http://www.vnews.com/news/state/region/11730131-95/conviction-overturned-in-08-killing
Conviction Overturned In ’08 Killing Vt. Court Rules Trial Judge Made Mistakes Throughout By Wilson Ring Associated Press Saturday, April 26, 2014 (Published in print: Saturday, April 26, 2014) Montpelier — The state Supreme Court on Friday overturned the murder conviction of a Chester, Vt., man who said he was acting in self-defense when he shot another man during a confrontation in a park in 2008. The court’s decision ordered a new trial for Kyle Bolaski for the shooting of Vincent Tamburello after Tamburello chased Bolaski while wielding a splitting maul, an axe-like tool used to split wood. In its decision, the court determined the judge had given improper instructions to the jury and excluded evidence of the victim’s mental health in the months before the shooting. “However the jury evaluated the evidence, it was clear that the victim was acting irrationally and out of control by chasing a person he had never met before while swinging a splitting maul, a very dangerous weapon,” said the decision, written by Justice John Dooley. Bolaski was convicted of the Chester park shooting in 2011 and was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. He’s incarcerated in Kentucky. Defender General Matthew Valerio, whose office represented Bolaski on appeal, said it was possible Bolaski would be brought back to Vermont and his office would begin discussions with prosecutors about whether to go forward with another trial. Windsor County State’s Attorney Michael Kainen did not return a call seeking comment on Friday. The Supreme Court decision said that Tamburello, a native of Boston, had been living in Springfield and had a number of increasingly hostile encounters with the locals. Bolaski and Tamburello were at the Chester ball field on Aug. 17, 2008, when Tamburello got out of his vehicle holding a stun gun and “sparking it,” the court’s decision said. An unarmed group that included Bolaski approached Tamburello’s car until Tamburello tossed the stun gun into the car and pulled out the splitting maul and chased Bolaski to Bolaski’s truck. Bolaski got a rifle from his truck and “under highly disputed circumstances” shot Tamburello twice, once in the leg and once in the buttocks, the court’s decision said. Tamburello bled to death from the second shot. Bolaski acknowledged shooting Tamburello but said it was in self-defense. A toxicology report found a number of legal and illegal drugs in Tamburello’s blood and urine. The prosecution argued against self-defense and suggested that the testimony of the witnesses whose accounts were more consistent with the defendant’s as to the victim’s last actions was biased and inconsistent. Share
This seems a good ruling. To me, this has always been a suspicious conviction, essentially seeming to deny VTers the basic right of self-defense.
ReplyDeleteIt is not self-defense to shoot someone running or crawling away from you...twice. Hopefully he gets re-convicted and spends the rest of his life in prison where he and the others involved in this murder belong.
DeleteHe put a gun in his vehicle just before he went to confront this man. He shot the man twice, how does that seem self defense?
ReplyDeleteI can't believe a jury found him guilty. With all the evidence, there should have been some "reasonable doubt".
ReplyDeleteHe shot him in the back. The guy was trying to get away from him. Self-defense???? The guy wasn't coming at him.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to modern day America, where wrong is right, down is up, back is front, additions are subtractions, deviance is the norm, debt is wealth, reckless spending is investing, dishonesty is honesty, and injustice is justice.
ReplyDeleteFolks, once you've been threatened by a lethal weapon, all the fair play rules are gone. Once you know you have to defend yourself there are no time-outs. Get real.
ReplyDeletegotta love the halfwit rednecks with their 9spoken in true deliverance accent) it was self defense. Prob also have to bait their deer to shoot em. True men...lol
ReplyDeleteClearly a good ruling! Glad to see our legal systems working properly.
ReplyDeleteWhen the "victim" here is allowed to run amuck, bad things are going to happen. Sad it ended this way, but for some family intervention, the "victim" should not have been left to his own designs.
ReplyDeleteYup, I baits my dears. But they doan chase me wid a splitting maul.
ReplyDeleteIn Massachusetts, a physician who was robbed of his wallet in a parking lot fatally shot the robber as he fled. The robber turned out to be medical student, home on vacation, who was simply out with his friends from the "hood". The physician was tried for homicide and found not quilty. In accepting the verdict, the judge commented that anyone who initiates a potentially lethal confrontation while committing a felony does not have a right to determine when a victim has lost his right to fire his weapon. The victim in the Bulaski case chased Bulaski to his truck and was still holding his splitting maul when shot. The judge, unnamed in the article, should not have accepted the guilty verdict. The case never should have gone to trial. If Bulaski had been a police officer, he would never have been accused of using unnecessary force, and would have recieved instead a commendation.
ReplyDeleteThis kid from Mass was up here raising hell, threatening people, doing drugs and god knows what else. Did he deserve the first shot? absolutely. did he deserve the second shot? no. Does Boloski deserve to be convicted of murder? No. Maybe a do over and this will turn out right.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see the Bolaski et al protective society is alive and well on this blog justifying using a gun to shoot someone twice while he is running or crawling away from you. Must be the others that never got charged with the murder even though they were in the middle of the killing.
ReplyDelete