Showing posts with label lillo brancato. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lillo brancato. Show all posts

Monday, January 12, 2009

You Know the Difference Between a Lawyer and a Catfish?

The New York Times has published an article about Joseph Tacopina. Formerly a prosecutor from Brooklyn, he became known as the legal voice in the courtroom of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the ever-present voice of unconditional support for its officers. Recently, however, things have changed.

But a jagged crack has opened between Mr. Tacopina and the police union.

Mr. Tacopina recently defended Lillo Brancato Jr., the former actor who was charged in the killing of an off-duty officer, and the strain on the longstanding relationship showed at the end of a day of jury deliberations.

The president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, Patrick J. Lynch, himself not camera-shy, accused Mr. Tacopina of the high crime of smirking in the courtroom.

“To sit there and have a professional attorney laughing as if this was a joke in front of a dead man’s family is the most insulting thing that ever happened in front of a bench in this state,” Mr. Lynch told reporters outside the courtroom.

Although Tacopina denied that either he or his client "smirked," the mere suggestion of it indicates how the relationship between himself and the police has changed.

The NYT article says the strain was increased all the more with the acquittal of Lillo Brancato of the most serious charge against him: felony murder, in the death of Officer Daniel Enchautegui. Mr. Brancato was convicted of attempted burglary, and was sentenced Friday to 10 years in prison.

Does it mean that Joseph Tacopina has switched from high profile police cases to high profile celebrity cases? Could Lillo's defense be called that, high profile? The animosity on the part of the police is interesting. Do you think it's part of that old "Blue Fraternity?" They're the ones who think killing a cop is worse than killing anyone else, and defending a cop killer is almost as bad.

I hasten to add, nothing could be worse than what happened to Daniel Enchautegui. The pain and suffering of his family should not be lost in these discussions. Yet, I feel 10 years for attempted burglary is a bit heavy. And I feel personal attacks from the PBA spokesman against the defense attorney are inappropriate especially when that attorney has been a great champion of theirs.

What's your opinion? Could it boil down to the idea that accused cops are somehow better than other accused people? Defending dirty cops is OK, but defending dirty criminals and cop killers is not? What about Tacopina's having been a prosecutor first? What kind of transition do you suppose that was, from State's attorney to defending accused cops?

Please leave a comment.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Lillo Gets 10 Years

CNN reports on the sentencing of Lillo Brancato, the Soprano's actor who was convicted of burglary in connection with the break in which resulted in the death of an off-duty policeman.

In our previous discussions of this case, here and here, we went over the question of culpability of an "unknowing" accomplice in a murder case. I feel the benefit of the doubt should be given whenever possible, that only the trigger man should pay. Others feel differently.

Today perhaps we can discuss the merits of severe sentencing, which is what I think happened here. I was hoping he'd get out on time served, having already been in for three years. My idea is that if any hope of rehabilitation exists, it is inversely proportional to the severity of the sentence. In other words, the circumstances of Lillo's case, his addiction, crime, arrest and conviction followed by sitting in jail for three years might have combined to sufficiently get his attention and turn him around. Perhaps this could be determined through psychological testing. In such a case, serving another five or so years might do more harm than good.

Another aspect of this case is the cop-killer liability. I wonder if the fact that the victim was an off-duty police officer contributed to the judge's decision. Even though Lillo was not guilty of the murder, perhaps a message was sent nevertheless, cop-killers pay a heavier price than regular killers. What do you think?

Do you agree that his 10-year sentence is a heavy one? Do you think cop-killers should be punished more severely? Do you see any similarity between this situation and the O.J. one?

Please leave a comment.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Accomplice Liability in Felony Murder Cases

The New York Times published an article about the difficulty juries face in murder trials when the defendant did not do the killing personally. The Lillo Brancato case, which we've been following was cited along with another, the Lee Woods case.

In Lillo's trial the jury determined that he may not have known his accomplice was carrying a gun. In the Lee Woods case, another defendant was convicted of doing the fatal shooting from a car in which Woods was a passenger. Both cases involved the killing of police officers.

