For those of you that are interested,

It appears that the trial for Alfred Prieto has begun. He's the guy whose DNA was linked to the murders of Rachael Raver, Warren Fulton, and Veronica Jefferson. In an interesting comment, Virginia prosecutors believe that they can take this case "from trial to tomb in five years."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/AR2007060301350_pf.html

GREAT find... I was wondering about this just the other day too.

Hopefully they'll throw the book at him.

Well, I am against the death penalty, however I cant say as I will feel sorry if he does get the DP which based on the law he will get since he has taken this to trial.

In an interesting comment, Virginia prosecutors believe that they can take this case "from trial to tomb in five years."

If he is found guilty (I dont know as I havent followed this case) I can only hope this is true!

Well, I think the VA prosecutors are dreaming if they think they will get him in 5 years. I would say the only way they could get him in 5 years would be either if he waives his appeals and decides he wants to die, or if he confessed to everything that would hurt his case as well. I think the average stay on death row in this country for an inmate before they are executed is something like 11 or 12 years.

According to a Virgnia anti death penalty website. 99 people have been executed in Virginia since the death penalty was re-instead back in the late 1970's. Virginia according to this website is 2nd in the nation when it comes to executions only behind the obvious leader of Texas. Executions have only slowed in Virginia the last two years really and that is because the governor there is a former criminal defense attorney who is anti death penalty, still he has allowed 4 or 5 executions to go forward.

Some states have shorter appeals processes than others, I believe Virginia is one of them but I think overall on average a person is on the row for around 10 years there as well. I do think that he has a much more likely chance of being executed in Virginia at some point than he ever would have in California.

· In 1990, then-sex crimes Detective Robert Murphy investigated Prieto in a rape, but the case didn't pan out. Murphy later moved to the homicide unit's cold-case squad and inherited the Fulton-Raver case. By coincidence, in 2005, the national DNA database linked Murphy's former rape suspect to the slayings, giving Murphy an opportunity to solve two homicides more than 18 years old.

Woah. I don't remember seeing this information before. I thought the dna match was completely out of the blue, but he was on the radar all along...just on a different case. That's pretty amazing.

Well, Alfredo Prieto has been convicted of the murders of Rachel Raver and Warren Fulton. The jury will now decide whether Prieto will get death or life.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--deathpenaltytrial0619jun19,0,3725546.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia

This guy doesn't really resemble the composite sketch of the clean cut black man, that Veronica was seen with before her disappearance. I guess facially he resembles him but he a lot lighter than the sketch. Same guy or not?

This guy doesn't really resemble the composite sketch of the clean cut black man, that Veronica was seen with before her disappearance. I guess facially he resembles him but he a lot lighter than the sketch. Same guy or not?

Although DNA evidence has linked Prieto to Veronica's murder, he might not have necessarily been the same man who was seen with Veronica at the supermarket. But if the clean cut man was Prieto, then the couple who described him may have misremembered some details, which is not uncommon.

Those are just some thoughts to consider.

Thank god they got the guy finally, although u guys are right, this guy isn't exactly a clean cut black man like they described but DNA doesn't lie right? anyway the clean cut guy might not have been the killer. two others that ticked me off are the one with the little girl that opened her front door and got snatched up by two guys in the middle of the night (I had nightmares that would happen to me when i was little), and the trucker in my state that was dumping hookers along the interstate (we saw the flyers at the rest stops on our way down to florida and then saw the story that very next week on UM when we came home.) do u guys remember these????

Thank god they got the guy finally, although u guys are right, this guy isn't exactly a clean cut black man like they described but DNA doesn't lie right? anyway the clean cut guy might not have been the killer. two others that ticked me off are the one with the little girl that opened her front door and got snatched up by two guys in the middle of the night (I had nightmares that would happen to me when i was little), and the trucker in my state that was dumping hookers along the interstate (we saw the flyers at the rest stops on our way down to florida and then saw the story that very next week on UM when we came home.) do u guys remember these????

The little girl's name was Antoinette Cayedito. Unfortunately, there haven't been any updates on these cases that I'm aware of.

Well Prieto's trial has taken a bizarre turn. A mis-trial was declared in the trial on Tuesday after a juror wrote to the judge and told him that he didnt think the prosecutors had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt that Prieto murdered Rachel Raver and Warren Fulton, he claimed that he had been the hold out and that he had reluctantly gone along with his fellow jurors to convict because they bullied him into doing so. The judge decided to declare a mis-trial so now they will have to set a new trial and do the whole thing all over again which could be months before the re-trial happens, here is a link with the story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/03/AR2007070301173.html?nav=rss_metro/crime

Well Prieto's trial has taken a bizarre turn. A mis-trial was declared in the trial on Tuesday after a juror wrote to the judge and told him that he didnt think the prosecutors had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt that Prieto murdered Rachel Raver and Warren Fulton, he claimed that he had been the hold out and that he had reluctantly gone along with his fellow jurors to convict because they bullied him into doing so. The judge decided to declare a mis-trial so now they will have to set a new trial and do the whole thing all over again which could be months before the re-trial happens, here is a link with the story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/03/AR2007070301173.html?nav=rss_metro/crime

That's unfortunate, I have no idea what that juror's problem is. Hmm, let's see: DNA matches, history of murder/rape, 11 of 12 people think he's guilty, does this juror think that perhaps, just pehaps, Prieto might possibly be guilty?? :rolleyes:

I remember talking to one of my college professors about jury duty. I had it that week, so I was letting him know that if I was absent, that would be the reason. He says there is usually one holdout amongst the group. He was on jury duty for a case, and sure enough, there was one holdout. She didn't think the defendants were guilty despite store video camera evidence of the defendants stealing. :rolleyes: She would say "Well, I don't know....." They eventually got her around to their way of thinking, thankfully.

