Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Va. judge declines to step down in serial killer Prieto's resentencing

The resentencing of serial killer Alfredo R. Prieto in Fairfax County can proceed now that a Fairfax judge has rejected a call to recuse himself after he showed emotion in first sentencing Prieto to death in 2008.

Prieto was convicted in 2008 of the double murder of Rachael A. Raver and Warren H. Fulton III, both 22, outside Reston in 1988. The Fairfax jury gave Prieto death, and in May 2008, Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Randy I. Bellows imposed that sentence. (He could have reduced it.)

Prieto's lawyers felt Bellows went over the line in comments explaining why he was imposing capital punishment, and that he couldn't be open-minded and unbiased now that the case is back for resentencing. (The verdict form given to the jury wasn't proper, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled, and didn't give them all the available options. The guilty verdicts stood, but a new sentencing hearing must be held.)

Looking down at the victims' parents, who had endured two long trials -- the first was a mistrial -- Bellows said to Prieto:

You stole their children from them and you did so in a matter so unspeakable and horrific that even today, two decades later, it remains and open and shattering wound.

Bellows, in a 35-page letter opinion with its own table of contents, ruled that he was well within his duties to explain why he was choosing death for Prieto and he did not apologize for a number of strong comments to the man who'd been convicted of his second and third murders, and his second rape.

Authorities believe Prieto shot Fulton while he was on his knees, then shot and raped Raver. He also is strongly linked to two other murders.

"Judges are not required to shed their humanity when they don their robes," Bellows wrote. "What a judge may not do is to be swayed or driven by emotion in his decisions. Here, there is no support for the assertion that this Court was 'swayed' by emotion."

Now Bellows must decide how to handle the resentencing, a prospect that daunts all the people involved in the case. Prieto's defense and mitigation evidence both revolved around his complex claim of mental retardation. But the jury in Prieto's last trial also heard the details of Prieto's gruesome crimes, which is certainly crucial to anyone imposing a criminal sentence.

Will live witnesses be brought back for a third time? Will there be extensive reading of the last trial's transcripts? Will the victims' families have to sit through this a third time? All are questions Bellows, Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Raymond F. Morrogh and defense attorneys Peter D. Greenspun and Jonathan Shapiro must resolve by September.

In their recusal motion, Greenspun and Shapiro warned the judge that if he didn't recuse, it could become grounds for appeal. And possibly a reversal. And then a fourth death penalty trial.

Let's not think about that.

-- Tom Jackman

By Tom Jackman  |  March 12, 2010; 8:14 AM ET
Categories:  Death Penalty , Facebook , Fairfax , From the Courthouse , Tom Jackman , Updates  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Va. police shoot, kill rampaging bull
Next: Loudoun toothbrush thefts continue

Comments

Being a judged by someone who feels the pain of the family who lost a loved one, and the pain of a murder victim, and the pain of a rape victim, doesn't obviate the fact that the judged party deserves to die.

Posted by: GeckoHiker | March 12, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Has there ever been a previous case where a mentally retarded person murdered and raped several people? If not, I don't see how that defense is ever going to work. From his quotes, I don't really see emotion getting in the way of Bellow's ruling. He's just being honest about an extreme case.

Posted by: steampunk | March 12, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

This is a nonissue and the Post would do better to put the motion into context. Defense counsel has a duty to bring motions when they think there is any probability of success even when the motion will likely fail. In this case, if the Post had taken the time to consult almost any objective attorney, they would have informed the reporter that such motions are common and given the facts of this case the motions are almost certainly denied. At sentencing, the jurors have returned a verdict and could not be prejudiced, and the judge had every right to then speak out, on the record, and state his views. Indeed, it is better for everyone, including the judge, to allow him to express himself in an appropriate and professional manner. Frankly, I don't think my words would have been as kind as those used by the judge.

Posted by: MdLaw | March 12, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

A compassionate judge. Someone who feels the sorrow and pain of others . . . The nerve of him!

Posted by: osmith98 | March 12, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company