NOT GUILTY CT - James McGrath, 17, athlete, fatally stabbed at house party fight, Shelton, May 2022 *ARREST*

New Posts

  • #101
I didn't know about this trial and it just appeared in my youtube feed the first day so watched it. I had no bias, no dog in this fight.

Overview take aways. Valle initiated violence at house #1 assaulting Heinz twice, unprovoked. Continued instigation of violence at house #2, left and returned several times, got knife from Jack's car and used it. Left the property and returned to kill Jimmy who was an innocent bystander, lunging at him and stabbing him in the heart.

He can't claim self-defense for any of the assaults. And he definitely can't claim that for Jimmy.

A personal observation. He was 16 when he did this. He murdered someone at 16. He has shown no remorse nor apologized. He has proved to be a dangerous person and should not have been out on bail imo.
 
  • #102
LAborn said:
I didn't know about this trial and it just appeared in my youtube feed the first day so watched it. I had no bias, no dog in this fight.

Overview take aways. Valle initiated violence at house #1 assaulting Heinz twice, unprovoked. Continued instigation of violence at house #2, left and returned several times, got knife from Jack's car and used it. Left the property and returned to kill Jimmy who was an innocent bystander, lunging at him and stabbing him in the heart.

He can't claim self-defense for any of the assaults. And he definitely can't claim that for Jimmy.

A personal observation. He was 16 when he did this. He murdered someone at 16. He has shown no remorse nor apologized. He has proved to be a dangerous person and should not have been out on bail imo.
Click to expand...
Same here.

I agree with you re: RV is guilty of 2nd degree murder at the bare minimum for killing Jimmy.
Jimmy was not involved in either/any of the fights that night per the evidence that was given/shown.
He was an innocent bystander. RV has no claim to self-defense with Jimmy. Zero.

I have a different opinion with regard to the assault charges, however.
Those Shelton dudes vastly outnumbered RV & Co, and they definitely surrounded and jumped the SJ kids, both at their vehicle and then on the lawn. They were physically bigger and many of them older than RV, as well.

My takeaway from all this is that drunk dudes who engage in street fights shouldn't assume that nobody is armed with a weapon and that nobody is going to do something stupid. Because drunks are stupid, and a lot of people carry weapons.

The Shelton dudes sent the SJ crew the house address. Their purpose in doing so was clear. They wanted payback. Hence the reason no trespassing charges were filed.

RV's lawyer did a masterful job explaining to the jury what does and does not constitute self-defense.
I found it persuasive enough that I would have voted NG on those assault charges.

The fact that I didn't find many, if any, of the Shelton grads who testified very believable with their highly selective, "I don't recalls," would have been a big contributor to me voting NG on those charges, as well.

Guilty of 2nd degree murder for killing JM though, for sure.

JMO.
 
Last edited:
  • #103
LAborn said:
You don't think the DA did a good job parsing out pertinent info about the offenses? I would hope that would help in their deliberations. Maybe it's good they have some time to digest everything. I couldn't even stomach watching the defense closing.
Click to expand...
I forced myself to watch, and boy, am I ever glad I did.

It completely changed my way of thinking about this case, and my understanding of how the law defines self-defense.

It really was a master class in how to do a close. Very persuasive.
If RV gets off scot-free, it will largely be because of that close.
If he gets convicted, he'll have only himself and his horrible actions to blame, because his lawyer did everything he could for him.

He definitely won't be able to argue that he had ineffective counsel at appeal if convicted.

JMO.
 
  • #104
Magic8Ball said:
I forced myself to watch, and boy, am I ever glad I did.

It completely changed my way of thinking about this case, and my understanding of how the law defines self-defense.

It really was a master class in how to do a close. Very persuasive.
If RV gets off scot-free, it will largely be because of that close.
If he gets convicted, he'll have only himself and his horrible actions to blame, because his lawyer did everything he could for him.

He definitely won't be able to argue that he had ineffective counsel at appeal if convicted.

JMO.
Click to expand...
All I can say is he better not get off. Both the def. attorney and Valle should have noses like Pinocchio after this trial!
 
  • #105
LAborn said:
All I can say is he better not get off. Both the def. attorney and Valle should have noses like Pinocchio after this trial!
Click to expand...
There were a whole lot of Pinocchios sitting in that witness box, too.

A lot of them actually testified to things that were directly refuted by the video, at which point they were forced to acknowledge the video didn't support their version of events.

I do hope RV gets convicted of the murder charge, but I could care less about the assault charges.

My sympathies are limited for drunk dudes who literally invite violence.
"Sorry you got stabbed, maybe next time don't stomp on another dude's head."

My sympathies lie entirely with JM and his family.
He was the (only) innocent victim.
JMO.

