A month after his twentieth birthday, William J. Allen walked into a Brockton apartment with a friend, Rolando Perry, on February 7, 1994 to rob a drug dealer.
And what happened inside set the stage for a first-degree murder conviction.
Allen was convicted by a jury on August 29, 1997, of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole, even though Perry was the one who stabbed the dealer to death in the robbery gone wrong, under the legal theory of “joint venture.” And while Allen is still in prison, Perry is now out on parole after pleading guilty to second degree murder in a plea deal.
So how does a killer get out of prison but the person who was with him stays locked up? It is because of the joint venture theory.
Criminal Defense Attorney J.W. Carney Jr. said joint venture is a theory of criminal law that holds every person responsible for what was done during a crime.
“For example, say four people decide to rob a bank,” Carney said. “And one person goes to a store and buys ski masks to disguise themselves, a second person agrees to drive to and from the bank, and the remaining two people go into the bank and rob the teller. Although each person plays a different role, they’re all responsible for the crime, and joint ventures would hold them all responsible for the robbery.”
So even if people didn’t commit the crime, such as murder, if they knew about the crime and had a role to play in it, then they would be held accountable as a joint venturer.
Brockton Police Chief Emanuel Gomes said the joint venture theory can be confusing to the general public.
“If someone said they were only part of the robbery and didn’t know anyone had a gun, they would still be convicted on joint venture,” Gomes said. “And once someone is accused of joint venture, all the Commonwealth has to do is prove that someone was involved in the crime in order to have that person convicted.”
But while this may seem unfair, Dana Curhan, a former assistant district attorney who now specializes in appellate work, said that the joint venture theory is a tool to the criminal justice system.
“The alternative for a joint venture would be an accessory to murder,” said Curhan. “But either way there has to be some kind of liability. There have to be steps towards having everyone punished for the crime.”
But there is a legal difference between being a joint venturer and being an accessory in a crime.
“An accessory doesn’t have to be a principle. It doesn’t have to be there. It means you helped out before or after the fact of a murder,” Gomes said. “If someone helped plan a murder, tried to get rid of evidence or assisted the murderer, they would be charged as an accessory. But with a joint venture, someone has to be present. You can’t charge someone for a joint venture if they weren’t there.”
In Allen’s case, because he participated in the robbery and confessed he was there, a jury was able to convict him of first degree murder under the joint venture theory.
However, the person who committed the murder, Rolando Perry, plead guilty to second degree murder, which carries a sentence of life with parole after 15 years. Perry is now out on parole. But Allen rejected a similar deal against the advice of his attorney.
Former Bristol County District Attorney Paul Walsh, the former head of the DA’s Association, said that it’s unusual for someone charged with murder under the joint venture theory to have a longer sentence than the actual killer if they didn’t share their intent.
“It doesn’t show up frequently, but our criminal justice system isn’t perfect,” Walsh said. “If the judge can’t handle that kind of case, if they’re unable to sort everything out, then it is possible. We need to make sure we have good judges in place so justice truly plays out.”
The Executive Director of the Brockton Interfaith Community (BIC), William Dickerson, is saddened that Allen was imprisoned for a crime he didn’t commit.
“His story is gut-wrenching for so many reasons,” Dickerson said. “William Allen was friends with the killer, and they decided to rob someone. And while doing it, the person they were robbing got murdered. We know Allen didn’t commit the murder, but he was convicted for it anyway without the possibility of parole.”
Kristine McDonald, one of Allen’s attorneys and a member of Second Chance Justice, the community group trying to win him a commutation, said that his conviction could’ve been a consequence of the times.
McDonald said that in 1994, someone only needed to participate in the felony to be charged. If you were involved in an armed robbery and someone died, even if you didn’t intend for anyone to get hurt, you only had to be there to be convicted under the joint venture theory.
“Current court-rulings have fine-tuned that a bit,” McDonald said. “Today you could get charged with the joint venture theory if you intended to do harm as opposed to someone else intending to do harm and you did not. It’s fair to say that in today’s world, if a person only intended to rob someone and a person got murdered by an accomplice, then in Allen’s case it wouldn’t have resulted in his current conviction.”
No comments:
Post a Comment