The attorneys for Scott Dyleski are trying the spaghetti plan to get their client out of a life sentence without parole. By spaghetti plan I mean they’re throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.
Scott Dyleski was the 16-year-old who was tried as an adult, convicted, and sentenced to life without parole in the murder of Pam Vitale. Vitale was the wife of famous criminal defense attorney Daniel Horowitz.
One of the focuses on the trial was that some people felt trying Dyleski as an adult was inhumane and that sentencing him to life without parole was worse. I’m not one of those people. He brutally bludgeoned Pam Vitale and craved a symbol in her back. If that doesn’t warrant being tried as an adult nothing does.
Anyway on to the matter at hand, his appeal.
Scott Dyleski’s sentence of life without the possibility of parole in the October 2005 bludgeoning death of Lafayette resident Pamela Vitale amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment because he was only 16 at the time, his lawyer argued in a court appeal this week.
The 183-page brief, filed Wednesday in state appeals court, also argues that there was not enough evidence during the trial of burglary — the special circumstance that allowed Judge Barbara Zuniga to sentence Dyleski to life without parole.
The judge also should have allowed a change of court venue because of the local notoriety; held a hearing on the reliability of DNA testing that linked Dyleski to the murder; and should have thrown out evidence from a home search that attorney Philip Brooks claims was based on a “recklessly inaccurate” search warrant affidavit, the brief argues.
Is there anything else? Can we get you a coffee or something? Did you not care for the color of the bailiff’s uniform? Were the courtroom chairs too stiff for you?
If Dyleski was 21 when he killed Pam Vitale this wouldn’t even be an issue but some people just have to do things “for the children”. Even if those children are cold-blooded and callous killers.