*ETA: Were you, @Seattle1, and I the only 3 who followed this trial, or what? This case was so interesting, I'm pretty surprised it got no traction here on WS.
 
  • #106
  • #107
Magic8Ball said:
There were a whole lot of Pinocchios sitting in that witness box, too.

A lot of them actually testified to things that were directly refuted by the video, at which point they were forced to acknowledge the video didn't support their version of events.

I do hope RV gets convicted of the murder charge, but I could care less about the assault charges.

My sympathies are limited for drunk dudes who literally invite violence.
"Sorry you got stabbed, maybe next time don't stomp on another dude's head."

My sympathies lie entirely with JM and his family.
He was the (only) innocent victim.
JMO.

*ETA: Were you, @Seattle1, and I the only 3 who followed this trial, or what? This case was so interesting, I'm pretty surprised it got no traction here on WS.
Click to expand...
I see it a bit differently than you, but respect your opinion. :-) I think we are one of the few that watched the trial other than maybe people in CT? I can't figure out why, it was very interesting! And unlike many trials it was very taut, didn't drag out, kept my focus (saying a lot for me that's easily bored and distracted).
 
  • #108
I think dumb, drunk teens getting into dumb, drunk fights is not as compelling as a lot of the other trials that get a lot of attenion. Same with gang cases. They're so dumb and that makes them uninteresting.

I tried to get into this trial but have only caught a snippet here and there. I think I'm a little burned out with trials lately. I'm sad there's a hung jury on the main count of murder. I hope the jury gets their act together and the families don't have to go through another trial. It seems like there are mixed views from those of you watching the trial, but an agreement that the defendant is guilty of murdering McGrath. No equivocation it seems on that front.
 
  • #109
Magic8Ball said:
I've been watching this trial online and I agree with every word you said here.

I would add that I blame the parents of all these (at the time) minor kids. This is a display of piss-poor parenting on a massive scale. Zero supervision, zero limit-setting, over-indulgence, and this is the end result. I hope the homeowners who hosted the parties get the pants sued off them.

I didn't buy the testimony of either of the dudes who got immunity, especially not the one who owned the knife, got it out of his glove box, displayed it on his lap in the car, and then ultimately gave it RV. He never should have been offered an immunity deal. He basically set RV up to be his patsy.

The DA's clear bias toward the kids with the wealthier, more connected parents really has left a bad taste in my mouth. Not a fan of this prosecution team at all. They barely mentioned the dead victim's name throughout the case, either. It was like JM was just an afterthought to them. It was appalling.

If I were on the jury, I would vote to acquit RV for all the lesser assault charges r/t the other guys who were stabbed. Those other dudes jumped RV, he was seriously outmatched and outnumbered. He was getting stomped by FT, who looks to weigh about 250 pounds, whereas RV is a small guy. I completely buy the self-defense argument against the drunk Shelton dudes who were stabbed but survived. They were all directly involved in fighting with RV.

But I would still vote guilty on JM's murder charge. Because at no point ever did a single person testify that JM was a participant in the fighting that was going on between the parties that night. There was 0 evidence of him having been involved in any of the video that was shown in court.
He was truly an innocent bystander. RV has no reasonable claim to self-defense against JM.
The others, yes. Jimmy, no.

Guilty of 2nd degree murder.
NG of either of the first-degree assault charges.
NG of second-degree assault.

That's where I land.
JMO.
Click to expand...
You make so many very valid and wonderful points. This case hurts my heart. I don't know if I would vote guilt on the murder charge, however. But also, I have not watched the entire trial. This is a tough one...
 
  • #110
The jury is deadlocked on ALL counts! They left this note with the Judge on Monday night before being dismissed for the evening. The Judge held off reading the note or informing the parties of the content of the note from the jury until Tuesday morning. Outside the presence of the jurors, the Court and parties agreed to instruct the jurors to continue deliberating.

7/8/25


Raw video: Judge tells deadlocked jury in CT prep student murder trial to continue deliberating​

 
  • #111
From the Judge's statement that the Court was instructing the jurors to return to deliberations before issuing a "Chip Smith Charge" to the jurors, I took a moment to research the meaning:

Our Libraries - CT Judicial Branch Law Library Services

The "Chip Smith" Charge​


The Chip Smith charge derives from State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376 (1881). James "Chip" Smith was a 21-year-old who was drinking, firing his gun, and causing a general disturbance of the peace on December 23rd, 1880. Smith's father went to the home of Daniel J. Hayes, the Chief of Police for the city of Ansonia, and asked him to arrest his son. Chief Hayes searched for Smith, and found him in a downtown street. A struggle ensued, and Smith shot Hayes in the abdomen. Hayes lived for some time after being shot, and he locked up his killer himself before succumbing to his injuries. James "Chip" Smith was convicted of Hayes' murder.