The Brooklyn case ended in a mistrial. The defendant, Lee Woods, 30, was charged with aggravated murder and other crimes for what prosecutors said was his part in the killing of Officer Russel Timoshenko during a traffic stop last year. Prosecutors said that Mr. Woods, who will be retried, had not fired a gun but was a willing partner of the men who did. On Monday, when the mistrial was declared because a juror fell ill, other jurors said they were still debating the murder charge.

What do you think about these cases? Is it right to punish an accomplice in a crime for a murder he did not commit? Personally, I've always had a problem with that I'm glad things may be changing a bit in New York.

I find it interesting that both cases involved the killing of policemen. Perhaps this marks a departure of sorts from the traditional severity with which cop-killers have been treated in the past. What do you think?

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Lillo Brancato Not Guilty of Murder

CNN reports that the Soprano's actor Lillo Brancato was acquitted of the murder of Daniel Enchautegui. In discussing this case before, the vast majority of commenters disagreed with me and felt that Brancato should be found guilty. I'm happy to report the jury agreed with me.

Brancato, 32, was also acquitted of two counts of burglary, but could face three to 15 years in prison on the attempted burglary charge. He has already served three years, according to his attorney, Joseph Tacopina.

Police officer Daniel Enchautegui, 28, was killed trying to break up a burglary attempt at his neighbor's house in the Bronx in December 2005.


Since he's served so much time already, I suppose chances are good that he'll be out soon. An admitted drug addict, Lillo will now have important choices to make in his life. I'm hoping that this incredible fork in the road, this getting out now rather than spending the next 20 years in jail, will motivate him to do the right thing. Rehabilitation surely doesn't come from the penal system, but for a person who wants to change, help is available.

What do you think? What are Lillo's chances? Do you think that a good scare like this can help a person turn their life around?


Please leave a comment.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Brancato Murder Trial Begins

CNN reports on the beginning of the Lillo Brancato trial for murder. As we discussed before, Lillo is accused of Second Degree Murder because he was present during the burglary when his partner Steven Armento shot and killed Officer Daniel Enchautegui.

Brancato's attorney, Joseph Tacopina, told the jury his client was an addict who "ruined his life" with drugs and was "clearly strung out" at the time of the slaying.

But he argued that the true culprit was Armento, who was convicted of first-degree murder on October 30 and has been sentenced to life in prison without parole.



According to the article, it could all hinge upon whether the jury believes Brancato knew Armento was armed. What do you think? Should that matter?

I'm thinking it was a dangerous and reckless errand the two of them were engaged in, but no one planned on murder. As tragic as this scene is, especially for the family of the brave officer who lost his life responding in the middle of the night to noises he'd heard, I can't see it as First Degree Murder, especially for Brancato.

What's your opinion? Is there any mitigation of culpability based upon their being addicts? Should addicts, driven by drug lust, be treated exactly the same as every one else?

Please feel free to leave a comment. Can we all agree that it's a terrible waste? Lillo Brancato had a shot at a prosperous acting career.


Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Sopranos' Actor Goes on Trial

CNN reports on the trial of Lillo Brancato Jr., who played a wannabe gangster in the hit HBO series the Sopranos. Lillo played Matt Bevilaque in five or six episodes but years before that he starred with Robert De Niro in A Bronx Tale.

Brancato's real-life troubles began not long after he befriended Steven Armento, a reputed low-level Genovese crime family associate banished for drug addiction, prosecutors say. Then his life went into a tailspin with a pair of drug-related arrests and the death of Enchautegui.

Brancato drove himself and Armento to the home of Enchautegui's next-door neighbor and the pair broke in to steal prescription drugs, prosecutors said. When they were confronted by Enchautegui, who was off duty, Armento shot the officer. Brancato and Armento were both wounded.



In statements to the press, the defense attorney has indicated he plans to show that his client didn't have a gun, didn't know anyone else did, and is only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

My thoughts are the he was guilty of a bit more than that, but certainly not murder. What's your opinion? And what's your opinion of his acting? I love these characters, but I often wonder if they can demonstrate the versatility of a Robert De Niro or a Dustin Hoffman. Sometimes I think they're just being themselves.