PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, MONDAY, FEB. 10, 2014) — Could Adam Lee Hall have been innocent?

A jury of his peers, so called, pronounced Hall guilty of 15 counts, including murder, and acquitted him of four counts. That’s point #1: The jury found him not guilt on more than 20% of the changes.

Point #2: The jury deliberated for four days, unable to reach a decision.

Point #3: In desperation more than anything else, the jury report to the judge on Friday morning that they were hopelessly deadlocked. The judge, not wanting to take a mistrial, sent the jurors back into deliberations.

Point #4: The deliberations ended in less than one hour. At least one juror “got religion.”

Point #5: Because we do not know the nature of this “conversion,” we cannot place great confidence that the jury got it right in its decision to find for the prosecution on the substantive counts. Was this a “foxhole conversion?” Was it a case of 11 jurors wanting to get back to their lives finally browbeating a “Henry Fonda” holdout (see 12 Angry Men) into submission? If so, how can we say that justice was served?

Point #6: The evidence introduced against Hall was almost exclusively circumstantial.

THE PLANET is not arguing Hall’s innocence. Moreover, we do not contend the results of the trial. We only point out, having experience both as a jury foreman, a reporter, and a defendant that there are many questions raised that have not been answered about the way the Hall verdict came down. If there is even the slightest chance that an innocent man was wrongly convicted, it has to be exhausted. An appeal will be that chance.

——- 000 ——- 000 ——- 000 ——-

The most notable aspect of the guilty finding in the Hall trial is not the verdict itself. It’s the manner in which the jury reached its ultimate decision.

After deliberating for three days, the jury came back to the judge to report it had been unable to reach a verdict. A “hung jury” results in a mistrial. What happens after that is up to the prosecution. If it decides to re-try the case, which it can without placing the accused in double jeopardy, the proceedings start from scratch. It can also decide not to pursue further charges. THE PLANET has learned that Hall’s attorneys will file an appeal., a online legal resource, defines a “hung jury” as one “unable to come to a final decision, resulting in a mistrial. Judges do their best to avoid hung juries, typically sending juries back into deliberations with an assurance (sometimes known as a “dynamite charge”) that they will be able to reach a decision if they try harder. If a mistrial is declared, the case is tried again unless the parties settle the case (in a civil case) or the prosecution dismisses the charges or offers a plea bargain (in a criminal case).


Judges and prosecutors hate mistrial. For the judge, the no-finding finding defeats the very purpose of the trial, which is to render a verdict based on the evidence. For the prosecution, it spells failure to make its case. Based on the actions of the jury in the Hall case, District Attorney David Capeless came this close to a mistrial, that is, to botching the case. Only Judge C. Jeffrey Kinder‘s instruction sending the jury back to deliberations saved Capeless from a major defeat. That’s why defense attorneys prefer juries with more jurors rather than fewer. Since it only takes a lone vote to hang a jury, they reason that they have a better chance finding one out of 12 as opposed to one out of six.

We can only go by the actions. After the jury got the judge’s instructions to keep at the evidence, what happened? They panel of nine women and three men were able to reach consensus in a relative blink of a bloodshot eye. Barely one hour later, jurors filed into the courtroom with their guilty pronouncements. This would suggest a small number of holdouts, if indeed the number was plural — two at most, most likely one.

At least one person in that room had “reasonable doubt.” What happened inside the jury room. Did someone cave in under pressure or duress? What did that person learn in less than two hours that he or she hadn’t realize in several days? Jurors began deliberating in the case on Monday of last week. They remained deadlocked From Tuesday through to Friday. The one-hour miracle in the jury room changed all that.

If one separates oneself from the emotions of the case, there’s reason to pause. Did a witness succumb to pressure and violate his or her conscience? Why? What made the difference? THE PLANET does not quibble here, not when an accused person faces the possibility of life in prison without parole.

The panel found Hall guilty on 15 of the 19 charges. This included guilty verdicts on three counts of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and intimidation of a witness.

The judge’s “dynamite charge” seems to be the only thing that stood in the way of Hall’s freedom and Capeless’ failure. Capeless had presented evidence that was circumstantial. He relied on the testimony of another man charged as an accessory to the triple murder, that is, a man who had motivation to help himself with testimony. Alan Black, Hall’s attorney, argued that the prosecution introduced no DNA evidence and no forensic evidence that could directly link Hall to the murders. He also told jurors that police found no murder weapons and that no one could even say where the murders took place.