Personally, 11 of 12 is good enough for me. Me: (Quoting the judge from the Weinberg medical fraud case) Execute sentence.

That really sucks for the families. At least there's a 99.9% chance that he'll get a solid conviction at the next trial.

Well this will be most unpopular here, but I guess I can see the juror's point. Did Prieto probably murder all these people? Yes. Prieto certainly raped Rachel Raver and Veronica Jefferson, that point cannot be argued for his DNA is present.

The juror that caused the mistrial said he believed that the prosecution had proven that Prieto raped Raver but nothing else. I guess this juror must have gone along with the theory that Prieto was not the only person that took Raver and Fulton hostage. He must have thought that there must have been one or more people with Prieto at the murder scene.

However the point of Prieto having murdered once before is moot since it occurred on the completely opposite end of the country and that shouldnt have been allowed in as evidence anyway because it would compromise the jury.

I would be surprised if the judge allowed in as evidence Prieto's past crimes. If he did it would be a mistake on the judge's part. This trial isnt about whether or not Prieto did something in the past, this is about whether or not he did the Raver/Fulton murder for which he is on trial.

His DNA is there, it is safe to assume that he did in fact rape Rachel Raver and that it is also safe to assume at a minimum he was at the murder scene and he probably did moth murders, but again people forget probably isnt good enough, if you have doubts you must acquitt, simple as that.

However I am sure Prieto will be convicted in his re-trial, if he is (since I think he is guilty) but probably would have done what the "renegade" juror did except I would have voted guilty on the rape charge for Raver which would get you a life sentence in Virginia anyway if convicted at trial.

Well this will be most unpopular here, but I guess I can see the juror's point. Did Prieto probably murder all these people? Yes. Prieto certainly raped Rachel Raver and Veronica Jefferson, that point cannot be argued for his DNA is present.

The juror that caused the mistrial said he believed that the prosecution had proven that Prieto raped Raver but nothing else. I guess this juror must have gone along with the theory that Prieto was not the only person that took Raver and Fulton hostage. He must have thought that there must have been one or more people with Prieto at the murder scene.

However the point of Prieto having murdered once before is moot since it occurred on the completely opposite end of the country and that shouldnt have been allowed in as evidence anyway because it would compromise the jury.

I would be surprised if the judge allowed in as evidence Prieto's past crimes. If he did it would be a mistake on the judge's part. This trial isnt about whether or not Prieto did something in the past, this is about whether or not he did the Raver/Fulton murder for which he is on trial.

His DNA is there, it is safe to assume that he did in fact rape Rachel Raver and that it is also safe to assume at a minimum he was at the murder scene and he probably did moth murders, but again people forget probably isnt good enough, if you have doubts you must acquitt, simple as that.

However I am sure Prieto will be convicted in his re-trial, if he is (since I think he is guilty) but probably would have done what the "renegade" juror did except I would have voted guilty on the rape charge for Raver which would get you a life sentence in Virginia anyway if convicted at trial.

I see what you're saying, but if we go by the juror's logic that semen doesn't prove murder, we could take it one step further and say that the presence of semen doesn't prove rape. You can't really prove rape in a technical sense. It could have been consensual sex that put his semen there. There has to be a combination of circumstancial evidence and/or victim/witness testimony to say that semen evidence points to a rape. I say that if the juror acknowledges that Prieto committed rape beyond a reasonable doubt, it's bordering on ridiculous to say he doesn't believe Prieto also participated in a murder. Did Prieto's defense actually point to an accomplice of some sort? I'll need to go back and read the article.....

Sorry to interject here.... but I think Kadrmas raises a good point, even though I disagree with the ultimate conclusion.

Evidence of previous murders, under the rules of Evidence, should NOT be allowed into evidence because it would serve to bias the jury more than it would assist them in their decision making process. It's Rule of Evidence 404(b), which I think I've talked about on here before. Basically, unless the DA could prove that the previous murders were a part of a pattern, it shouldn't be allowed into Evidence because that's the type of evidence that would cause a jury to make up their minds before they heard a shred of testimony. Trust me-- that happens more than we'd like ANYWAY. I've argued cases in front of juries (as both a junior prosecutor and a junior public defender) and you'd be amazed at how many jurors make up their minds in OPENING STATEMENT. It's quite alarming, really. (However, I disagree with the comment made about the murders happening on the other side of the country not being relevant. It's TOTALLY relevant. However, it's too prejudicial and THAT'S why it should not be admitted into evidence.)

