|
|
« Update: R.I.'s population loss worst in nation | Today | Weight restriction being added to Ten Mile River Bridges » December 27, 2007Lawyer: Drop murder charge in Barrington boating deathA lawyer this morning argued that the indictment charging Ryan Greenberg with second-degree murder should be dismissed because the Barrington teenager was indicted after the legislature had repealed a law treating 17-year-olds as adults for criminal purposes. But state prosecutors disagreed, saying the alleged crime occurred and the criminal complaint was issued during the 4 ½-month period when all 17-year-olds were sent to adult court rather than Family Court. The debate is part of a larger argument about whether the state has violated the rights of the 500 “gap kids” arrested during that period. Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Procaccini said he will try to issue a decision by mid-January that will apply to “gap kids” throughout the state. Greenberg, the state’s most high-profile “gap kid,” had been charged with one felony count of operating a boat to endanger, death resulting, but earlier this month a grand jury indicted him on a charge of second-degree murder in connection with the July 17 boating death of his Barrington High School classmate Patrick Murphy. Greenberg was not in court when his lawyer, William C. Dimitri, argued that Greenberg should be transferred to Family Court. Dimitri noted that while the legislature enacted the law treating 17-year-olds as adults on July 1 and repealed it on Nov. 7, Greenberg was not indicted until Dec. 3. So, Dimitri said in his motion, “there was nothing pending against this defendant in a court of competent jurisdiction at the time of the legislature’s repeal.” But Special Assistant Attorney General Christian F. Capizzo said the legislature chose not to make the repeal retroactive, and Superior Court has proper jurisdiction over Greenberg. “The state proceeded under the law as it existed at that time,” he said. Posted by Brandie Jefferson CommentsDeb | December 27, 2007 1:20 PM link Greenberg should be tried in Family Court unless he intended to murder the victim. Let's not throw away this teenager's life just so the state can use him as an example. Charlie | December 27, 2007 4:01 PM link At 17 years of age he was absolutly aware of his actions and not naive or ignorant of the laws. he acted with wanton disregard for others safty that ultimatly took the life of another young man. Too long these laws have protected young men and women that know better and disregard the laws thinking that they will get off. This wasn't shop lifting or auto stealing. A young mans life was lost due to the calous actions of this man. Let him pay his debt. DG | December 27, 2007 4:39 PM link I believe that he should be charged as an adult, as a person's life was lost. Maybe the people in "Barrington" will wise up and not think because they have "money, power & influence" that they be above the law. Would this attorny be defending him if he was a Black or Hispanic youth ? The answer is NO. Edward M Lannon | December 27, 2007 5:36 PM link to ed lannon - putting the current issue aside....i can tell you from personal knowledge that bill dimitri is one of the most honorable people you could ever meet. he would represent anyone (and does} to the best of his ability regardless of color, religion, nationality,etc as well as ability to pay in soem cases. ask any judge or attorney. johnpaycheck | December 27, 2007 9:11 PM link I think he should be tried as an adult because the law was written for such cases as this. He did know right from wrong and was too young to purchase alcohol also. And Barrington is a dry town. Lou | December 28, 2007 5:30 AM link None of this was meant to happen. Patrick was one of Ryan's closest friends and would never in his life intend to hurt him or anyone else. He should go to family court because he has a whole life ahead of him and there isnt a day that goes by that he doesnt think about Patrick and Patrick's family. Show both of these kids some sympathy, it was an accident and alcohol was not a factor because Ryan was never drunk that day at all. anonymous | December 30, 2007 12:11 AM link Anonymous, if Ryan was not drunk, why did he refuse to take a sobriety test? That is certainly an admission that he was under the influence of alcohol, and alcohol was found in his possession. joe | December 31, 2007 8:35 AM link Post a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
|
ADVERTISING |
|
|
|
|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006
At 17 he is not an adult and should go to family court.