Ex-Grad Student’s Retrial Appealed

Prosecutors appeared before the state’s highest court yesterday to appeal a judge’s decision to retry a former Harvard Russian and Slavic Studies grad student, sentenced in 2004 to six to eight years for voluntary manslaughter.

Prosecutors contend that the trial judge misused her powers in overturning the conviction of Alexander Pring-Wilson and are seeking to have Pring-Wilson sent back to jail for the April 2003 stabbing of Michael D. Colono, who was 18 at the time of his death.

Pring-Wilson stabbed Colono after the two were involved in an altercation outside a Western Avenue pizza parlor. According to Pring-Wilson’s defense attorneys, the ex-graduate student reacted out of self-defense. Middlesex Superior Court Judge Regina L. Quinlan granted Pring-Wilson a new trial in June of last year after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a victim’s history of violent behavior could be used as evidence in a self-defense case, even when that history is unknown to the defendant. Initially, Quinlan barred defense lawyers from using evidence of Colono’s alleged history of violence because Pring-Wilson did not know Colono at the time of the stabbing.

Withholding evidence that showed Colono’s history of violence—including “numerous” instances where he was “unquestionably” the aggressor—hindered the jury’s decision, Pring-Wilson’s defense lawyers told the Associated Press yesterday.

The prosecution wants the SJC to decide whether or not its March decision to allow the admission of a victim’s history of violence is applicable to all self-defense cases, according to Jeffery B. Abramson, Stulberg professor of law and politics at Brandeis University.

“Generally speaking, the prosecution wants the SJC to say that this wasn’t the intent of their ruling—they didn’t mean that the defendant can introduce this evidence in every situation,” Abramson said. “[Prosecutors] are partly arguing that this isn’t the kind of case that necessitates a new trial.”

Introducing Colono’s history of violence in a new trial may improve Pring-Wilson’s chances, Abramson said. If the SJC upholds Quinlan’s ruling, it may even result in a plea bargain rather than a new trial, he added.

“I think this case goes to the heart of a jury’s role in self-defense cases,” Abramson said. “We want the jury to make intelligent decisions in these cases, but we don’t want to prejudice a jury against a victim with a criminal record.”

Middlesex District Attorney spokeswoman Melissa Sherman declined to comment yesterday.

Public opinion of the case, which was mixed at its 2004 outcome, continues to be so with the prosecution’s most recent appeal.

“[The appeal] is an outrage,” said Natalia Pokrovsky, a Slavic Languages and Literatures preceptor who taught Pring-Wilson. “I am absolutely convinced that it is totally political and vindictive.”

However, outside the yard, people were less sympathetic towards Pring-Wilson.

“It was manslaughter. I agree, there should be another trial,” said 14-year-old Ivan Pena, who works for a convenience store across from where the crime occurred.

“I don’t think that if you kill someone you should get six to eight years,” he said. “You should get more.”

The SJC’s decision will not be handed down for several months.

—Staff writer Jamison A. Hill can be reached at jahill@fas.harvard.edu.