09/19/2007
Defense: Screen Names, Sexuality, Suicide at Michael Sandy Trial
Gerald J. Di Chiara, the defense lawyer for accused killer Anthony Fortunato, attempted to introduce evidence at the trial yesterday as "evidence of his state of mind to prove that [Fortunato] was capable of strange behavior," according to the New York Times.
Di Chiara hoped to introduce computer screen names as well as evidence of a suicide attempt by Fortunato to show that the plot to rob Michael Sandy (who, of course, was eventually killed in the botched attempt) "was part of a confused effort to experiment with homosexuality."
Judge Konviser-Levine, who allowed the screen names but said the suicide attempt evidence was not relevant, expressed doubt as to how Fortunato's being gay was a factor in the Sandy attack.
Said the judge: "I’m still curious as to the relevance of your client’s sexuality."
Said Di Chiara: "If he happens to be gay, I think it’s more likely that he’s not targeting gay people."
If the judge is smart she'll realize the defense is invalid, as many closeted people tend to target gay people specifically because it's a projection of the discomfort they feel with their own sexuality.
Di Chiara had introduced the gay bombshell at trial on Monday, outing Fortunato to a courtroom and, apparently, his own parents: "This man has been tortured by a secret that he has carried for a long time. His secret is coming out in this courtroom and his family is listening to it. The stakes in this case are too high for him to keep this a secret any longer."
Sexuality as Defense Puzzles Judge [nyt]
Recently
Michael Sandy Trial Shocker: Killer Says He Too is Gay [tr]
Posted 8:55 AM EST by Andy Towle in Crime, Michael Sandy, New York, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
B.S!! They're trying to dismiss this case as a hate crime. Hopefully the judge will see right through it!
Posted by: Shabaka | Sep 19, 2007 9:31:55 AM
If this is true, and he is actually gay; Mr. Fortunato becomes the poster child of how damaging society can be to our gay youth. There is not justification for his actions, but at the same time one can't ignore the influence of a repressive society.
Posted by: Rafael | Sep 19, 2007 9:33:59 AM
If being gay means you don't target gay people, there are about three lawmakers in the news that prove that theory wrong.
Posted by: Adam | Sep 19, 2007 9:43:05 AM
This is why hate crime laws are a bad idea. Instead of arguing the guilt they are arguing the guy's sexuality.
Is he guilty or not guilty? That's all that matters.
Posted by: P.W. | Sep 19, 2007 10:10:57 AM
The judge is correct that Fortunado's sexuality is not relevant to his defense in this case but he is DEAD WRONG in his belief that being gay makes one less likely to attack gay people.
That was a terribly uninformed statement that shows just how ignorant many straight people are about gay realities.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 19, 2007 10:46:08 AM
(s)Fortunato is accountable no matter what his sexual designation. Whether he were to arrive at a Kinsey 2 or 5 is irrelevant, and I agree with Rafael and P.W. 100%. However, this really does make (s)Fortunato a perfect opportunity for multiple gay rights groups to use as an example of why the hypocrisy of the closet and marginalization of any minority group is unacceptable. Fear is one of the most powerful of human emotions, yet if
(s)Fortunato had any emotional wherewithall, he'd throw himself under a bus after telling his lawyer to shut the fuck up and accept his accountability for the death of Michael Sandy.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Sep 19, 2007 11:03:31 AM
screenames, gay porn on his computer, blah blah blah, put him in jail for a looong time
Posted by: davey | Sep 19, 2007 11:23:22 AM
Zeke - I think you may have read it wrong. The judge never said that, the defense attorney (Di Chiara) did.
Posted by: gabriel | Sep 19, 2007 11:37:45 AM
Zeke,
the judge is not stating that fortunato being gay would make him less likely to target another gay person. fortunato's lawyer is.
P.W.,
your argument doesn't follow. the idea at this point is not to determine guilt. the defense can try to introduce whatever evidence he thinks might be mitigating or exculpatory. the fact that fortunato's sexuality is even an issue shows that hate-crimes laws are taken seriously.
Posted by: nic | Sep 19, 2007 11:49:50 AM
"If this is true, and he is actually gay; Mr. Fortunato becomes the poster child of how damaging society can be to our gay youth."
No if this is true, he'll be the poster child for how twisted and evil gays are. At least that's how the MSM will portray it.
Posted by: pablo | Sep 19, 2007 12:00:54 PM
Not in a case where the victim is also gay.
Posted by: Rafael | Sep 19, 2007 12:08:15 PM
What a crock, and, hopefully the jury will see right through it. And, if he is gay, he was a gay hooker, who robbed and killed someone, so, why wouldn't it still be a hate crime? Any laywers in here?
And, Adam and Zeke, you two are spot on with your comments!
Posted by: Sebastian | Sep 19, 2007 12:43:24 PM
I'm a lawyer.....and to be honest I have never liked *hate crimes* laws. Murder is murder....while there may be different reasons for committing it, it's still murder....and I have always felt murder is the ultimate *hate crime*. The sexual orientation or racial orientation, or the gender of the victim, while meaningful as to motive, dosen't make it any less or more of a murder. In my mind and the minds of many lawyers, no particular murder is more important than another, especially based on the above criteria.
The only time circumstances are considered should be in sentencing, and they should be based on the way the murder was committed not on who was murdered.
Posted by: Joshua | Sep 20, 2007 1:46:52 AM
Good comment Joshua...
I think the lawyer is trying to show this is not a hate crime and let's in fairness allow him. Maybe innocence in this case can't be proven so he is trying for a lesser punishment.
Posted by: SJ | Sep 23, 2007 9:06:19 AM
This young man does not belong in jail. If he is charged with robbery that is understandable, but definitely not murder. He never intended to murder anyone and he was not the phone to chase Michael Sandy onto the highway or attack him in any way.
Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 23, 2007 1:48:44 PM