HOWEVER... despite the fact that I think Kadrmas made a good call in regards to the "prior bad acts" of the Defendant, I still think the Defendant is guilty. The DNA is pretty conclusive, at least in my mind. Frankly, I want to know what the prosecutor did to lose that one juror... this seemed like a slam-dunk case to me, and I've usually got a pretty good eye for these things.

I also echo the sentiments that this must be rough on the families. At least there IS a good possibility that they'll get a conviction the second time around...

I don't understand why it wouldn't be allowed into evidence; yes it may prejudice the jury, but if the suspect commited a murder once, isn't it likely they did it again?

Sorry to interject here.... but I think Kadrmas raises a good point, even though I disagree with the ultimate conclusion.

Evidence of previous murders, under the rules of Evidence, should NOT be allowed into evidence because it would serve to bias the jury more than it would assist them in their decision making process. It's Rule of Evidence 404(b), which I think I've talked about on here before. Basically, unless the DA could prove that the previous murders were a part of a pattern, it shouldn't be allowed into Evidence because that's the type of evidence that would cause a jury to make up their minds before they heard a shred of testimony. Trust me-- that happens more than we'd like ANYWAY. I've argued cases in front of juries (as both a junior prosecutor and a junior public defender) and you'd be amazed at how many jurors make up their minds in OPENING STATEMENT. It's quite alarming, really. (However, I disagree with the comment made about the murders happening on the other side of the country not being relevant. It's TOTALLY relevant. However, it's too prejudicial and THAT'S why it should not be admitted into evidence.)

HOWEVER... despite the fact that I think Kadrmas made a good call in regards to the "prior bad acts" of the Defendant, I still think the Defendant is guilty. The DNA is pretty conclusive, at least in my mind. Frankly, I want to know what the prosecutor did to lose that one juror... this seemed like a slam-dunk case to me, and I've usually got a pretty good eye for these things.

I also echo the sentiments that this must be rough on the families. At least there IS a good possibility that they'll get a conviction the second time around...

Here's why I believe that his previous murders/rapes should be allowed into evidence: Now, of course, if they make any random murderer the suspect, I can see how that might taint the jury because they might get too preoccupied with the defendant's previous murder. There would have to be solid evidence that the defendant committed this particular murder. But that's where the rape comes in: The DNA matches, so he is an extremely strong suspect. I don't recall hearing the second person theory, but for it to be true, we would have to believe that there were two criminals there. One who raped but didn't murder, and one who didn't rape but murdered. I would say the odds of this are immensely low.

As for the prosecutor losing the juror, I don't blame the prosecutor at all. There isn't a single fact that exists today that somebody won't dispute. I'm sure there are people that would dispute the fact that the the sky is blue. The problem with juries is that you have to get everyone to agree, you can't lose even one person's vote. As I've said before, I'm extremely comfortable with an 11 of 12 majority. I believe they should have the ability to replace that juror. The one juror is so hostile, while the other members are calm, and I think that speaks volumes.

I don't understand why it wouldn't be allowed into evidence; yes it may prejudice the jury, but if the suspect commited a murder once, isn't it likely they did it again?

Yes, that's a good point kamy. Most criminals are habitual offenders.

Well, I said that I believed Prieto did the murders and that he obviously did the rape, there isnt any question that he did. I said I would have voted guilty on the rape charge, which in Virginia would get him a life sentence anyway. I never said I wouldnt have voted to convict Prieto on murder, I would have to see all the evidence, but I said hearing what was presented I would have not been comfortable voting that he did the murder. I didnt say for sure I would acquitt him of murder, I said I probably would, but again I would have to see the evidence. Clearly the prosecutors thought this was a slam dunk case and it doesnt sound like they presented much of a case, I am sure they will do it better next time presenting their evidence in a stronger manner to ensure that he gets convicted next time.

I did say that I can understand why the hold out juror did what he did. Now I wish this hold out juror would have caused a mis-trial from the start if he felt that the prosecutors hadnt proved anything but the rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead he let other jurors bully him into making a decision he apperantly was not comfortable with. It was wrong because the families thought they had a conviction and a resolution to this case and the juror just couldnt g o through with it.

I do not know what points you think you have beat me on before Wiseguy, all you have really done is gone out of your way to put me down repeatedly and make me seem like this horrible person because I do not agree with your opinions.

Now, the prior bad acts by Prieto should have not been allowed in because they are highly prejudicial. Whether you like it or not wiseguy everyone is entitled to a fair and impartial trial and that includes everyone involved in terms of the jury, the judge, etc. That is how it works in this country, everyone is entitled to a fair and impartial trial no matter how horrible that person may be or the things they have done or supposedly done. If the jury had known of Prieto's prior bad acts (I do not actually know if they knew or not about it) but if they didnt, than obviously they still pretty much came to the conclusion you wanted them to but at least they looked at him through clear lenses.

As to Eileen Mangold's killer, isnt he in prison somewhere right now too? How do you in fact know he was the killer? Clearly the evidence wasnt strong enough to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, or the prosecution did a poor job. In a lot of cases where a person is acquitted most if not all the jurors think the person probably did it but the evidence isnt strong enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Afterall, you are not supposed to convict someone because you think they probably did it.

