Hey, there! Log in / Register

New trial ordered for man convicted of 1995 stabbing death that started a violent war in city's Cape Verdean community

The Massachusetts Appeals Court today overturned Nardo Lopes's 2008 conviction for a murder in 1995 that led to a violent war that spanned parts of two decades.

The appeals court ruled that Lopes needs a new trial for manslaughter because members of his family were excluded from the courtroom during juror selection in 2008 - in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

The Suffolk County District Attorney's office said it would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest.

A lower-court judge had ruled the exclusion in a courtroom not large enough to hold both a large pool of prospective witnesses and observers was not that big of a deal. But both the US Supreme Court and the state Supreme Judicial Court have since ruled otherwise.

After 12 years on the lam, authorities found Lopes and put him on trial for the 1995 stabbing death of Bobby Mendes - whose mother Isaura became a prominent peace and anti-crime activist in the community.

Mendes and Lopes were cousins.

In its ruling, the justices noted that while Lopes family members were finally allowed into the courtroom, they missed two-thirds of the interviews of prospective jurors - and that the physical constraints of the courtroom's size were simply not reason enough to deprive them of their Sixth Amendment rights.

If it was not clear at the time of trial, the United States Supreme Court has made clear subsequently that the public trial right is sufficiently important that congestion alone cannot warrant closure of a court room unless the judge has examined reasonable alternatives that may be available, including dividing the jury venire in order to reduce congestion or moving to a larger court room if one is available.

Neighborhoods: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

I was on that jury and voted to convict. Everything I read after the fact confirms that it was the right call and it was interesting that we convicted him without knowing anything about his backstory. The defense atty. did a very good job of presenting Nardo as some poor scared kid, afraid of the bigger, older guy that he stabbed. In fact, he was a 'bad actor' looking for trouble and that led to the stabbing.

up
Voting closed 0

future bullet holes?

up
Voting closed 0

As a person who works against violence in our communities; I'm praying to GOD this ruling doesn't start a new rounds of violence. To the Cape Verdians brothers and sisters refrain from killer each other especially family members. I could never understand that insanity as i don't understand any murder.

up
Voting closed 0

it's ABSURD. The family members are not allowed to question prospective jurors, nor do they have any say in approval or rejection of said jurors. So the fact they weren't allowed to view the selection process is of absolutely NO relevance to the outcome of the trial.

Just another example of a defense attorney abusing the appeals process because they didn't like the verdict, even though they have NO legitimate evidence to base that appeal on.

Excellent example of the types of things in our legal system that need to be reformed.

up
Voting closed 0

The right to a public trial needs to be "reformed"?

up
Voting closed 0

Who cares? Put him back on the streets - it's not like he's a threat to the rest of us. The cost of another trial isn't worth the trouble. Maybe he'll get a jury-free payback and save the rest of us the aggro.

up
Voting closed 0