Pring-Wilson Verdict Decided, But Public Still Divided

The trial of Alexander Pring-Wilson ended yesterday with the conviction of the ex-Harvard grad student for voluntary manslaughter, but in the court of public opinion, the jury is still hung.

Friends of Pring-Wilson characterized the six- to eight-year prison sentence handed down yesterday as draconian, while residents of the neighborhood where the fatal stabbing occurred said the defendant got off easy.

Meanwhile, legal experts who tracked the case dissected prosecutors’ and defense attorneys’ every move.

Natalia Pokrovsky, a Slavic Language preceptor who taught Pring-Wilson, said she fears for his safety in jail.

“I don’t know if he’ll be raped in prison or sitting with murderers,” she said.

But the family of the victim—Michael D. Colono, who was 18 at the time of his death—were also distraught.

Leaning on her daughters for support, an emotional Ada Colono, mother of the victim, broke into sobs after the verdict.

“I have a lot of anger [at] society’s views and stereotypes of a young Hispanic man,” said Damaris Colono, sister of the victim, to the judge at sentencing. “Just because you’re raised a rich white boy who is smart doesn’t mean you’re not capable of making a stupid decision.”

HEARD ON THE STREET

In the blocks around the Cambridge street corner where the stabbing took place, reaction to the verdict was decidedly mixed.

Casey B. Gane, who taught Colono’s eighth-grade class at Graham and Parks School, said he was pleased with the verdict. He said the prosecution’s request for a first-degree homicide conviction seemed excessively severe.

“He took a life, and a life can’t ever be brought back,” Gane said, “but murder one wouldn’t have been fair because it wasn’t premeditated.”

Steps away from the crime scene, Pring-Wilson elicited less sympathy.

“He was a Harvard student. He was supposed to be studying. He wasn’t supposed to be drinking,” said 12-year old Ivan Pena. “They’re supposed to give him at least a life sentence—or a death sentence,” Pena added.

Gane noted that Pring-Wilson’s privileged background meant he was able to hire high-priced defense attorneys, while a working-class Hispanic male in the same situation might have only had a court-appointed lawyer. “If Colono stabbed Pring-Wilson, Colono might be doing life right now,” Gane said.

FRIDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK

Legal experts were as sharply divided by the decision as lay observers.

“Based on a totality of the circumstances, a voluntary manslaughter conviction was supported by the evidence,” said Climenko Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree.

But Pring-Wilson’s former defense lawyer Jeffrey Denner, who dropped the case in late May citing “irreconcilable differences,” said he still believes Pring-Wilson is “unequivocally” innocent.

Cambridge criminal defense lawyer Kevin J. Mahoney, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney, said he “find[s] it impossible to believe that a jury would have convicted a man who found himself alone on a dark street being attacked by two crack dealers.”

Colono was found guilty in 2002 of possessing crack cocaine with the intent to distribute. Rodriguez was sentenced to probation for marijuana possession in 1999.

Two factors prevented jurors from acquitting Pring-Wilson outright, said Jeffrey B. Abramson, who is a visiting professor of government.

“First, the victim and his friends were unarmed, so it would have been reasonable for the jury to think Pring-Wilson’s use of a knife to strike repeated and deadly blows to the chest was…excessive force,” said Abramson, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney.

“Secondly, Pring-Wilson no doubt lost his best chance at establishing self-defense when, in the moments after the fight, he made a 911 call but lied to the police about his involvement in the fight,” Abramson said.

Mahoney said the Pring-Wilson lawyers’ gambit to put their client on the witness stand backfired by allowing the prosecution to undermine his credibility.

“No defense attorney worth his salt would put a defendant on the stand if he can help it,” Mahoney said.

And Boston criminal defense attorney Peter T. Elikann, who is also a CourtTV analyst, said he was surprised that Pring-Wilson didn’t deliver a statement to the judge seeking leniency yesterday.

“At sentencing, you want to show remorse...touch the heartstrings of the particular judge,” Elikann said.

But Elikann said that the prosecution might have also lost jurors’ confidence by pursuing trumped-up charges.

“There was no way it was ever going to be a first-degree murder conviction—because that usually takes premeditation,” Elikann said.

One point lawyers agreed on was that Pring-Wilson’s Harvard connections had a minimal impact on the case.

“I don’t believe that Pring-Wilson was punished or rewarded because of his Harvard connections,” Ogletree said, “nor do I believe that the jury overvalued or undervalued the victim in this case because of his class or race.”

“Michael Colono’s family and friends are disturbed by his loss,” Abramson said, “and they would have wanted a murder conviction or harsher sentence regardless of whether [the defendant] was John Harvard or John Q. Public.”

—Hana R. Alberts contributed to the reporting of this story.
—Staff writer Daniel J. Hemel can be reached at hemel@fas.harvard.edu.
—Staff writer Robin M. Peguero can be reached at peguero@fas.harvard.edu.