Wow un unanimous juries, well in my personal opinion that sounds like a crooked system. The unanimous decision thing works well and I see no reason to change it. The reason it is like that I am assuming is to keep someone from being wrongfully convicted. However if you want to change the system in Michigan, write to your state rep or state senator I would be curious in the response.

As far as I know no state in the country allows a conviction or an acquittal if the decision is not unanimous to do either one. There are I think a couple of states that allow non unanimous decisions for the death penalty, like Florida, which in my opinion has a very crooked system in that regard, because not only does the jury not have to be unanimous for a death penalty decision but the judge can override a jury that recommends a life sentence and sentence someone to death and that is especially crooked.

In most if not all states the judge can override a jury that recommends death and sentence the person to life but Florida is one of the only ones I know of that lets a judge override a jury that recommends life and sentence someone to death.

I am an aspiring lawyer, I hope to go to law school in two years or so, once I complete my bachelor's in Political Science. Thus I take a strong interest in the law, also thanks CRicci for coming to my defense somewhat anyway. You were civil and polite as always.

I am an aspiring lawyer, I hope to go to law school in two years or so, once I complete my bachelor's in Political Science. Thus I take a strong interest in the law, also thanks CRicci for coming to my defense somewhat anyway. You were civil and polite as always.

Okay, kadrmas15, if you were just any other person I would let it go, but since you're an aspiring lawyer, I'm going to poke you with my virtual stick and demand that you address my above point.:) Why do you believe that the semen evidence points to rape beyond a reasonable doubt and not consensual sex?

I didnt contract myself in the least wiseguy. When I asked "isnt he in prison anyway?" and when I asked "how do you know he was the killer?" I was saying that based on what you said about the guy being a serial killer so I had assumed that he was in prison somewhere for something. I was merely going off of what you said, I have no idea whether he is or isnt in prison somewhere for something, I was asking you if you knew, your response was to cram it down my throat and imply that I was stupid for contradiciting myself.

I dont think you are a bad person wiseguy, but I do think you are arrogant. You sit here and attack me in terms of here on the board in an effort to debunk and discredit me and you also have a tendency to turn things around against me to make me seem like an ungrateful jerk while you portray yourself as being this great guy who offers to do favors for people. Yes you did offer to send it to me for free, I actually had forgot all about it, I am sorry I did not thank you endlessly from the bottom of my heart for your nice gesture.

Wiseguy, I didnt attack you with untrue comments, that was you not me. You merely proved what I was saying about you, I have never gone out of my way to attack you unless you did it first. Except you do it in this condescending way that treats me like I am this stupid, immature b rat just because you are so much older than me you think you know everything and you simply do not. I merely stated my opinion on a case since that is what we do on this board yet for some reason you consistently choose to single me out and attack me when you do not do the same to other people. So that tells me you have a personal problem with me, for what reason I do not know other than I disagree with you on stuff and you do not like it.

I am not advocating Prieto see the light of day again, and he will not see the light of day again outside of a prison regardless of what happens in these Virginia cases. He is on death row in California afterall and is not going anywhere. Again Wiseguy, if you think we should change our system, you should write someone who is in a position to change it if you believe in that. Why you would think it is useless to write to your representative in the state legislature or in congress and ask them to do something about it but yet you seem to find it very useful to come on here and talk about it is beyond me.

From now on I will refrain from talking to you since I have to be the one that is the mature one here since you seem to enjoy attacking me despite telling me in a private message you would no longer do it.

As I have said both on the board here and to you in a PM that I wouldnt attack you anymore and I havent unless you chose to do it to me first. Also do me a favor and in the future if you dont have anything nice to say, do not say anything to me at all.

Nowhere girl, well, what got me on the rape charge, was that I believe it was said that Prieto raped Raver after she was shot. How they could tell this I do not know, she was maybe even dead when he raped her. Although I do not believe it is considered rape if the person is dead, I think the crime would be mutiliating a corpse or something of that nature, but I am not sure what the exact crime would be. Still a felony. It was obvious that Prieto had sex with Raver since his DNA was inside her and I think it is safe to judge that Raver wouldnt have had consensual sex with Prieto. But again, I was basing my argument on what that lone juror did, for me to make a fully conclusive opinion on the case all around I would have to look at the trial transcipts and at least study what was presented to the jury.

Well, I think you are wrong wiseguy, but we will have to agree to disagree I guess. I have made mistakes with you and other posters, when I felt an apology needed to be given, I have given one. I am not the only person on here that has insulted people, I do not think I have actually insulted anyone really, at least not if they didnt do it to me first. Not very mature for me to do that but it is the truth.

Interesting you would think yourself more mature than most people your age, I thought that too when I was 18. I am 22 by the way, I didnt know you were only 27, for some reason I thought you were much older, I am not sure why.

Now have I dismissed some people's ideas here as silly? Yes. Frankly it is because some of them are silly and far fetched just like some of my own ideas are silly and far fetched and not correct. Not to be a smart aleck but that is what will happen when you have people stating their opinions. Some ideas will frankly be silly even stupid. But I have never said people didnt have a right to post them. People can post whatever they want to post. But if they post it here, it is fair game for me to give my opinion on what they post. Now space invaderz and I have had our run in's, but I have apologized for going to far with SI a few times, I was wrong in going to far and I owned up to it.

