About Connections: Love it or hate it, history is a map. Those who hate history think it irrelevant; many who love history think it escapism. In truth, history is the clearest road map to how we got here: America in the 21st century.
In January 1932, exactly three years after the shooting, Judge Frederick W. Fosdick gaveled the courtroom to order and opened the proceedings against Joseph Pulero.
District Attorney Thomas F. Moriarty called his first witness.
Moriarty established that lying in wait demonstrated malice aforethought; the shot to the face indicated brutality, and the shots fired as the assailant stood over the inert body were consistent with “overkill.” With consciousness of guilt, Pulero ran and hid for three years. Moriarty contended that he made a clear case for first degree murder against Pulero.
Lucy and Joseph were estranged at the time of the shooting. In an abundance of caution, to dispel any idea that Lucy was censurable for leaving her husband, Moriarty called Lucy’s brother, John Teti, to the stand. Teti testified that Joseph abused Lucy on more than one occasion. At any time that his sister left the marital home, John testified, it was to flee and protect herself from Pulero.
Moriarty sat down satisfied that his case seemed air-tight. What could Pulero say in his own defense?
William Heaphy, attorney for the defense, rose and called his first witness.
Ernest Belefari testified that “in the few months before the shooting, I noticed a very big difference in Pulero.”
Joseph Penna had known Pulero all his life: they grew up together in Italy. They came to this country together and Penna boarded with Pulero and Lucy for a period. In the days before the shooting, Penna testified, “Pulero looked crazy.”
A series of friends of the accused testified to disparate facts. One saw Pulero on the street in the months prior to the shooting and Pulero did not answer when they spoke to him. Another felt Pulero looked despondent. A third testified to being asked to dinner at the Pulero house before Joseph and Lucy separated. The table was set for the guests but, the man testified, there was no plate for Joseph. He observed Joseph going into the kitchen to find a plate for himself.
A woman testified that she saw Lucy in the streets, more than once, with “her boyfriend.” There was an objection and the word “boyfriend” was stricken from the record.
If the foregoing testimony seemed unconnected or caused any confusion, Pulero was now called to the stand to connect the dots.
Pulero’s testimony was clear and audible. He was on the stand more than two hours and his task was to recreate the entire marriage in chronological order, painting a picture that would justify homicide.
Pulero was born and raised in Italy. He worked on a farm. He testified, “I had not one single year of schooling before coming to America.”
In America he was successful. He worked, saved and finally owned a pool hall in Pittsfield.
He loved Lucy from the moment he met her. He asked her to marry him but she refused. When he returned from jail, he saw her again and finally she asked him, “When will we marry?”
He named a date a few months off.
Lucy replied, “No.” She wanted to marry sooner because she said, “I am tired of working in that mill.”
They were married in November 1925. Lucy left him for good in February 1928. The marriage lasted only two years and three months and, Pulero explained, she was gone many times in between.
Pulero painted a picture of a generous loving husband and an inattentive wife. He detailed the money he gave her for the household and for her personal use. He always loved her and wanted her back.
She, on the other hand, was rarely home when he returned from work. When he returned from work, there was no meal prepared for him. If she prepared a meal for guests, she set no place for him. If she was gone over night, he would pursue her. He would find her at her father’s or sister’s house and he would coax her home. He suggested she was wild and possibly untrue. Certainly, he testified, she refused to fulfill any of the duties of a wife.
“We had no children,” Pulero testified. “I wanted children but she refused. She said if she had a child she would kill it and me.”
Having established himself as a good husband but probably a cuckold, he moved on. He testified to suffering from amnesia for the period from when he stepped from behind the tree until he found himself, hours later, on the edge of town. His last memory was standing behind the tree and seeing Lucy hugging and kissing another man. He never had any idea of killing her but, in that moment, it was an instantaneous reaction to what he saw.
There was no malice aforethought, and he could not plead guilty of shooting Lucy as he did not remember it.
There was an objection. The record indicated that the two people were merely walking down the street and not touching in any way. Pulero’s comment was stricken.
Pulero, however, insisted that is what he saw. That is what triggered his rage.
He also testified to feeling depressed at the loss of the woman he loved.
During cross examination, Moriarty asked Pulero: Did Lucy leave the house because you beat her?
Pulero said, “No.”
Moriarty reminded witness that her brother, John Teti, testified to that fact.
“He’s a damn liar,” Pulero said.
Pulero was excused and what followed was the battle of the Alienists. Those for the defense testified that the amnesia was factual as was the depression. Furthermore, depression, categorized as a mental illness, obscured Pulero’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. The experts for the defense also contended that Pulero had the mental ability of a 9-and-a-half-year-old and that diminished capacity prevented him from distinguishing right from wrong.
The expert testimony for the prosecution did not agree. They found Pulero’s IQ to be in normal range and speculated his lack of education may have confused the other experts. Pulero may have been unhappy or even depressed, but they disputed that that would interfere with his ability to distinguish right from wrong. As for the amnesia, it was self-professed. The truth of the assertion could not be proved at this late date.
In the judge’s summation, he stated flatly that there was no justification recognized in the law for the shooting. He outlined the elements necessary to find someone not guilty by reason of insanity. Then he carefully explained the legal definitions of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and manslaughter. With that, he gave the case to the jury: it was February 4, 1932.
Ninety minutes later, the jury returned.
The clerk of the court asked, “What say you, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the jury: is the prisoner at the bar guilty or not guilty?”
Local papers reported, “When the foreman pronounced the word ‘guilty,’ there was an audible sigh of relief.”
Some wondered that the jury deliberated only 90 minutes to reach the verdict “murder in the second degree.” The jury was sequestered at the Wendell Hotel. However, the judge allowed them to discuss the case daily; therefore, they had determined early that Pulero was guilty. They entertained the “extreme penalty” and then waited for the judge’s summation to make a final decision.
When the jury pronounced the verdict, they believed Pulero would spent the rest of his life in jail. They were wrong.
Nineteen years later, in December 1951, Pulero was released “for humanitarian reasons.” He was pardoned due to extreme old age. He was 52.
