Taxpayers forced to pay for neo-Nazi's daily makeover

[3mnkids]

http://current.com/items/91647317_taxpayers-forced-to-pay-for-neo-nazis-daily-makeover.htm

John Allen Ditullio is a walking billboard for the neo-Nazi movement: a large 6-inch swastika tattooed under his right ear, barbed wire inked down the right side of his face, and an extreme and very personal vulgarity scrawled on one side of his neck.

Jurors will never see any of it. A judge has ruled that the state must pay a cosmetologist up to $150 a day during Ditullio's trial on murder and attempted murder charges and apply makeup to cover up the black ink.

Judge Michael Andrews, acting on a request by Ditullio's lawyer, ruled that the tattoos are potentially offensive and could influence a jury's opinion in the state's death penalty case against the 23-year-old accused of donning a gas mask, breaking into a neighbor's home and stabbing two people, killing one of them

Outrageous!. This SOB chose to get these tattoos, some even after he was arrested, so eff him! I cant believe this. He breaks into a home, kills a 17 yr old boy, and he gets a makeover every morning at the expense of taxpayers so as not to prejudice the jury? and by prejudice I mean show them what a real piece of s**t he really is.

Just when I think the justice system can not get anymore ridiculous, it does.

[Newt]

Outrageous!. This SOB chose to get these tattoos, some even after he was arrested, so eff him! I cant believe this. He breaks into a home, kills a 17 yr old boy, and he gets a makeover every morning at the expense of taxpayers so as not to prejudice the jury? and by prejudice I mean show them what a real piece of s**t he really is.

Precisely.  Seems to me those tats are atrue expression of who he really is.  Why don't they just hire actors to stand in for them in court?  They clean them up, coach them and dress them: may as well just select a certain image out of an agent's book to represent them.

[InformationGeek]

That's crap!  I don't want my money to pay for that guy's frickin' makeover!!

[Rev. Powell]

http://current.com/items/91647317_taxpayers-forced-to-pay-for-neo-nazis-daily-makeover.htm

John Allen Ditullio is a walking billboard for the neo-Nazi movement: a large 6-inch swastika tattooed under his right ear, barbed wire inked down the right side of his face, and an extreme and very personal vulgarity scrawled on one side of his neck.

Jurors will never see any of it. A judge has ruled that the state must pay a cosmetologist up to $150 a day during Ditullio's trial on murder and attempted murder charges and apply makeup to cover up the black ink.

Judge Michael Andrews, acting on a request by Ditullio's lawyer, ruled that the tattoos are potentially offensive and could influence a jury's opinion in the state's death penalty case against the 23-year-old accused of donning a gas mask, breaking into a neighbor's home and stabbing two people, killing one of them

Outrageous!. This SOB chose to get these tattoos, some even after he was arrested, so eff him! I cant believe this. He breaks into a home, kills a 17 yr old boy, and he gets a makeover every morning at the expense of taxpayers so as not to prejudice the jury? and by prejudice I mean show them what a real piece of s**t he really is.

Just when I think the justice system can not get anymore ridiculous, it does.

Well, just to play devil's advocate, it does appear that the tattoos would prejudice the jury.  You only read the description of them and you are already assuming he's guilty.  A man can be a piece of s**t and not be guilty of the crime he's been charged with.

[3mnkids]

I get what you are saying Rev but anything can prejudice a jury. Just the simple fact that they are a defendant can do that. Some people have preconceived notions of people based only on their sex, their skin color, whether they are fat or skinny, ugly or pretty. It happens all the time.


If he and his lawyer are so concerned about the tats impact on the jury they should pay for the makeup, not the taxpayers.

I dont assume he his guilty based on his tats. I dont know the specifics of the case to say one way or another. His tats dont make me assume he is guilty, I assume he is an idiot.   

[Rev. Powell]

I get what you are saying Rev but anything can prejudice a jury. Just the simple fact that they are a defendant can do that. Some people have preconceived notions of people based only on their sex, their skin color, whether they are fat or skinny, ugly or pretty. It happens all the time.


If he and his lawyer are so concerned about the tats impact on the jury they should pay for the makeup, not the taxpayers.

I dont assume he his guilty based on his tats. I dont know the specifics of the case to say one way or another. His tats dont make me assume he is guilty, I assume he is an idiot.   

Not picking on you, but you did say "He breaks into a home, kills a 17 yr old boy, and he gets a makeover every morning at the expense of taxpayers so as not to prejudice the jury?"   Now, you were probably just being sloppy, but that sounds like you were assuming he was guilty of the crime he was charged with, probably because you knew that he was a neo-Nazi. 

I assume the state is paying for it because he's indigent and has a court appointed lawyer.  If he has the resources to pay for it, I agree that he should pay for it himself.  I don't think his court appointed public defender should have to pay for it out of his own pocket, though! 

[Criswell]

Thats what i was going to say. The people should not have to pay for that.