I have even apologized for going too far with you in the past, however as I said above, I feel it is you that has a tendency to go after me for reasons only known to you. I really cannot think of a reason that you would do that except that you do not like my ideas, which is fine and your legal right afterall there are many ideas of yours that I do not agree with and do not like. However above when you said you went too far on one occassion while that is true, in my opinion you have gone too far with me more times than that.

Well, as for you being a democrat, all I can say is I am sorry. I do not remember specifically putting down your party, I would say poking fun at it was what I was doing. However if you took offense to whatever I have said about anything about you, your party, whatever, I am sorry. I wasnt really meaning so much to cause offense as I was just stating my opinions.

Well, when I said you should write to your state rep, regardless if it generates a change or not, I figured you would just want to try it to even see what the reaction would be and what their opinions are on it. Like write to your state house's judiciary committee chairman or something. I believe in Michigan the democrats control the state house now.

Anyway, I want to work towards burying the hatchet, I feel we are slowly clearing the air which is good. I tend to be hot headed, it comes out sometimes in that I say stuff I shouldnt say and go too far. I am a man that makes mistakes and I own up to those mistakes.

Now space invaderz and I have had our run in's, but I have apologized for going to far with SI a few times, I was wrong in going to far and I owned up to it.

Don't you love it when you are brought into a melee when you're minding your own business.. :eek:

But while I am here I may as well say I absolutely agree with this -->
It's like I was saying earlier, DNA matches, history of murder/rape, and 11 of 12 think he's guilty. That's good enough for me.

In fact I think had I been related to any of them victims I would be waiting outside the courthouse to finish the job the jurors should of done. Heck, the odds are pretty good in my favour that at least 1 of 12 won't find me totally guilty... (without starting *****) especially if any of the jurors is like Kadrmas :wave:

N someone here mentioned something about "everyone deserve a fair and unbaised trial", tell that to the victim's family when a repeat offender strikes. Or up the punishment for these terrible crimes so that hardcore criminals die early or die in prison.

Yet another heated exchange between you too, huh? We should be able to disagree and question how someone else came to their opinion without it turning personal or into a fight. I know there seems to be some bad blood between you guys but it just seems to stem from how strongly you guys feel about some of these cases. I would suggest if you guys don't agree than just state your own opinion, without attacking the other persons or like was suggested earlier don't comment on each others posts.

Nowhere girl, well, what got me on the rape charge, was that I believe it was said that Prieto raped Raver after she was shot. How they could tell this I do not know, she was maybe even dead when he raped her.


Ew! I don't remember reading that. *shudder*

Nowhere girl, well, what got me on the rape charge, was that I believe it was said that Prieto raped Raver after she was shot. How they could tell this I do not know, she was maybe even dead when he raped her. Although I do not believe it is considered rape if the person is dead, I think the crime would be mutiliating a corpse or something of that nature, but I am not sure what the exact crime would be. Still a felony. It was obvious that Prieto had sex with Raver since his DNA was inside her and I think it is safe to judge that Raver wouldnt have had consensual sex with Prieto. But again, I was basing my argument on what that lone juror did, for me to make a fully conclusive opinion on the case all around I would have to look at the trial transcipts and at least study what was presented to the jury.

Like Ricci said...ew. Also, it's possible that they concluded that she was raped after she was shot because there were not any defense wounds characteristic of rape. That's just me speculating.

But now I'm more at a loss to imagine a scenario that falls in line with the juror's logic. Raver is shot and bleeding, and therefore cannot have consensual sex, so the semen evidence proves rape (for the sake of argument), so how does he get to a scenario in which Prieto was not somehow involved in the shooting? Even if Prieto wasn't the shooter and had an accomplice who killed her, wouldn't he still be equally culpable for the murder? Are we supposed to believe it's possible that Prieto just happened upon a dead or nearly-dead couple in the woods and saw it as an opportunity to get off? I find that completely unbelievable...and it has more to do with common sense that crime statistics and probabilities. Now I'm even more convince that this juror is just a jerk.

Hey nowheregirl, well in my opinion the juror is not a jerk but I do think he made a mistake of not causing a mis-trial from the get-go if that is what he wanted to do. At least then the victims families would not have got their hopes up that Prieto was convicted only to have the juror raise his issues during the penalty phase.

In my opinion from what I read, it didnt seem to me so much that the juror didnt think Prieto did the killings, his issue was that he felt the prosecution didnt prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did the killing. It is an interesting conclusion to come to certainly, most people will not like it obviously, but this juror I think just felt that the prosecution didnt present a very convincing case and acted like just because they had DNA that it sealed the deal for all the charges. From the sounds of it, the prosecutor is in his mid 70's and isnt in the best of health and is retiring at the end of this year, so this may have been his last case, maybe it is a good thing he is retiring if he cannot be convincing anymore in a case like this.

Hey SI, well I know you were at least half kidding on that juror remark. Well, personally I am opposed to the idea of non unanimous juries being able to render decisions, but to each his own I guess.