In an opinion reviewing Smith's conviction, the Connecticut Supreme Court set forth language concerning the duty of jurors when deliberating. This language became known as the Chip Smith charge, and trial courts repeatedly gave the instruction to jurors when they reported that they were deadlocked.

Over the years, the Chip Smith charge became an established part of Connecticut jurisprudence. However, the instruction was often challenged as being coercive and implying that a juror in the minority should "give in" to the majority for the sake of unanimity. In State v. O'Neil, 261 Conn. 49 (2002), the instruction was challenged once again, and our old Chip Smith charge was given a new dressing.

In State v. O'Neil, the defendant was on trial for murder. After some deliberation, the jurors reported to the court that they were unable to agree. The trial court delivered a Chip Smith instruction to the deadlocked jury. Later that same day, the jury returned a guilty verdict. On appeal, the defendant argued the Chip Smith charge improperly pressured minority view jurors to abandon their position in favor of the position of the majority view jurors, unfairly increasing the likelihood that the defendant would be convicted.

In its decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld O'Neil's conviction and the use of the Chip Smith charge. However, the Supreme Court set forth a modified version of the charge to be used by trial courts in future cases. Henceforth, judges must remind jurors that they should vote their consciences and not "acquiesce in the conclusion of their fellow jurors merely for the sake of arriving at a unanimous verdict." The version of the Chip Smith charge adopted for use today strikes a balance between encouraging a unanimous verdict and protecting a defendant's right to a fair trial.

________________________

OK, I'd say there's no longer any question which way the earlier 11-1 vote was leaning.

However, 144 years later, and given the modification to "Chip Smith," I'm not sure encouraging a minority juror to "vote their conscience and not acquiesce in the conclusion of their fellow jurors merely for the sake of arriving at a unanimous verdict," isn't anything more than painting lipstick on a pig. IMO, it implies the minority juror hasn't been voting their conscience all along!

IMO, this is called a mistrial.
 
  • #112
Seattle1 said:
The jury is deadlocked on ALL counts! They left this note with the Judge on Monday night before being dismissed for the evening. The Judge held off reading the note or informing the parties of the content of the note from the jury until Tuesday morning. Outside the presence of the jurors, the Court and parties agreed to instruct the jurors to continue deliberating.

7/8/25


Raw video: Judge tells deadlocked jury in CT prep student murder trial to continue deliberating​

Click to expand...
I think if the jury comes back at the end of the day with yet another note indicating they're deadlocked, the judge really has to declare a mistrial at that point.

If not, that would make it the third time she sent the jury back to deliberate after they indicated a deadlock, which is a point at which it's starting to look like the court is trying to strong-arm/force the jurors into coming to an agreed-upon verdict. That would make the entire case ripe for appeal.

If the jury's next note to the judge doesn't say, "We've reached a unanimous verdict on all counts," the judge really needs to protect both the integrity of the case and the jury deliberation process as a whole. If they're deadlocked, they're deadlocked.

I wonder if a jury has ever come back to a judge and said, "We're deadlocked. Period. We're all done deliberating, so don't bother telling us to go back into that room to review anything again."

JMO.
 
Last edited:
  • #113
Jurors just returned to the Courtroom to hear part of Valle's testimony as to whether or not he saw DaSilva in the road. They played a portion of his direct testimony and cross for the jurors and sent them back to deliberate.

At about minus 28:00 of the YT:

 
  • #114
Seattle1 said:
From the Judge's statement that the Court was instructing the jurors to return to deliberations before issuing a "Chip Smith Charge" to the jurors, I took a moment to research the meaning:

Our Libraries - CT Judicial Branch Law Library Services

The "Chip Smith" Charge​


The Chip Smith charge derives from State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376 (1881). James "Chip" Smith was a 21-year-old who was drinking, firing his gun, and causing a general disturbance of the peace on December 23rd, 1880. Smith's father went to the home of Daniel J. Hayes, the Chief of Police for the city of Ansonia, and asked him to arrest his son. Chief Hayes searched for Smith, and found him in a downtown street. A struggle ensued, and Smith shot Hayes in the abdomen. Hayes lived for some time after being shot, and he locked up his killer himself before succumbing to his injuries. James "Chip" Smith was convicted of Hayes' murder.

In an opinion reviewing Smith's conviction, the Connecticut Supreme Court set forth language concerning the duty of jurors when deliberating. This language became known as the Chip Smith charge, and trial courts repeatedly gave the instruction to jurors when they reported that they were deadlocked.

Over the years, the Chip Smith charge became an established part of Connecticut jurisprudence. However, the instruction was often challenged as being coercive and implying that a juror in the minority should "give in" to the majority for the sake of unanimity. In State v. O'Neil, 261 Conn. 49 (2002), the instruction was challenged once again, and our old Chip Smith charge was given a new dressing.

