Berkshire DA David Capeless motioned for 1 trial, instead of 3, arguing the charges arose from a single scheme.
PITTSFIELD — Berkshire District Attorney David F. Capeless has filed a motion with the courts to have one trial for the three defendants in a 2001 "Hells Angel" triple murder case.
The Berkshire Eagle reports that Capeless has petitioned Berkshire Superior Court to have defendants David Chalue, a Springfield resident, and Pittsfield residents Adam L. Hall and Caius Veiovis be co-defendants in a single trial rather than having three separate trials.
All three are charged with kidnapping and murder in the deaths of Pittsfield residents Robert Chadwell, Edward Frampton and David Glasser. The bodies of the three men were found buried in a shallow grave on private property in Becket.
Police allege Hall, Chalue and Veiovis killed the three men to prevent Glasser from testifying in an upcoming trial against Hall, a sergeant at arms with the local Hell's Angels motorcycle club.
They believe Chadwell and Frampton were killed because they happened to be at Glasser's residence when the three defendants came to take Glasser.
A fourth man, David Casey, 62, of Canaan, N.Y., was charged with three counts of being an accessory to murder after the fact, accessory to kidnapping after the fact and accessory to witness intimidation after the fact.
Police allege that Casey used construction equipment to help Hall bury the three victims on the Becket property.
According to the Eagle, Capeless argued for one trial because the indictments against all three men arise from a single scheme, because one trial would allow for "judicial economy" and it would not be unduly prejudicial to the defendants.
Berkshire Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Ford on Thursday told the defense attorneys for the men that they have until March 25 to file their oppositions to the move.
The lawyers for Veiovis and Chalue indicated they would file counter-motions for separate trials, the Eagle reports. Meanwhile, the lawyer for Hall on Thursday filed a motion for a change of venue for the trial, arguing that the amount of pre-trial publicity has tainted the potential jury pool.