If I was on a jury, I would actually be impartial despite popular believe. As I said, a lot of the time, even when a person is acquitted a lot of the jurors, sometimes all the jurors think personally that the person did it, but the prosecution has to have evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt the person did it. This is set up this way for a reason and that is to prevent wrongful convictions.

Of course we see wrongful convictions get exposed all the time, and there are many more that have not been exposed, so that tells me the system isnt working. Reforms are needed. The jury system does have its flaws, and I feel we are really to the point in this country where it is guilty until proven innocent and not the other way around and in my opinion there is something terribly wrong with that.

Everyone is entitled to a fair and unbiased trial regardless of their crime. If the evidence proves what they are accused of than they will get what is coming to them usually, if it doesnt prove it than they should be acquitted, that is how it is supposed to be.

While horrible things happen that put people on trial in the first place the person by the US constitution has the right to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of their peers, that is just how it is, the founding fathers got it right.

Yeh I am aware that you didn't create the legal system but I must say it's an absolute joke. The laws are there to protect the criminals and that sucks ass.

I think most people would echo those sentiments until they are wrongfully accused of a crime they didn't commit.

Yes, we do send innocent people to prison sometimes. It happens.

(No, I'm not trying to start ANY sort of argument here. I respect everyone's views on pretty much everything, but I felt that the counterpoint did need to be presented...)

Well SI, I will say this once and only once, I disagree and we will have to agree to disagree. CRicci, you made a very good point there, that most people agree with what SI does, but when you are wrongfully accused, arrested and convicted of a crime than your view on that may change. There are a lot of innocent people in prison, as a good prosecutor once said "I would rather have 10 guilty men get acquitted than put one innocent man in prison." It is a good quote.

I believe a recent statistic said around 5 percent of the prison population in this country are innocent and you see cases where innocent people even take plea bargains because they are afraid of getting the death penalty or life sentences and there is something majorly wrong with that. People are convicted at trial over 95 percent of the time.

Tough on crime laws do not work, that has been proven repeatedly. Look at such places that have passed it like California, Texas, Illinois, all of whom have had miserable failures with their polices and their prison populations inflated and out of control. California actually I believe just recently had a cap put on their prison population by the federal government because it is so out of control there.

Yeh I am aware that you didn't create the legal system but I must say it's an absolute joke. The laws are there to protect the criminals and that sucks ass.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this point of view. Although I do think that Prieto is guilty as all heck, I also do not believe in the death penalty, and I believe that the legal/prison system in the U.S. is completely out of control. The only people who seem to have any real protection under our current system are those who can buy it. And even among those who go to trial, racial minorities and those with diminished mental capacity are disproportionately given harsher sentences. We live in a country where companies that own privatized prisons actually MAKE MONEY off of the increases in our prison populations. And kadrmas is correct...mandatory sentencing policies have proven so out of control that states do not actually have the resources to follow through with them and are quietly releasing prisoners early so that they can free up beds in the prisons.

So yeah, the system is effed up, but in a completely different way than how you describe it.

The defense brought into evidence that Prieto had been charged in another killing. Yes I know, it seems strange the defense would do this. They knew their client was guilt of the raver/fulton murders and they wanted to spare the jury of having to kill this guy since he was already on death row in california.

Well, what is interesting, is that Prieto's lawyers didnt want the mis-trial. The judge either could have declared a mis-trial or he could have sentenced Prieto to life in prison without parole. Prieto's lawyers actually wanted Prieto sentenced to life, they didnt want a new trial.

What happened was that Prieto was found guilty, but then during the sentencing phase one of the jurors said he was bullied into voting guilty in the first place, but a very unusual situation, where the judge would declare a mis-trial instead of just sentencing to life in prison without parole or bringing in a new jury for sentencing.

I googled this Prieto dude's pic and was surprised at what I seen. I posted in the past that he didn't resemble the "clean cut black man" but I must have been looking at someone else! IMO, Prieto looks A LOT like the sketch, the only exception is the glasses and the tattoos on his neck, which all could have easily been added. How wild!
Is there any update on the new trial?

So what ended up happening to Prieto? Did he get another trial or what? This thread started getting sidetracked there.

October 30, 2008 Washington Post:

Prosecutors Drop 1988 Case Against Condemned Man

BYLINE: Tom Jackman; Washington Post Staff Writer

SECTION: METRO; Pg. B08

LENGTH: 637 words


Faced with prosecuting a man who already has three death sentences, Arlington County prosecutors yesterday dismissed a capital murder indictment against Alfredo R. Prieto, although they reserved the right to recharge him if he successfully appeals his convictions.

Prieto, 42, was convicted in Fairfax County in March of killing Warren H. Fulton III and Rachael A. Raver, whom he also raped as she lay dying, in a vacant lot near Reston in December 1988. Not long after killing them, Prieto moved to California, where in September 1990 he raped and murdered 15-year-old Yvette Woodruff.

But before the Fairfax slayings, another similar homicide occurred in Arlington in May 1988. Veronica "Tina" Jefferson was found raped and murdered behind McKinley Elementary School. She was shot to death, as were the other three victims.