[Andrew]

One thing missing from the linked story, and I didn't notice it mentioned here, is that he got the tattoos that are being covered up after his arrest in 2006.  In other words, he got them while awaiting trial.  I could not find if he got them while in jail awaiting trial (which is what I would assume), as that would be a violation of the rules of any prison.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9IeuMzlnY-0UHAHfh61jDyS9ZqAD9CFRLI00

[Rev. Powell]

One thing missing from the linked story, and I didn't notice it mentioned here, is that he got the tattoos that are being covered up after his arrest in 2006.  In other words, he got them while awaiting trial.  I could not find if he got them while in jail awaiting trial (which is what I would assume), as that would be a violation of the rules of any prison.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9IeuMzlnY-0UHAHfh61jDyS9ZqAD9CFRLI00

That makes it even more complicated.  Prison tattoos could be coerced, or they could be gotten in self-defense (to affiliate oneself with a gang, for protection).   

[3mnkids]

I get what you are saying Rev but anything can prejudice a jury. Just the simple fact that they are a defendant can do that. Some people have preconceived notions of people based only on their sex, their skin color, whether they are fat or skinny, ugly or pretty. It happens all the time.


If he and his lawyer are so concerned about the tats impact on the jury they should pay for the makeup, not the taxpayers.

I dont assume he his guilty based on his tats. I dont know the specifics of the case to say one way or another. His tats dont make me assume he is guilty, I assume he is an idiot.  

Not picking on you, but you did say "He breaks into a home, kills a 17 yr old boy, and he gets a makeover every morning at the expense of taxpayers so as not to prejudice the jury?"   Now, you were probably just being sloppy, but that sounds like you were assuming he was guilty of the crime he was charged with, probably because you knew that he was a neo-Nazi.  

I assume the state is paying for it because he's indigent and has a court appointed lawyer.  If he has the resources to pay for it, I agree that he should pay for it himself.  I don't think his court appointed public defender should have to pay for it out of his own pocket, though!  

I should have put he is accused of breaking into a home and killing a 17 yr old boy.     I dont think his lawyer should pay for it, he should.

ETA~ I also wanted to add that authorities say this is a hate crime. wont that come up? The fact that he was staying at a nazi compound? That could be just as prejudicial as the tats. I mean, if they are going to cover up his tats why not conceal everything that puts him in a bad light?

[Rev. Powell]

I get what you are saying Rev but anything can prejudice a jury. Just the simple fact that they are a defendant can do that. Some people have preconceived notions of people based only on their sex, their skin color, whether they are fat or skinny, ugly or pretty. It happens all the time.


If he and his lawyer are so concerned about the tats impact on the jury they should pay for the makeup, not the taxpayers.

I dont assume he his guilty based on his tats. I dont know the specifics of the case to say one way or another. His tats dont make me assume he is guilty, I assume he is an idiot.  

Not picking on you, but you did say "He breaks into a home, kills a 17 yr old boy, and he gets a makeover every morning at the expense of taxpayers so as not to prejudice the jury?"   Now, you were probably just being sloppy, but that sounds like you were assuming he was guilty of the crime he was charged with, probably because you knew that he was a neo-Nazi.  

I assume the state is paying for it because he's indigent and has a court appointed lawyer.  If he has the resources to pay for it, I agree that he should pay for it himself.  I don't think his court appointed public defender should have to pay for it out of his own pocket, though!  

I should have put he is accused of breaking into a home and killing a 17 yr old boy.     I dont think his lawyer should pay for it, he should.

ETA~ I also wanted to add that authorities say this is a hate crime. wont that come up? The fact that he was staying at a nazi compound? That could be just as prejudicial as the tats. I mean, if they are going to cover up his tats why not conceal everything that puts him in a bad light?

Man, I just don't believe in the notion of "hate crime."  I don't think someone should get a harsher sentence because he killed someone out of racial hatred then if he did it to steal his wallet or because he didn't like the way the guy looked at him.  But that's off topic.

I don't know what the state law is.  But, in general, 3mnkids, evidence law seeks to do exactly what you suggest: it tries to "conceal everything that puts him in a bad light" that's not related to the crime.  Otherwise prosecutors would bring out all sorts of bad facts about the accused, such as that he hates minorities or cheats on his wife or his taxes, that are completely unrelated to the crime at hand, just to make the jury think he's a bad person and want to convict him.

One way you can sometimes get around the ban on such evidence, however, is to prove that it's part of the defendant's motive for the crime.  So the prosecution may be able to get some of his racial biases in after all.  It's just that the judge decided in this case that the tattoos were too prejudicial; he made a determination that there was an unacceptable risk that the jury might convict on the basis of the tattoos alone. 

[3mnkids]

I get what you are saying Rev but anything can prejudice a jury. Just the simple fact that they are a defendant can do that. Some people have preconceived notions of people based only on their sex, their skin color, whether they are fat or skinny, ugly or pretty. It happens all the time.


If he and his lawyer are so concerned about the tats impact on the jury they should pay for the makeup, not the taxpayers.

I dont assume he his guilty based on his tats. I dont know the specifics of the case to say one way or another. His tats dont make me assume he is guilty, I assume he is an idiot.  