In State v. O'Neil, the defendant was on trial for murder. After some deliberation, the jurors reported to the court that they were unable to agree. The trial court delivered a Chip Smith instruction to the deadlocked jury. Later that same day, the jury returned a guilty verdict. On appeal, the defendant argued the Chip Smith charge improperly pressured minority view jurors to abandon their position in favor of the position of the majority view jurors, unfairly increasing the likelihood that the defendant would be convicted.

In its decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld O'Neil's conviction and the use of the Chip Smith charge. However, the Supreme Court set forth a modified version of the charge to be used by trial courts in future cases. Henceforth, judges must remind jurors that they should vote their consciences and not "acquiesce in the conclusion of their fellow jurors merely for the sake of arriving at a unanimous verdict." The version of the Chip Smith charge adopted for use today strikes a balance between encouraging a unanimous verdict and protecting a defendant's right to a fair trial.

________________________

OK, I'd say there's no longer any question which way the earlier 11-1 vote was leaning.

However, 144 years later, and given the modification to "Chip Smith," I'm not sure encouraging a minority juror to "vote their conscience and not acquiesce in the conclusion of their fellow jurors merely for the sake of arriving at a unanimous verdict," isn't anything more than painting lipstick on a pig. IMO, it implies the minority juror hasn't been voting their conscience all along!

IMO, this is called a mistrial.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this info. It's definitely not out of the realm of possibility that this juror had a mindset in place that wasn't based on evidence or the law, since they hadn't deliberated for long. In which case, it behooves the jurors to continue to scour over the evidence so at least that hold out is making a judgement based on facts instead of emotion or opinion.
 
  • #115
LAborn said:
Thanks for this info. It's definitely not out of the realm of possibility that this juror had a mindset in place that wasn't based on evidence or the law, since they hadn't deliberated for long. In which case, it behooves the jurors to continue to scour over the evidence so at least that hold out is making a judgement based on facts instead of emotion or opinion.
Click to expand...

Except we don't know what the vote was last night on count 1 when they were also deadlocked on all charges-- as the Judge did not provide that information this morning, as she did on Monday when she read the first note into the record.

But I've only heard the trial video I've posted-- maybe there's more info in MSM.
 
  • #116
  • #117
Seattle1 said:
Except we don't know what the vote was last night on count 1 when they were also deadlocked on all charges-- as the Judge did not provide that information this morning, as she did on Monday when she read the first note into the record.

But I've only heard the trial video I've posted-- maybe there's more info in MSM.
Click to expand...
Right, true.
 
  • #118

7/8/25

The judge did not say on Tuesday whether the jury’s deadlock on all of the charges was by the same 11-1 margin.

At around 4:10 p.m. Tuesday, Murphy said she had received another note at 2:52 p.m. from the jury, stating they wanted to hear again part of Valle’s testimony. The court then played back clips from Valle’s testimony in which he described being back near Jack Snyder’s car after he said he was shoved by a group of teens. In the testimony, Valle said he looked for his friend, Tyler DaSilva, and “saw him getting beat on” while Snyder did “nothing.”
“Why didn’t you just get in that car and leave?” Smith asked in Valle’s testimony.
Valle said he was terrified, saw his friend and wanted to save him.
The judge also played a portion of the cross-examination in which Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Marc Durso questioned Valle.
In cross-examination, Durso asked Valle whether he saw DaSilva on the lawn, and whether he “come back into the fight.”
“Yeah,” Valle responded.
In the recording, Durso can be heard asking Valle about details of the footage, pointing out that Valle was not surrounded and that DaSilva was next to him, pushed out to the street, when Valle went back in.
“But Tyler is no longer engaged in the fight, right?” Durso said.
“I don’t remember,” Valle said.

The jury was dismissed shortly before 4:50 p.m. and is to return Wednesday.
 
  • #119
  • #120
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

friendlysleuther
IN - Mark Miles, 61, Fatally Stabbed by 13 year old, Anderson, 3 October 2024
Replies
1
Views
468
Ladyotm
L
imstilla.grandma
OH - Ethan Liming, 17, beaten to death in Akron after shooting water gun, 2 June 2022 *guilty assault*
Replies
9
Views
2K
musicaljoke
musicaljoke
Niner
Trials & Sentencings for October, 2022
2
Replies
28
Views
6K
Niner
Niner
Niner
Trials & Sentencings set for May, 2022
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Niner
Niner
Niner
Trials & Sentencings for August, 2022
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
Niner
Niner

Staff online

Members online

... and 59 more.
Total: 2,106 (members: 60, guests: 2,046)

Online statistics

Members online
60
Guests online
2,046
Total visitors
2,106
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
632,105
Messages
18,622,056
Members
243,021
Latest member
sennybops
Back
Top