For many years, the killings of Jefferson, Raver and Fulton were unsolved. And even after DNA technology showed that the same person killed them all, there was no suspect.

Meanwhile, Prieto had been arrested days after the Woodruff slaying in 1990, and he was convicted and sentenced to death in 1992. He was placed on death row at San Quentin State Prison.

Prieto's DNA, however, was not entered into a national data bank until years later. When Fairfax cold case detectives routinely submitted their DNA from the three unsolved Northern Virginia cases in 2005, it matched Prieto's.

Watching Prieto's appeals slog through the California justice system, then-Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. and Arlington Commonwealth's Attorney Richard E. Trodden elected to indict Prieto for the slayings in Virginia and extradite him. Fairfax decided to try him first.

Arlington prosecutors had been moving forward with a trial set for March.

Yesterday, Arlington Chief Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Theo Stamos asked Chief Arlington Circuit Court Judge William T. Newman Jr. to dismiss the case against Prieto without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled. Defense attorney Jason S. Rucker did not object, and Newman dismissed the murder charge.

Jefferson's mother, Velda Jefferson of Lawton, Okla., said she "wholeheartedly" supported the decision. Jefferson had attended two lengthy trials in Fairfax -- the first a mistrial, the second a conviction and death sentence -- and said: "I'd rather not go through it again. He's guilty. I know he's guilty. We can only kill him one time. I don't want to sit there and look at him all that time."

A death penalty trial is expensive, particularly when the state must pay for the defense's legal fees, expert testimony and witness transportation and housing. Seeking a fourth death sentence for Prieto "just doesn't justify the expense," Stamos said.

Rucker, appointed by the Arlington court along with his father, Denman A. Rucker, to represent Prieto, attended some of the Fairfax trial, had been preparing for the Arlington trial and had been cleared to hire expert witnesses. He did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Jefferson, 24, was an Oklahoma native who had moved to Northern Virginia two years before her death to work as an accountant at the CIA. But she was homesick, her parents told The Washington Post in 2001, and was due to travel home to Lawton later in May 1988 to discuss returning there.

The jury in the second Fairfax trial heard detailed testimony about Jefferson's slaying in the sentencing phase, and Velda Jefferson testified about the impact of her daughter's killing.

Shortly after his sentencing in May, Prieto was moved to the Arlington jail, and proceedings started there. Stamos said attempts to reach a plea agreement with Prieto were unsuccessful.

Prieto is also a suspect in a fifth slaying, the September 1989 death of Manuel F. Sermeno in Prince William County, prosecutors said. He has not been charged in that case.

May 24, 2008 Washington Post

Two Death Sentences In '88 Fairfax Killings;
Jury Rejected Man's Retardation Defense

BYLINE: Tom Jackman; Washington Post Staff Writer

SECTION: METRO; Pg. B01

LENGTH: 915 words


A Fairfax County judge yesterday handed Alfredo R. Prieto two death sentences in the slayings of a young couple 20 years ago, saying he could not fathom "the desperation, horror and sheer terror" Prieto inflicted on them in a field near Reston.

"On the night you executed them," Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Randy I. Bellows told Prieto, "you turned the final moments of their life into what could be described as a living hell."

Prieto, 42, was convicted in February of the rape and murder of Rachael A. Raver and the murder of Warren H. Fulton III, both 22, in December 1988. Prieto's attorneys then tried to convince the jury that the defendant, with an IQ of about 70, was mentally ******** and not eligible for the death penalty. After three weeks of testimony, the jury rejected the retardation defense and said Prieto should die for both killings.

Prieto is on death row in California for the 1990 rape and killing of 15-year-old Yvette Woodruff in Ontario, Calif. As a result of his incarceration there, his DNA was entered into a nationwide DNA data bank. In 2005, that data bank provided a hit out of the blue on the DNA left at the scene of Raver's and Fulton's slayings near Hunter Mill Road on Dec. 4, 1988. Prieto is suspected in two other slayings in Arlington and Prince William counties.

Former Fairfax commonwealth's attorney Robert F. Horan Jr., who retired in the fall but stayed with the Fairfax case, sought Prieto's extradition to Virginia, despite the California death sentence, because Prieto's appeals were moving slowly and in 2005 were expected to take 10 more years. Horan obtained two murder indictments against Prieto in November 2005, and California agreed to send him to Virginia in April 2006.

Nine of the jurors in the Fairfax case, as well as many of Raver's relatives, sat in Bellows's courtroom yesterday to find out whether he would uphold their verdict. And when Bellows, a father of five, looked at and spoke of the families of Raver and Fulton, he teared up and his voice cracked.

"You ruined their lives," Bellows told Prieto. "They will never, never recover. I could not put it better than Mrs. [Jackie] Fulton did when she said that the bullet you put in her son went through him and lodged in her heart."

Prieto, given the opportunity to make a statement, said: "I have nothing to say, by lawyer's advice." He plans to appeal.

Prieto did not react when Bellows sentenced him to death, twice, and imposed consecutive sentences of life, 20 years and six years for the rape, theft of Raver's car and use of a gun. It was the first death sentence issued in Fairfax since the 1998 sentencing of Mir Aimal Kasi for the fatal shootings of two CIA employees outside the agency's headquarters in Langley in 1993.

