Posted on 04/05/2002 8:59:46 PM PST by freespeech1
Frank Zito says he shot police because they broke his door
* Outburst comes during evidence suppression hearing; ruling due today
By: BRIAN HAAS, Staff Writer April 04, 2002
FRANK ZITO ... faces death penalty
SALISBURY - "If they didn't break into my door, I wouldn't have shot them," Frank Zito blurted out Wednesday at a hearing to suppress evidence in Zito's murder trial.
Attorneys for both sides argued in Wicomico County Circuit Court whether several pieces of evidence, including several alleged admissions by Zito, should be allowed in the jury trial. Circuit Judge Donald C. Davis said he should issue a ruling on the motion to suppress evidence sometime today.
Zito, 41, of Centreville, faces the death penalty on two first-degree murder charges and several other felony and misdemeanor charges.
Police allege that he shot and killed Centreville Patrolman Michael S. Nickerson and Dfc. Jason Schwenz, of the Queen Anne's County Sheriff's Office. The two officers went to investigate a noise complaint in February of 2001 when police say Zito shot both officers with a shotgun.
Zito has pleaded not guilty and not criminally responsible to the charges against him.
Judge Davis heard testimony from several police officers and Wicomico County Detention Center employees as to what happened Feb. 13 and Feb. 14, 2001.
Maryland State Police Trooper Corey Skidmore was the first officer to testify and the only witness to the shooting. Skidmore said he arrived to back up Nickerson and Schwenz who were trying to get Zito to come out of his house.
After being threatened, the officers got a key to Zito's trailer from his mother, Betty Zito, who was also Zito's landlady, Skidmore said. He said Zito's mother told the officers to get Zito out "by any means necessary."
After the three officers broke through a storm door and entered Zito's screen porch, Schwenz opened the front door with the key, Skidmore said.
As the door opened, Schwenz was hit with the first shotgun blast, followed by Nickerson, who was thrown backward, Skidmore said.
Skidmore said Zito had not seen him on the porch, so he waited for Zito to come out, sprayed his eyes with pepper spray and arrested Zito.
Maryland State Police Tfc. Brian Fisher was the officer who officially arrested Zito after the shooting, Fisher said. He testified that he took Zito away from the shooting scene and back near his patrol car.
Fisher said Zito was yelling "Nazi Gestapo" at the officers and complained that someone broke into his home. Fisher said Zito also told him he had put a shotgun under his couch.
At that point, Fisher said, he arrested Zito and read him his Miranda Rights. Though one of the Miranda Rights is the right to keep silent, Fisher said Zito kept talking.
"'I thought I was protecting my home,' " Fisher quoted Zito as saying. " 'I didn't know they were police until I got outside.' "
Robert E. Williams, an investigator for the Queen Anne's County State's Attorney Office, formally interviewed Zito for about an hour that night, Williams testified. Again Zito was told he could remain silent. But Zito "just started talking," Williams said.
Williams said Zito complained that police were trying to "beat (him) up" and threaten his mother. Then, Williams said, Zito described the events leading up to the shooting.
"'When they went to the second door, I got the 12-gauge and took the safety off,'" Williams said Zito explained. Then, as the door opened, "'I just shot.'"
"'I know I snagged that bastard,'" said Zito, according to Williams.
Williams said Zito talked with very little questioning by him or two other officers present at the interrogation.
Several other officers testified that Zito admitted shooting the two officers with no questioning. Two officers at the Wicomico County Detention Center also testified that they overheard Zito admit to the shooting while talking on the jail's telephone.
Defense lawyers later called Betty Zito to the stand. Wheeled into the courtroom in a wheelchair, Mrs. Zito was too weak to hold up her right hand to be sworn in. She lifted her right hand with her left hand as high as she could while being sworn in.
She testified that her son has his own trailer, which he rented from her. She said his rent is no different from the rent for the eight other trailers on her property.
She said Frank "wasn't so good" on Feb. 13, a condition made worse by the police breaking his storm door. She said police threatened to "tear gas" Zito's home unless he came outside.
She sobbed lightly as she described her frustration that day, trying to get someone on the telephone to help her and her son.
