In 2006 Scott Dyleski was convicted in the murder of Pam Vitale, wife of high-profile California lawyer Daniel Horowitz. Dyleski was 16 at the time that he committed the brutal murder of Ms. Vitale. Dyleski was sentenced to life without parole.
I guess they forgot that whole DNA evidence thing not to mention that Dyleski basically signed his work by carving a symbol into Ms. Vitale’s back that he also used to signed his ‘artwork’. Let us also not forget that there was reason to believe that Dyleski’s mother may have tried to destroy evidence as well.
It seems that the hippy commune that Dyleski was raised in finally found an attorney that bought into its conspiracy theories of Dyleski being framed.
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the appeal of Scott Dyleski’s life without parole sentence.
Dyleski was convicted of brutally killing Pam Vitale, the wife of attorney Daniel Horowitz. Dyleski was 16 at the time of the murder and was charged as an adult and was sentenced to life without parole.
The kid criminal crowd is once again using Dyleski as one of their poster children as why minors should not be tried as adults. Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, has proposed a state bill that if passed would see juveniles convicted of murder and sentenced to life would be eligible for parole in 25 years. That would allow them plenty of time to go out and kill again.
Life should mean life and death should mean death. No more of these bullcrap loopholes.
Yesterday the California court of appeals upheld the conviction of Scott Dyleski. As you may recall Dyleski was convicted of killing Pam Vitale, wife of famed attorney Daniel Horowitz. In 2005 at the age of 16 Dyleski bludgeoned and stabbed Pam Viatle to death and carved a symbol into her back. He was tried as an adult and sentenced to life without parole. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth (not from me) because a 16-year-old was sentenced to LWOP.
His defense tried appealing the conviction based mostly on the contention that sentencing Dyleski to LWOP was cruel and unusual punishment. The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco disagreed…
“Youthful immaturity does not begin to explain a crime of such brutality,” wrote Justice Sandra Margulies. “Despite defendant’s age, we cannot say that a sentence of LWOP (life without parole) is disproportionate under either the United States or California proscriptions against cruel and unusual punishment, given the nature of the crime and the lack of significant mitigating factors.”
Let’s not forget that what Dyleski did to Pam Vitale was more than cruel and unusual and she was given a death sentence when she committed no crime.
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.
Citing his unstable childhood, the attorney for convicted murderer Scott Dyleski has asked a judge to consider handing down the lightest possible sentence for killing his neighbor, Pamela Vitale.
Dyleski deserves a sentence of 25 years to life in prison, which would give him the opportunity for parole, deputy public defender Ellen Leonida wrote in her sentencing memo to Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga.
“All he is asking for is an opportunity to demonstrate — many, many years from now — that he can change,” Leonida wrote.
He showed no leniency on Pam Vitale so the state of California should not show him any.
MARTINEZ – Scott Dyleski put a hand over his eyes, leaned over and wept Monday afternoon as he heard a jury’s verdict finding him guilty of first-degree murder and a special circumstance that will send him to prison for the rest of his life.
The jury deliberated about 18 hours before deciding Dyleski, 17, murdered 52-year-old Pamela Vitale on Oct. 15, 2005.
With the conviction on the special-circumstance count of murder in the commission of a burglary, Dyleski will be sentenced to state prison without possibility of parole. He was 16 when he killed Vitale.
The prosecutor said at trial Dyleski killed Vitale in connection with a scheme to purchase marijuana-growing equipment with stolen credit cards.
Prosecutor Harold Jewett argued that Dyleski may have killed Vitale mistakenly believing that she was another neighbor. He was angry at the other neighbor for thwarting his plan to purchase the equipment and for running over his dog a month earlier.
However, jurors did not believe that theory, said 55-year-old Concord resident Peter DeCristofaro, the single juror willing to speak with reporters.
“That didn’t even come up,” he said. “We didn’t buy that.”
He said all but one juror was certain from the first day of deliberations about guilt, but it took three days to decide that it was premeditated murder.
“As far as guilt, we got that nailed down pretty quick,” he said.
The jury in the trial of Scott Dyleski have been deliberating and on Friday had requested the following items…
E-mail correspondence between Dyleski and his friend who is accused of taking part in a marijuana growing scheme
The emergency contact list of the Hunsaker Canyon Road residents
Aerial photos of the Hunsaker Canyon neighborhood, where Vitale lived
Photo of mansion Daniel Horowitz and Vitale were building at the time of her death
Photos of the content of Dyleski’s red backpack. The items in the backpack were eventually turned over to police by Dyleksi’s mother.
Hernandez said the jury started deliberations ten minutes ahead of schedule on Friday. Hernandez said by midday, jurors requested even more items submitted into evidence. They included a photo of Scott Dyleski after his arrest, as well as photos from his room. They also asked to see the tape lift of shoe print and a photo of shoe print on a plastic lid.
As soon as I hear anything about a verdict I will let you know.
Scott Dyleski killed Pamela Vitale mistakenly thinking she was another neighbor who had accidentally killed his dog and foiled his plan to buy marijuana-growing equipment, a prosecutor said Tuesday in closing arguments at Dyleski’s trial.
“It doesn’t make sense any other way,” Harold Jewett said.
In her closing, Dyleski’s defense attorney referred to her client a half dozen times as “a 17-year-old boy” and a kind teenager, and said somebody else killed Pamela Vitale.
Jewett portrayed Dyleski as dismal and depressed, blaming the defendant, but also his parents and teachers for allowing a killer to brew.
“You left me to die in the dark streets with nothing more than broken dreams. … You raised me to hate, and hate I will, because now I live, I live for the kill,” Jewett read from a school poem Dyleski wrote.
The prosecutor added that influential people in Dyleski’s life did not intervene.
“That’s really cool,” Jewett read from comments written by a teacher about the poem.
Deputy public defender Ellen Leonida reminded the jury how her client’s friends testified he was a non-violent vegan who cared about people.
I don’t know if it’s the way the media is reporting it but this trial sounds like a complete clusterfuck.
I won’t be surprised no matter what verdict is announced.
So let me get this straight. Dyleski’s public defender, Ellen Leonida, rested her case after only hearing testimony from character witnesses?
During her opening statement, Leonida argued that Dyleski couldn’t have killed Vitale because a witness saw him at home at the time of the murder. Dyleski lived a short walk down the hill on Hunsaker Canyon Road from where Vitale and Horowitz lived. That witness testified earlier in the trial that he was no longer sure what time he saw Dyleski that morning.
Although the prosecution presented extensive DNA evidence connecting Dyleski to the crime, Leonida did not call any of her own expert witnesses to rebut the DNA evidence.
Closing arguments are scheduled to begin Tuesday morning in Judge Barbara Zuniga’s courtroom in Martinez.
Not much of a lawyer or did she know she didn’t have much to work with?