Rain of Bullets: The True Story of Ernest Ingenito's Bloody Family Massacre

Home > Other > Rain of Bullets: The True Story of Ernest Ingenito's Bloody Family Massacre > Page 16
Rain of Bullets: The True Story of Ernest Ingenito's Bloody Family Massacre Page 16

by Patricia A. Martinelli


  Driscoll apparently agreed with them. The former attorney had served a term as a Republican New Jersey state senator, representing Camden County, before he was elected governor. When he learned about the outcome of the Ingenito trial, the governor publicly expressed his disapproval of the jury's verdict to the media. But that wasn't all. On January 24, 1951, he issued a memo to state attorney general Theodore D. Parsons asking that he make the following request: "Would you direct the Prosecutor to try Ingenito on one of the other counts? We have two men in confinement now with a total of eighteen killings in their records [referring to Howard Unruh], who may some day go free. This is an intolerable situation. A conviction on other counts would at least keep the man in jail for life unless some fool lets him out on a pardon."

  Immediately following the shootings, Parsons once more drafted a bill calling for the registration of every gun in New Jersey. This was not the first time he had attempted to persuade state legislators that such a law was necessary, although years would pass before gun registration would actually go into effect. In addition, that February, the attorney general announced that-as a result of the outcome of the Ingenito trial-New Jersey would establish a precedent in the prosecution of mass slayings by demanding separate trials on all counts. In a letter to the county prosecutor, Parsons directed Hannold to bring Ernie to court on the four additional murder indictments. The attorney general stated, "I deem it advisable that further indictments against this defendant be tried to the end that the defendant may receive proper punishment for a mass killing such as he perpetrated. It is, therefore, recommended that you proceed in accordance with this advice."

  Hannold had announced to the press on Monday, January 22, 1951, that he had sent the four murder indictments pending against Ernie to the State House in Trenton to serve as detainers against the prisoner in the event he was ever paroled. (Detainers were legal documents that prevented a person's release from prison until those charges were answered.) Although his effort to prevent Ernie's premature release from prison was admirable, it leads back to the question of why didn't the county prosecutor just present all of the indictments at trial in the first place? Yes, it would have been more timeconsuming, but it also would have meant that the full extent of the defendant's actions on the night of November 17, 1950, would have been revealed in court. Tessie, as one of his victims, would have been able to testify-offering her account of what had occurred after Ernie entered her home. She undoubtedly would have been able to sketch in some of the details about the night that the defendant had conveniently left blank. When interviewed by the press after the trial, Tessie said she hoped the prosecutor would try her husband on the other murder charges, because she believed that Sahl's "sob story" and Ernie's lies on the witness stand had swayed the jury into deciding on a lighter sentence.

  As he unwillingly settled into prison life, Ernie grew more resentful of what he considered to be his unfair treatment at the hands of incompetent attorneys and a court system that had failed to show him proper respect-virtually railroading him behind bars. Prison life was very turbulent throughout America in the 1950s and it was no exception at the New Jersey State Prison at Trenton, a 120-year-old complex of red sandstone that sat in the heart of the city's south ward. Modeled after the Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia, the prison was initially operated according to Quaker beliefs that solitary confinement allowed an inmate time to reflect on and repent his crimes-well, his or hers, because both men and women were housed together behind its walls for more than one hundred years. By 1950, female prisoners were relocated to a separate facility in Clinton.

  The prison in Trenton grew as crime increased in the Garden State. Visitors were greeted by the warning, carved in stone over the front door, that the prison had been built so "That Those Who Are Feared For Their Crimes May Learn to Fear The Laws." Inside the threshold, the warden's office was located on the left side of the entrance to the cavernous building, while the chief of security's office was situated on the right. Seemingly endless rows of overcrowded cells dominated the rest of the interior. Like their counterparts throughout the country, guards at the prison in Trenton were armed with twelve-gauge shotguns and stationed at key locations, responsible for escorting inmates through the building. Not even their presence, however, could always deter the violence, as prisoners periodically fought or shanked one another with knives made from metal utensils.

  At that time, inmates did not always direct their anger at each other. They were no longer bowing meekly before authority but demanding better food, better working conditions, and better treatment at the hands of the guards. In New Jersey, as in prisons across the United States, inmates were riotingoften holding hostages until their demands were met. While there was no record indicating that Ernie was ever directly involved in any of the outbreaks that later occurred at Trenton State Prison, he was happy to wage his own private war against those he felt were responsible for his imprisonment.

  Ernie exhibited no remorse for his actions and little appreciation for the fact that his lawyer had saved him from the electric chair. Despite Sahl's arguments that "the boy" was not capable of learning and understanding the same as other people, Ernie had been paying attention during the trial and he didn't like a lot of what he had seen. As an inmate, Ernie began to devour any legal texts and papers that he could get his hands on. He wanted to learn how to defend himself in court because he honestly believed no one else was competent enough or intelligent enough to properly do the job. Like many other convicted murderers, he did not take any responsibility for the deaths he had caused and the assaults he had committed. In his mind, he was not at fault for his incarceration. His victims forgotten, Ernie became obsessed with one goal: To prove that he was smarter than the legal system that had passed judgment on him. With the same single-minded interest that he had shown in appliance repair, Ernie read everything he could about the law. The boy with the sixth grade education would soon be drafting his own appeals that were later read by judges and lawyers from the county level to the federal Supreme Court.