The respective performances — prosecution vs. defense — left at least one juror with reasonable doubt.

Hall will be sentenced in Hampden Superior Court on Monday. Up next will be Hall’s appeal, as well as trials for David Chalue, 46, of North Adams, and Caius Veivois, 32, of Pittsfield. Both men were charged along with Hall in the killings of David Glasser, Edward Frampton, and Robert Chadwell.


“His hearth the earth,—his hall the azure dome; / Where his clear spirit leads him, there’s his road / By God’s own light illumined and foreshadowed.”Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Woodnotes.”




  1. joetaxpayer
    February 8, 2014 at 7:10 pm #

    Dan doesn’t every murder 1 conviction trigger a automatic appeal in Massachusetts? Regardless of how Capeless had done there will be a appeal.

  2. Russell Moody
    February 9, 2014 at 5:11 am #

    Jury rooms are interesting… I have been on a murder case before with jurors that held out on UNreasonable doubt… it took our group four days to work through the juror nonsense. One lady admitted her belief in guilt but continued to cast votes in the negative because she wouldn’t be able to live with herself… a defense attorney’s dream. In the end, we got it right, from my perspective, but I have never forgotten how crazy deliberations can be. 12 angry men, anyone?

  3. Thomas More
    February 9, 2014 at 9:50 am #

    Unfortunately the ability to garner votes does not make either a proficient prosecutor nor a good lawyer, only a successful politician. This is our system, the defendant can hire the best lawyer he can afford. The commonwealth is stuck with the prosecutor we elect. Please don’t interpret this as an indictment on our present DA. I assume he did his best.

    • Jim Gleason
      February 10, 2014 at 8:53 am #

      his best is not good enough in many cases. he got lucky in this one. He’s a vindictive ass who is only concerned with his resume and not people.I hope someone credible runs against him next election. We had our chance when Tim Shugrue ran against him but we messed that up, as usual in Pitts and Berkshire County. Put the name in instead of the quality. We do make some good decisions, as in the case of Melissa Mazzeo and Dan Bianchi, but those are few and far between.

  4. Evian
    February 9, 2014 at 4:33 pm #

    In a jury system its winning votes that counts, same thing as in an election. And usually about about right in getting the truth. Although I think the jury did the right thing in the Hall case.

  5. Bill Sturgeon
    February 9, 2014 at 5:21 pm #

    This was a very tough case to prosecute in a court of law, where evidence is king!

    • levitan
      February 9, 2014 at 6:39 pm #

      Evidence is king, and Hall left plenty of it, Bill.

  6. Bill Sturgeon
    February 9, 2014 at 5:21 pm #

    This was a very tough case to prosecute in a court of law, where evidence is king!

  7. dusty
    February 10, 2014 at 1:30 am #

    I am surprised he did not use an insanity defense. Something about it seems slightly insane to me. Who’s idea was it to chop the bodies up? And what was the purpose of that?

    Maybe that explanation will come up when the others are tried.

    • levitan
      February 10, 2014 at 8:10 am #

      Insanity that deprives the defendant of the wits to understand the illegality of their acts is a legitimate defense.

      The extent Hall went to cover his tracks make the defense a non-starter.

  8. C Trzcinka
    February 10, 2014 at 2:31 pm #

    The line between guilty and not guilty seems very thin in this case. I wonder how the one juror who had doubts feels now that Hall has been sentenced to three life sentences? Capless’s bravado in his public statements sounds a bit like whistling by the grave…

  9. levitan
    February 10, 2014 at 8:45 pm #

    Mr. Valenti, you are a … provocateur. [THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED FOR CONTENT AND SENSE].

    • danvalenti
      February 10, 2014 at 8:58 pm #

      That we are, sir!

  10. Scott
    February 11, 2014 at 6:51 am #

    I think it’s obvious he did it so I wouldn’t be a good candidate for the jury but with that said just looking at the evidence with no emotion there’s a ton of doubt but I think ultimately they made the right choice it is curious that they would be deadlocked only to return two hours later with a guilty finding.