As Prieto rose to be escorted from the courtroom, Raver's brother Matthew leaned over and said, "Hey, Prieto, go to your room." Prieto shook his head but said nothing. Matthew Raver later said that Prieto "likes to have control, so I wanted to let him know he wouldn't have control anymore."

Veronica Raver, Rachael Raver's mother, traveled from Yorktown, N.Y., one last time to watch a case that went through one five-week trial that ended in a mistrial in the summer and then an eight-week retrial this year, virtually all of which she sat through. "We're pleased and thank God it's over," she said after the sentencing. "It's everything I prayed for. I'm still trembling." Then she turned and mildly scolded her son for speaking to Prieto.

Police say they think Prieto intercepted Raver and Fulton somewhere between a sports bar in the District and Fairfax, and forced them to drive at gunpoint to an unlit lot that is now occupied by houses. Horan theorized that Prieto ordered Fulton to his knees and shot him once in the back. Horan said Raver then ran, was shot once in the back and raped as she lay dying.

In addition, prosecutors in Arlington obtained a murder indictment against him, saying he was linked by DNA to a May 1988 rape-murder. The details of the slaying of Veronica "Tina" Jefferson, 24, were used in the sentencing phase of the Fairfax case to help persuade the jury to impose the death sentence.

Arlington prosecutors said yesterday that they still are planning to try Prieto in September.

Prince William prosecutors said Prieto is a suspect in the September 1989 slaying of Manuel F. Sermeno, whose body was found in a burning car near Interstate 95. But with three death sentences imposed, prosecutors there are unlikely to try Prieto.

A juror from Prieto's first Fairfax trial, along with the nine jurors from the second trial, watched the sentencing. The foreman of the second jury, Raymond G. Melusky Jr. of Fairfax, said his colleagues wanted "to try to show some support for the family. And really, to see it through to its conclusion. It's very rational, very fair, very unanimous."

Prosecuting Prieto in Fairfax cost taxpayers about $700,000, court records show. The first trial, including legal fees and expenses for the defense, witness fees and expenses for both sides, and transcripts, cost $392,777. The second trial's costs total $298,415, but the figure is not final.

State law required Bellows to set an execution date, which he did for Oct. 3. But he immediately suspended that date pending post-trial motions, which will be followed by appeals to the Virginia Supreme Court and then to the federal courts.

Horan said the process could be over in five years. Kasi was executed less than five years after his sentencing.

Well, I figured this would happen. In a ruling issued by the Virginia Supreme Court today, Alfredo Prieto's convictions were upheld BUT his death sentences were reversed and the case was remanded back to the Fairfax County Circuit Court for a new penalty phase. It probably will be several months at least before that happens. There have been so many problems in this case from the start, mainly in terms of the penalty phase, it seems there was problems at both trials. The first time around, Prieto was found guilty but during the penalty phase there were numerous problems and a juror refused to deliberate claiming he had been bullied into finding Prieto guilty in the first place so the judge declared a mistrial of the entire case.

In the 2nd trial, Prieto was again found guilty, this time, all of the jurors were able to agree on a punishment. Prieto was sentenced to two death sentences for his two capital murder convictions, two counts of use of a firearm during commission of a murder, one count of rape and one count of grand larceny. So Prieto in addition to the two death sentences, was also given a life sentence for the rape as well as twenty six years total for the three other charges.

In this ruling, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the jury forms in the penalty phase of the 2nd trial were defective. So a new sentencing hearing will be happening, while I expect Prieto to get sentenced to death again, I hope that Fairfax County handles things the right way this time to lessen the chances of this getting overturned again on appeal. I do agree with the court overturning this death sentence, but the reason is a very legal technicality so I do not see what will be different at the next sentencing hearing that would prevent Prieto from getting death again. If he does not get death somehow than I do expect Arlington County will bring back up the charges in the Veronica 'Tina' Jefferson case and try to get him sentenced to death that way.

For any that are interested you can read the full court opinion here:
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1082464.pdf

I'm glad that the appeals process in Virginia so closely scrutinizes death penalty cases, but by not having their ducks in a row, the prosecution and/or judge in this case have managed to put the victim's families through hell.

Well Prieto was again sentenced to death today after his death sentence was tossed out by the Virginia Supreme Court on direct appeal. Barring another overturning of either his conviction or death sentence, his appeals should run out in anywhere from 5 to 7 years.

Being from Virginia, I have to say I'm proud of the way our capital punishment system works. Prieto's case is a great example. This man (I use that term loosely) was given every protection under the legal sun, and yes it put the victims' families through hell. But at the end of the day, his horrible crimes warranted the death penalty, and that's what he got.

He most likely will be executed in the next seven years because the laws in VA do not allow a death row inmate (unlike practically every other state) to file frivolous appeals and clog up the system. They also mandate that the time between sentencing and execution not exceed a certain number of years.

If Virginia chose not to carry out these trials, he would have sat around the card table playing poker at San Quentin, likely dying at age 88 (of old age).
California could learn a thing or two from Virginia when it comes to streamlining trials.