  In addition, Ernie spent his time writing summaries of the trial to clear up what he felt were errors in the newspapers and other records. He started a massive letter-writing campaign to the authorities in order to try and recover both his rights and his personal possessions. Ernie regularly drafted the maximum of ten letters each month that prisoners were allowed to write. He often wrote to Judge Wick in the months that followed, frequently repeating questions and demands despite the fact that Wick had already, on more than one occasion, answered his concerns. Two consistent themes were when his next trial would be scheduled and when he could see a copy of the transcript from his first case. Since Wick at one point apparently did not respond in what he felt was a timely fashion, Ernie felt it necessary to reprimand him, just as the inmate had previously complained to the judge about his attorneys. The defendant added Appellate Court chief justice Arthur T. Vanderbilt's name to his correspondence list and wrote to the judge stating that Wick had failed to appoint him qualified counsel and no trial date had been scheduled on any of the additional charges. By April 18, 1951, Wick had returned all of Ernie's correspondence and legal documents and for a time refused to accept delivery of any further letters from the inmate.

  On June 14, 1951, Jino Pioppi wrote to the governor and thanked him for his interest in the case. Jino continued, "I beg of you to urge the Attorney General to bring Ernest Ingenito to trial again for the murder of my brother and my wife, or if in your judgment or wisdom see fit to prosecute Ernest Ingenito for the other murders which were committed, I will abide by your discretion in the matter." As it turned out, pursuing the additional charges was not as simple as scheduling another court date. Court officials pointed to an overcrowded trial schedule, but there were rumors that political influence was the real reason for the delay. Ernie's constant battles with his lawyers did not help move things forward, either. Five more years would pass before Ernie would appear before a judge on the remaining
charges from the night of the shootings.

  In the meantime, Ernie continued to complain in some of his letters that his property, initially confiscated by the New Jersey State Police on the night he was arrested, was being wrongfully held by the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office. On July 11, 1951, the prisoner contacted Judge Wick and asked him to facilitate the transfer of his car, clothes, papers, and jewelry to his younger sister, Mary Jane Wald. In his letter to Wick, Ernie stated, "the Prosucture sayes he has to hold thease things until he has tried me again But nome of my Personal Property has anything to do with a new trial as thease things should have never Been taking im the fiatst Place only things helping the Prosucture to find me guilty are not gulitey I meam he should only take things pertaining to my case."

  On July 20, Wick responded that he would talk to the prosecutor about Ernie's property, but that discussion had apparently not taken place by August 5, when the inmate wrote once more to the judge. Ernie again asked Wick to secure the return of his property, because he had received divorce papers from Tessie and planned to use some of his personal papers as evidence when he contested the divorce. Not surprisingly, Ernie's efforts to fight Tessie's wishes were unsuccessful. She obtained a divorce from him in 1951 and soon returned to using her maiden name of Mazzoli. Ernie's growing antagonism toward the prosecutor was fueled by his firm belief that the judge who had presided over the divorce proceedings would have listened to his appeal if he had only been given access to his personal papers.

  As authorities moved forward with preparations to try Ernie on the other murder charges, the prisoner studied law as much as he could. Once dismissed as the boy who couldn't learn, Ernie diligently applied himself to learning the law. Listening to and learning from veteran convicts who shared advice on how to work the system, he apparently decided that the best defense was a good offense. In October and November 1951, Ernie attempted to raise public support for his case by contacting Argosy magazine in New York. The popular men's periodical had launched a "Court of Last Resort," which investigated criminal cases and had successfully cleared several wrongfully accused inmates of the charges against them. Ernie apparently felt that the court could do the same for him. Ernie wasn't trying to gain the magazine's support to overthrow his murder conviction; he was interested in telling them how he had been railroaded into prison by his own lawyer and the prosecution. Argosy apparently never responded to his request for help.

  By November 1951, he began taking steps to try and postpone the prosecution's efforts to bring him once more to trial. Ernie apparently reasoned that the longer he caused a delay, the easier it would be to prove he had been denied his legal right to a speedy trial. On November 18, 1951, almost one year to the day after he had attacked his wife and his in-laws, Ernie wrote to Judge Wick, complaining that Sahl was not a "competant Laywer" who "has not worked to help me im anyway." He asked the judge to appoint another attorney for him. While he was "gratefull" for some of the things Sahl had done, Ernie felt the counselor had failed to properly advise him of his rights, a fact which he claimed had adversely affected the outcome of his trial.

