In a bound volume of copies of his letters, Ernie included a summary of newspaper articles that someone had sent him, recounting the state's plans for an upcoming trial on the remaining murder charges against him. The letters he wrote afterward revealed the inmate apparently got so engrossed in picking out the mistakes in the stories that he didn't realize he was often contradicting his own statements in previous correspondence. In a summary of the case, Ernie blamed Sahl for pushing for another trial, rather than filing an appeal, "well knowing the deck was stacked" against his client. Apparently, he forgot that just months before he had asked both his lawyer and the judge to proceed with another trial so that the "truth" about the first one could be made public. Ernie's summary also noted the following about his first trial: "Judge Wick played right along with the lying two-faced Prosecutor and the sawedoff ambulance chaser Sahl." He failed to mention that the judge had pounced on both attorneys, denying their motions whenever he felt either side was out of line.
At the same time, Ernie denounced Wick for not proceeding with another trial on the remaining charges, when as a prisoner, he had every right to demand one. When Ernie failed to receive what he felt was the correct response from the county court regarding his next trial, he instructed his attorney to move for a dismissal. On June 13, 1952, Sahl appeared before Judge Wick as his client had requested, but the judge denied his motion to dismiss the remaining indictments. A trial date of October 13 of that year was set by the court.
Ernie blamed his lawyer for what he saw as discrimination against him on the part of the court. In his letters, he constantly railed against the legal and political conspiracy to keep him-a poor, uneducated working man-from receiving proper justice by denying him his rights. In the meantime, Frank Sahl had apparently had enough of his temperamental client. On August 21, 1952, the Woodbury attorney appeared with his own counsel, Lawrence N. Park of Camden, before Judge Wick to request that he be relieved of his responsibilities as Ernie's attorney. The Vineland Times Journal, which covered the court appearance, stated that Park told the court there was "violent hatred" and "a lack of respect" between the two men.
Prosecutor Hannold, who was present in court that day, opposed the request because he felt changing lawyers was just another ploy on Ernie's part to delay his next trial. Wick reserved his decision on Park's motion, but did, in fact, cancel the October 13 trial date, because he didn't want the defendant to appear without proper legal representation. The judge felt that if Sahl was not going to be comfortable defending his client, then a new attorney had to be appointed and that person would need time to prepare. An overloaded court schedule caused further delay, and the trial date was postponed until September 24, 1954. Ernie continued to petition the court for a new attorney; on December 24, 1952, Frank Sahl was formally removed from that role.
Ernie would later contend that he had never been advised of the trial's cancellation and viewed it as another effort by the court to keep him from achieving justice. Despite the proposed September 24, 1954, court date, Judge Wick told the Vineland Times Journal on January 9, 1953, that he felt little could be gained by scheduling further court appearances since it was "impossible to add prison sentences to a life sentence." Did this statement reflect the judge's belief that Ernie would likely never be paroled and forced to spend the rest of his life in jail? According to the article, "Ingenito's legal maneuvering from behind prison walls is thought to be an attempt to remove detainers in the form of indictments against him for the slaying of four other members of his wife's family and wounding four others. With the detainers removed, he then could go before the parole board after he has served the required minimum time and seek a parole."
In the meantime, Ernie still had not heard anything about a new lawyer. Although the court dragged its feet for a few more weeks, by the end of January, Judge Elmer B. Woods of the New Jersey Superior Court, with jurisdiction over Atlantic and Gloucester counties among others, had appointed Herbert H. Butler of Mullica Hill to represent Ernie.
Go to trial? Don't go to trial? Were authorities reluctant to pursue another trial because it was simply viewed as an unnecessary financial drain on county resources? Or did they believe that the life sentence Ernie had received for the single murder conviction was sufficient punishment? To date, no explanation other than an overcrowded calendar has been presented as to why the state failed to proceed in a more timely fashion with prosecution of the additional charges. In a letter to Ernie, Butler said that the judge had asked him "to look into the matter of Motions to dismiss the outstanding indictments" and that he would soon be in contact with him. Ernie quickly requested a visit so that they could "discuss the matter thoroughly" before Butler appeared on his behalf in court. Just as he had done in the past, Ernie began writing lengthy letters every week to his new attorney, directing him on what he felt was the right way for Butler to handle his defense.
As he waited for further legal action, Ernie continued to write to everyone from legal authorities to newspaper editors. His letters always resounded with one familiar theme-he was right and the rest of the world was wrong. By February, cracks were already appearing in Ernie's relationship with his new lawyer. Butler, like his predecessor, had apparently failed to follow Ernie's demands and instructions to the letter. In practice by himself, the attorney explained repeatedly that he did not always have the time or resources to attend to his new client in a way that Ernie felt was appropriate. But Ernie didn't care. It only mattered that Butler had neglected to get copies of his first trial transcripts. In addition, the inmate did not approve of the way that Butler had written his motion for dismissal. Their sometimes heated exchange continued for the next nine months. Finally, Butler argued motions for dismissal before Judge Woods in the Gloucester County Superior Court on October 13 and again on October 18, 1953. Woods denied both of Butler's motions, a fact that probably left Ernie feeling vindicated. Here was another lawyer who couldn't handle things without his help.
