，一旦在心臟，在深夜街頭的斗爭就2003年4月12日，因為他是在憤怒的青少年作的樂趣他，因為他偶然drunkenly過去在觸發(fā)器和雨衣。 但pring -威爾遜聲稱，他在采取行動自衛(wèi)后，被攻擊的colono和Samuel羅德里格斯， colono的堂弟。 pring -威爾遜保持他誤接觸他們的車，因為他認(rèn)為他們歡呼他的方向。他說，他所達成的為4英寸spyderco刀片在他的口袋后，多次拳打腳踢，在頭部由colono和羅德里格斯。 pring -威爾遜，一種榮譽，學(xué)生熟識，在幾種語言，沒有事先的刑事紀(jì)錄，并計劃參加法學(xué)院之前，他被警方拘捕。 colono最近達到了普通同等學(xué)歷證書，是一位廚師，在一間酒樓的查爾斯河的時候，他的死因。 damaris colono強調(diào)種族，教育和年齡的差異，該兩名男子在一憤怒的懇求法官。 “的權(quán)力，白色，聰明的男子用金錢已是相當(dāng)令人不安。據(jù)我所知，錢是權(quán)力，但金錢不應(yīng)該界定正義， ” colono說。 但pring -威爾遜的律師，人工神經(jīng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的考夫曼，炮轟的概念，認(rèn)為該案是一個文化沖突。 “這不是種族或階層或特權(quán)或財富或什么， ”她說?？挤蚵黶niffled和消滅她的眼睛，一旦比較，她的客戶，以圣雄甘地，而要求法官不遺余力pring -威爾遜在監(jiān)獄服刑。 被告的母親，辛西婭pring ，懇求法官寬大處理，他說： “我很害怕，一個在監(jiān)獄服刑，將罪犯被判處死刑緩期他。 小組的7名男子和五名女子商議工作21小時以上的五天之前，他們一致達成的判決約上午10時00分他說，他們說， 在三周的激烈的證詞，陪審團聽取了截然不同的解釋，到底發(fā)生了什么之間的兩名男子在其70秒就認(rèn)為，遇到雨季的春天傍晚。 羅德里格斯畫被告作為一個持刀侵略者，誰惡毒的謀殺colono ，因為少年叫他的“ S -面對” 。他作證說，他是無法來其表弟的援助，直到最后一分鐘因為他的車的故障乘客門處理。 但pring -威爾遜的辯護團試圖3月，羅德里格斯的信譽，指出他的三個前被定罪的毆打，以及colono的事先定罪，藥物費用。該burly bouncer ，誰舉行了死亡的表姐在他的手臂分鐘后，他們逃離現(xiàn)場，最初向警方說謊，約他參與了這場斗爭。 可能是最具破壞性的打擊，羅德里格斯的信譽是證詞前的鄰居，肖恩貝茨，誰打電話報警前幾個小時被刺事件后，看到羅德里格斯打自己的女朋友在他們前面的公寓大樓。羅德里格斯否認(rèn)了這些指控，并沒有收費以往任何時候都存檔。 州檢察長助理adrienne林奇游說強硬的反詰問的被告，誰上臺的立場，為兩個半小時，在他的防御。她質(zhì)疑，他對他的初步不一致的陳述，警方在其中他聲稱，他只是一個無辜的旁觀者目睹了誰刺傷。 她還嘲笑他屢有發(fā)生重演被攻擊-“您所享有的代理在高校，沒有你” ？ -同時指出，他缺乏有形身體傷害，以外的其他世界報對他的前額，雖然他聲稱已摧殘。 地方檢察官瑪莎coakley說，她很高興與陪審團的決定，但他相信更高的一句是有道理的。她還作了簡短的發(fā)言為受害者的家人。 “他們失望的判決，我很肯定他們感到失望與句， ” coakley說。 coakley說，她的決定，推動第一年學(xué)士學(xué)位課程謀殺源于更從案件事實及被告的行為后刺傷比從種族或階層的問題。 “基于醫(yī)學(xué)證據(jù)的情況下，傷口colono遭受的是致命傷。被告知道他造成了致命的傷口， ”她說。 陪審員拒絕發(fā)表任何評論向媒體有關(guān)判決。 pring -威爾遜似乎有點somber和堅決，因為他被拘留。他將立即開始在服滿徒刑，在馬薩諸塞州刑事技術(shù)學(xué)院-雪松交界處，一個高度設(shè)防監(jiān)獄。他將有資格獲得假釋，在六年。 陪審團繼續(xù)稱重的命運，哈佛學(xué)生誰刺傷少女馬薩諸塞州的劍橋-一個問題，由陪審員和一項議案，解雇從國防顯著的第二天，商議商議（商議）在審判一名畢業(yè)于哈佛大學(xué)的學(xué)生誰打死了一名手無寸鐵的少年。 小組（全體陪審員） 7名男子和五名女子商議約六小時前，周四是回家長周末。他們將重新開始，周二今天上午在上午九時檢察官說，亞歷山大pring -威爾遜， 26 ，刺傷邁克爾colono ， 18 ， 5次，一次是在心臟，在深夜街頭的斗爭就2003年4月12日，因為他是在憤怒的青少年作的樂趣，他作為他偶然drunkenly過去在觸發(fā)器和雨衣。 被告聲稱，他在采取行動自衛(wèi)（正當(dāng)防衛(wèi)）后，被攻擊的colono和Samuel羅德里格斯， colono的堂弟，誰了歷史上被定罪的攻擊和毆打（毆打） 。 約上午09時10分，正義里賈納昆蘭收到了一份說明，從陪審員要求的副本，陪審團的指示。他們的要求被拒絕。 昆蘭花了約一個半小時就周四讀指示陪審員。他們被控以達成一致的裁決之一， 4選擇：無罪釋放，首先是一級謀殺罪，二度謀殺或誤殺有關(guān)（一般殺人罪） 。 在審查的問題，辯護律師里克列文森動議為mistrial為由，復(fù)雜而混亂的性質(zhì)的指示。該法官拒絕了這項議案。 陪審員有150展品及其處置，以及被允許做筆記，在近三個星期之久的審判，雖然法官要求他們扣壓從筆記開放期間的發(fā)言和閉幕的論點。他們可能會問，具體問題，有關(guān)法律，但沒有這樣做。 pring -威爾遜面臨終身監(jiān)禁，不得假釋，如果被定罪的最高負責(zé)。 1誤殺罪的判決，帶有句的范圍假釋至20年徒刑。 中午十二時前，陪審員仍在工作，和法院內(nèi)部人士透露，如果他們不達成一項裁決一天的結(jié)束，周五，他們很可能不會返回，直到周二后，在長假期周末。 法院是廣播電視的審判現(xiàn)場。