  According to the letter, Ernie was disappointed because his attorney refused to appeal the verdict from his initial trial. Ernie claimed that Hannold was aware that the Pioppi family had lied under oath. He stated that he had asked Sahl to have him tried on an additional indictment to bring out "the truth" about how his rights had been violated by the prosecution. The inmate also vented his frustration because Sahl had not provided him with a copy of the trial transcript. What Ernie failed to acknowledge was that his lawyer had repeatedly advised him that a transcript would not be available unless he filed an appeal on his client's behalf. The conviction had to go through proper legal channels before an appeal could be heard, and that appeal had to have a legitimate basis-not just a defendant's claim that he had been treated unfairly. Ernie apparently felt those rules of procedure did not apply to him.

  The following day, Ernie received a response from Wick regarding his letter of November 18. The judge stated that the decision to prosecute him on the additional counts had to be made by the county prosecutor. The judge also explained that transcripts were only made available when an appeal was planned. Since Sahl was not going forward with one, "the County is under no obligation to furnish such a transcript at this time." Ernie stubbornly refused to accept Wick's decision, however. On December 5, he wrote to the judge again, still protesting that he deserved a new attorney and a new trial, so the world could learn how badly he had been treated.

  He also demanded a copy of his trial transcript once again, which he claimed was being kept from him to prevent him from receiving any justice. With the letter, Ernie enclosed two legal affidavits that he had prepared to prove his sincerity to the judge. One was a form stating that while he sought a new attorney, he was too poor to pay for his own counsel. The other was a request for the transcript of his first trial. He also asked the judge to intercede with the prosecutor's office on his behalf to make sure he received what he considered to be longoverdue trials for the murders of Michael Mazzoli and Theresa, John, and Marion Pioppi. While the state initially planned to prosecute him on the indictments for atrocious assault with intent to kill Tessie and Jeannie, those charges were later dropped. Unfortunately, that decision also remains yet another mystery related to this case. For a long time, rumors swirled that Ernie obviously "knew somebody" who was protecting him, for reasons unknown, from receiving the ultimate punishment for his crimes.

  While he waited for a response, Ernie contacted officials in Atlantic County when he did not receive word about the two charges that had been lodged against him there. He wanted to know if they planned to proceed with prosecuting him on the indictments. On November 26, 1951, David R. Brone, the assistant prosecutor for Atlantic County, wrote to Ernie, stating that the charges of assault with intent to kill had not yet been presented to the grand jury.

  Wick responded the following week to Ernie's letter of December 5, once again explaining that Sahl, still Ernie's attorney of record, would receive a copy of the transcript if and when he decided to appeal the verdict of the first trial. The judge also noted that should Ernie be prosecuted on the additional counts, another lawyer would be appointed to represent him, since he was obviously not happy with his current attorney. With typical impatience, Ernie wrote to Wick before the month was out, demanding to know why a date had not yet been set for his next trial. He also asked the judge once more to appoint him a competent attorney, so that he could begin preparing his defense. He pleaded, "I hope and Praye when this trial is over with my Children will at least know the truth about all this when they are old enufe to understand." Such sentiments about his children would continue to be trotted out from time to time whenever the defendant sought sympathy or media support. With the letter, he enclosed a copy of a legal motion he had written requesting that the prosecutor set a date for his trial on the remaining indictments.

  In June 1952, Ernie wrote once more to the Atlantic County court, asking for a court-appointed attorney to defend him on the assault charges, which had still not gone before the grand jury. He recommended that the judge appoint Philip Lipman of Vineland as his defense, because Lipman was already familiar with his case. Ernie undoubtedly appreciated how ironic it would have been had the judge paid attention to his wishes, given the role Lipman had played during his estrangement from Tessie. When William Blair, the court clerk, responded that he had given Ernie's request to the county prosecutor, the inmate wrote back immediately, repeatedly stating: "Sir will you Please let me know as soon as Possible that you have turned my letter over to the Judge that has my case So he can appoint me counsel at this time." By the end of June, Ernie, with typical impatience, was writing to the prosecutor to find out the status of the charges against him.

  On July 8, David Brone, the assistant prosecutor for Atlantic County, answered the inmate's letters: "Since you are presently indicted for several distinct and different homicides arisi
ng in Gloucester County ... we must yield to the prosecution of those homicide indictments prior to trying our own indictments which are of a less serious nature." His response did not deter Ernie, who wrote back the following week that he was not requesting counsel in the event that the county proceeded to take him to trial. He wanted a lawyer to arrange dismissal of the charges, because he had once again been denied his constitutional rights. According to Ernie, not only had he not gone to court in Atlantic County in a timely fashion, the delay in prosecuting his case had prejudiced its outcome "as five witnesses that would have helped me win an early acquittal have died."

  In that same letter, Ernie chastised the prosecutor for allowing the indictments in Gloucester County to take precedence over the charges in Atlantic County. He told Brone, "It was your duty by law to see that I was indicted, tried and convicted as soon as possible if I broke the law in your County." Perhaps Ernie believed that a conviction on the assault charges would have meant a shorter prison sentence. Maybe he believed that if he was sentenced on the lesser counts, he would have completely avoided prosecution for the murder charges. Since he frequently shifted verbal direction in his letters, it was difficult to determine what he expected to achieve by such a comment.

 

‹ Prev