On March 24th, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by David Chalue, who challenged his 2014 Berkshire County convictions for three counts each of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and witness intimidation.
Mr. Chalue, along with Adam Hall and Caius Veiovis, was convicted of three counts each of First Degree Murder, Kidnapping and Intimidation Of A Witness in the kidnapping and murders of David Glasser, Edward Frampton and Robert Chadwell, each of Pittsfield. In 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found there were no grounds to overturn Chalue’s convictions. The Supreme Judicial Court had earlier denied the appeals of Hall and Veiovis. All three are serving sentences of Life Without The Possibility Of Parole.
In addition to dismissing Chalue’s petition, the District Court also declined to issue a Certificate Of Appealability, blocking any further federal appeal of his claims.
Berkshire District Attorney Timothy Shugrue praised the decision, noting that “these three defendants each received a fair trial and were properly sentenced for crimes that are assuredly among the worst ever committed in Berkshire County.”
District Attorney Shugrue went on to thank Attorney General Andrea Campbell, whose Office defended the convictions with the assistance of former Berkshire District Attorney David Capeless and Assistant District Attorney Joseph Pieropan, both acting as Special Assistant Attorneys General. Shugrue added, “A great team of investigators mounted the single largest investigation in the history of Berkshire County that enabled District Attorney Capeless and his team of prosecutors to present the damning evidence that convinced three juries to return the proper verdicts. An equal effort over the past ten-plus years has been expended to maintain those verdicts, and all involved should have the grateful thanks of Berkshire County’s citizens.”
Mr. Chalue filed a request for habeas relief on February 6, 2023. In it Chalue raised three grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) the trial judge gave an erroneous instruction to a lone juror and then to the rest of the jurors concerning the reaching of a unanimous verdict; (2) the trial judge repeatedly allowed the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial bad-act evidence; and (3) the prosecutor made several misstatements of evidence,inferences, and emotional appeals in his opening statement and summation.
The first challenge involved a claim that the judge gave erroneous instructions to a juror. During the trial, the jury claimed to have reached a guilty verdict. The Defendant asked the judge to pole the jury at which time one juror claimed ‘no’ indicating that the jury conclusion was not unanimous. Following the juror’s ‘no’ statement, the judge gave directions to the individual juror, asking them (singular) to return to deliberation and try their best to keep an open mind in an effort to come to a unanimous decision. The United States District Court found that, while this instruction was erroneous, there was not proof that the instructions altered the final guilty verdict. This decision was based on the fact the jury continued to deliberate for a lengthy period following the judge’s erroneous instruction to the lone juror.
The second challenge claimed that the trial judge wrongfully admitted harmful evidence that was unrelated to the case and ultimately swayed the jury’s guilty verdict. The Untied States District Court found this challenge to be unfounded. While a photo of a weapon that was not used in the murder was admitted, the Court found that said photo had no effect on the outcome of the trial.
The third challenge was that the prosecutor made several misstatements of evidence, inferences, and emotional appeals in his opening statement and summation. The Court also found this challenge to be unfounded.