Not picking on you, but you did say "He breaks into a home, kills a 17 yr old boy, and he gets a makeover every morning at the expense of taxpayers so as not to prejudice the jury?"   Now, you were probably just being sloppy, but that sounds like you were assuming he was guilty of the crime he was charged with, probably because you knew that he was a neo-Nazi.  

I assume the state is paying for it because he's indigent and has a court appointed lawyer.  If he has the resources to pay for it, I agree that he should pay for it himself.  I don't think his court appointed public defender should have to pay for it out of his own pocket, though!  

I should have put he is accused of breaking into a home and killing a 17 yr old boy.     I dont think his lawyer should pay for it, he should.

ETA~ I also wanted to add that authorities say this is a hate crime. wont that come up? The fact that he was staying at a nazi compound? That could be just as prejudicial as the tats. I mean, if they are going to cover up his tats why not conceal everything that puts him in a bad light?

Man, I just don't believe in the notion of "hate crime."  I don't think someone should get a harsher sentence because he killed someone out of racial hatred then if he did it to steal his wallet or because he didn't like the way the guy looked at him.  But that's off topic.

I don't know what the state law is.  But, in general, 3mnkids, evidence law seeks to do exactly what you suggest: it tries to "conceal everything that puts him in a bad light" that's not related to the crime.  Otherwise prosecutors would bring out all sorts of bad facts about the accused, such as that he hates minorities or cheats on his wife or his taxes, that are completely unrelated to the crime at hand, just to make the jury think he's a bad person and want to convict him.

One way you can sometimes get around the ban on such evidence, however, is to prove that it's part of the defendant's motive for the crime.  So the prosecution may be able to get some of his racial biases in after all.  It's just that the judge decided in this case that the tattoos were too prejudicial; he made a determination that there was an unacceptable risk that the jury might convict on the basis of the tattoos alone. 

gotcha. It still rubs me the wrong way though     not so much the fact that they are covering them up but that taxpayers will pay for it and at 150 a pop? go to walgreens, buy some foundation for 10 bucks, and your good. seriously, how close is the jury going to get to him? a little foundation goes a long way.

[Rev. Powell]

I get what you are saying Rev but anything can prejudice a jury. Just the simple fact that they are a defendant can do that. Some people have preconceived notions of people based only on their sex, their skin color, whether they are fat or skinny, ugly or pretty. It happens all the time.


If he and his lawyer are so concerned about the tats impact on the jury they should pay for the makeup, not the taxpayers.

I dont assume he his guilty based on his tats. I dont know the specifics of the case to say one way or another. His tats dont make me assume he is guilty, I assume he is an idiot.  

Not picking on you, but you did say "He breaks into a home, kills a 17 yr old boy, and he gets a makeover every morning at the expense of taxpayers so as not to prejudice the jury?"   Now, you were probably just being sloppy, but that sounds like you were assuming he was guilty of the crime he was charged with, probably because you knew that he was a neo-Nazi.  

I assume the state is paying for it because he's indigent and has a court appointed lawyer.  If he has the resources to pay for it, I agree that he should pay for it himself.  I don't think his court appointed public defender should have to pay for it out of his own pocket, though!  

I should have put he is accused of breaking into a home and killing a 17 yr old boy.     I dont think his lawyer should pay for it, he should.

ETA~ I also wanted to add that authorities say this is a hate crime. wont that come up? The fact that he was staying at a nazi compound? That could be just as prejudicial as the tats. I mean, if they are going to cover up his tats why not conceal everything that puts him in a bad light?

Man, I just don't believe in the notion of "hate crime."  I don't think someone should get a harsher sentence because he killed someone out of racial hatred then if he did it to steal his wallet or because he didn't like the way the guy looked at him.  But that's off topic.

I don't know what the state law is.  But, in general, 3mnkids, evidence law seeks to do exactly what you suggest: it tries to "conceal everything that puts him in a bad light" that's not related to the crime.  Otherwise prosecutors would bring out all sorts of bad facts about the accused, such as that he hates minorities or cheats on his wife or his taxes, that are completely unrelated to the crime at hand, just to make the jury think he's a bad person and want to convict him.

One way you can sometimes get around the ban on such evidence, however, is to prove that it's part of the defendant's motive for the crime.  So the prosecution may be able to get some of his racial biases in after all.  It's just that the judge decided in this case that the tattoos were too prejudicial; he made a determination that there was an unacceptable risk that the jury might convict on the basis of the tattoos alone. 

gotcha. It still rubs me the wrong way though     not so much the fact that they are covering them up but that taxpayers will pay for it and at 150 a pop? go to walgreens, buy some foundation for 10 bucks, and your good. seriously, how close is the jury going to get to him? a little foundation goes a long way.

I understand why it's a bitter pill for the public to swallow.  But in this country we pay for the defense of all indigent criminals, and in most places that includes all necessary trial expenses, not just a public defender's salary.  The alternative to not paying for their defense is frankly not very appealing to me.

Now, I won't challenge your remark that they could have achieved the same effect much more cheaply.  I'm not an expert on makeup.  Circus will have to chime in on that score.