She said the only reason she gave the officers the key to Zito's trailer was so they wouldn't break his door and "tear gas" him.
Then she said she went around the side of Zito's trailer to peer inside and find him. That's when Mrs. Zito heard the "pop, pop" of the shotgun blasts, she said.
As defense lawyer Patricia Chappell wheeled Zito's mother past him and out of the courtroom, he gently put his hand on his mother's knee.
"Goodbye," she said as she passed from the courtroom.
In their closing arguments, defense lawyer Brian Shefferman argued that Zito's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated by the three officers. He said Zito did not consent to the officers coming on his premises even though they entered his enclosed porch.
Shefferman argued that all evidence that came about because of the "illegal" entry to Zito's trailer should be suppressed during the jury trial. Most of the testimony that would be lost if this motion were to be granted would be Trooper Skidmore's description of the shooting and the events leading up to it.
Shefferman also argued that statements that Zito made to officers throughout the night should be suppressed because Zito was injured when he made them. Officers testified earlier that Zito was bleeding from a cut on his face that night. >{?
Abundy is a clown. How could anyone think I was serious in bestowing platitudes on him?
-- Good grief. -- I'll let your last several posts speak for themselves on who is the clown, VA. - & You will lose.
As for you, you're quick today. Have you stopped drinking?
-- Now there's a snappy retort. - Yep, I stopped to watch you make a fool of yourself. --- Thanks
You conveniently ignore the entire basis of the discussion. This has nothing to do with cops, and everything to do with self defense and protecting your family. (Incidentily, criminals steal police clothes and impersonate cops all the time.)
We all respect the police, just not the ones using battering rams thru your door pointing guns at your head. Anyone for that should move to Cuba.
Are there laws that govern the eviction process, or do you simply call the cops when someone is late on their rent and have them booted out?
Here is how this debate should go:
1. Did the cops do break the law trying to enforce it?
2. Did the cops illegally enter the home of the defendant?
3. Does the home owner have the right to defend his home against illegal entry?
Thats all there is to this argument. If the cops broke the law trying to enforce it, they were wrong. If the defendant illegally entered the home of the police, would they have the right to use force to stop him?
I concur this is a sad event and have compassion for the officers and their families. But I take exception to your claim that that The militarization of police functions in America is a HUGE problem, but IMO it’s not evident here. When the LEO's are wearing body armor and carrying Glocks they take liberties and feel invincable sadly sometimes there are unexpected results.
The only thing missing from this being a perfect statist ping list would be the addition of Texaggie79; Memphis Belle
Comes down to this I guess: what was the more heinous act that day? The two policemen using the key to come in the door, or the two policemen being blown out the door dead from a shotgun blast? It's an easy one for me, but then again I'm a Nazi.
But he's no Abundy. Sigh.
EoD
Were the officers committing a felony, or did the defendant have reason to believe they were, at the time they entered the property? I believe that is the question which needs to be answered.
If the officers were committing a felony, then the question becomes whether and why they should be regarded any differently from any other criminal. Personally I think those who are sworn to uphold the law should be held to a higher standard than paeons, but in practice that is not the case.
If the officers were not committing a felony, but the defendant had reason to believe that they were, then issues become much more complicated. All I can say with certainty in that case is that people who act like they are committing felonies, even when they are not, are liable to treated as though they are.
Finally, it's interesting to note that one of the criteria for self-defense is whether the harm done by the assailant would be remediable at law. Unfortunately, we are rapidly moving toward the point where harm done by uniformed criminals is no longer remediable at law. I would suggest that those who work to quash prosecutions of such criminals consider the implications of that rather than continuing to ignore such misconduct.
Pinging them just feeds their egos anyway. - They have no shame when it comes to hating the constitution, or the principles of a free republic.
I am aware of that concept but do not feel obliged to extend a courtesy to those that would abuse me.
Eff'em
You Sir, are a state treasure.
There is small but vocal group infesting FR who would choose the former. Fortunately, they lack the courage to act on their hateful urges.
But sooner or later, they will be on the receiving and then listen as they scream.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.