Hey, there! Log in / Register

Court rules Nantucket no place for a murder trial

The Supreme Judicial Court today ordered a new trial for Thomas E. Toolan III, a New Yorker convicted on Nantucket in 2007 of stabbing to death a longtime Nantucket visitor who had broken off their relationship.

The state's highest court ruled Nantucket was just too small a place to allow a fair trial for Toolan and ordered a new trial somewhere off island. It noted that the 25% of the initial jury pool had some connection to his alleged victim, Elizabeth Lochtefeld, 44, who had grown up vacationing with her family and that the island's first murder in more than two decades attracted considerable local and national press attention.

The extensive links among the victim's family, members of the over-all jury venire, and trial witnesses demonstrate the network of social relations connecting this community, of which the victim was a valued member, and to which the defendant was an outsider.

According to the court, Lochtefeld ended things with Toolan because of his excessive drinking. But after being turned away at LaGuardia from one flight to Nantucket because he was carrying a knife, Toolan slept overnight at the airport, boarded a plane the next morning, flew to Nantucket, rented a car, bought two knives, then drove to Lochtefeld's rental cottage and stabbed her to death, prosecutors charged.

Free tagging: 


Ad:


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

Comments

. . . feel an earthquake?

up
Voting closed 0

And, I would imagine, were promptly disqualified from service. So what? Sucks we're going to foot the bill to try this POS again, and that there's now a chance he could be walking the streets in no time.
Is it our fault that this rich defendant's (presumably private) lawyer neglected to request a change of venue initially? Besides, if Casey Anthony proved anything, she proved that you can still get off even if the media has already decided you're guilty

up
Voting closed 0

If you had, you would have seen this:

Prior to trial, in September, 2006, the defendant filed a motion for change of venue based on extensive pretrial publicity surrounding his case. He renewed the motion in court on the first day of jury empanelment. At the conclusion of jury empanelment, the judge denied the defendant's motion.
up
Voting closed 0

Whoops. Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, as they say.

up
Voting closed 0

Which makes this appeal, and the court's ruling for a new trial, all the more idiotic.

This also serves as another reason why the appeals process needs to be overhauled.

up
Voting closed 0

> neglected to request a change of venue

If you don't make the motion on a timely basis (and have it denied), you can't raise this as one of the grounds for appeal,

That said, this strikes me as yet another goofy recent SJC opinion.

up
Voting closed 0

...does not require people living under a rock. If a juror can be impartial, they should be seated. Even if they were somehow aware of the crime.

up
Voting closed 0

... of a jury of one's peers on its head. What a misguided bunch of judges.

up
Voting closed 0