Their relationship grew even more strained after Butler apparently advised his client to plead guilty to the outstanding charges against him, in an effort to avoid the death penalty. In return, Butler received a lengthy letter dated February 15, 1954, from Ernie, which noted, "I am sure I do not understand that and when you tell me something like that I should write Judge Woods and tell him you do not care to help me. And I do not feel that you are interested in Justice when you make a statement like that." First Sahl. Now Butler. Wasn't there a lawyer whom he could trust? Unfortunately, this was only the beginning of the list of allegedly "incompetent" attorneys that would grow more than twice as long before a final disposition was made of Ernie's case.
Butler did take the time to draft a lengthy response to his client's concerns. In a letter dated February 27, 1954, he explained to Ernie that his assignment dealt specifically with dismissal of the outstanding indictments. The attorney stated that he had advised his client to plead guilty to avoid trial on the outstanding charges, because if convicted, Ernie could still wind up in the electric chair. He effectively managed to assuage the worst of Ernie's fears and stated that he would remain as his court-appointed counsel. Little did he know that the roller-coaster ride was far from over.
In the months that followed, Ernie continued to argue that he was entitled to a dismissal of the outstanding indictments, citing other cases as evidence of the prejudicial treatment he had received. Although some of those cases were completely different from his own, the inmate drew similarities that he apparently felt were important. The following year, Butler appeared on March 9 before Judge Wick, but his efforts to obtain a dismissal of the remaining indictments were once again denied. At that time, Butler was joined by Camden attorney Louis B. LeDuc, but their efforts to appeal previous rulings in the case continued to be denied from the county level to the appellate division of the courts.
Ernie's constant barrage of correspondence finally provoked the following response from Butler on April 2, 1954: "One more such letter from you and
I will withdraw from your case and that will be the end of it as far as I am concerned." Apparently, Ernie backed down after receiving his lawyer's acerbic response, because they continued to discuss the case by mail through the month of April. Many of Ernie's lengthy letters to his attorney were filled with details of what his deceased witnesses might have said had they been permitted to testify on his behalf. Once again, it was difficult to tell if their alleged support would have been real or if the defendant had altered the facts to reflect his version of the truth, especially since some of the witnesses had been related to his former wife.
The lack of control that Ernie had over his daily life in prison, as well as his inability to direct preparation for his upcoming trial, had to have been exceedingly frustrating for him. After all, Ernie had spent most of his life calling the shots. He did try to control himself, for the most part, in his correspondence, but in one letter to Butler dated April 15, 1954, he wrote that that he had requested a trial on the outstanding charges because he wanted Tessie-referred to as "that b-h"-to testify so that she could be cross-examined regarding the events of November 17, 1950. That was the only way Ernie felt she would be forced to tell the truth, evidently choosing to believe her testimony would not have supplied damaging details about the events of that night. As he had done in the past, Ernie conveniently forgot that his first lawyer, for that very reason, had opposed any of Tessie's words being admitted into the record when Trooper Yeager tried to testify about his exchange with her. In addition to complaining about Tessie, Ernie focused on what he called the lies told by both Jino and Armando Pioppi in court. The inmate told his lawyer that he could produce evidence that the two men had perjured themselves on the witness stand but no sign of the alleged proof was ever produced.
On April 20, 1954, Ernie wrote to Ben Leuchter, the publisher of the Vineland Times Journal, and stated that he was prepared to go to trial. He told Leuchter that he was putting his life on the line to show his sons "there are a lot of unscrupulous people in this world that hide behind the law to better their interests." Once again, he trotted out his children in an effort to gain public support. In his opinion, he had not been put on trial for murder but had served as a scapegoat to further the careers of the prosecutor and the judge. This attitude remained unchanged in the correspondence he generated in the years that followed.
Butler's failure to move the case forward in what Ernie saw as a timely fashion provoked further protests from the inmate that May. He derided his lawyer for being afraid to stand up to the county prosecutor and stated, "Please do not feel that my letters have hurt your prestige, character or dignity, as you do not have any. If the County pays you one tin dime for what you have done in my case, I am sure you will be well over paid." In response, Butler offered once again to withdraw from Ernie's case. On June 3, Ernie wrote to Butler and said that he did not mean to sound sarcastic in his last letter, but that he was tired of being used as a "political football." He stated, "It only took the Gloucester County Court and Mr. Sahl three weeks to frame me into a life sentence. And I did not have to ask to be tried and did not ask to be tried then." What can be said about a man who feels that the court needed his permission to conduct a trial?
On June 6, 1954, Ernie wrote to Judge Woods, stating that he did not wish to complain, but he was not happy with the apparent lack of interest Butler was taking in his case. In the letter, he included a veiled threat that he would report Woods to the court administrator if he did not respond to Ernie's concerns in a timely fashion. Ernie wrote, "I do hope that I have not made any mistake in not mailing my letter to Mr. [Edward] McConnell and leaving the matter up to you." The following day, Butler advised his client in writing that Judge Woods still wanted him to prepare and argue a motion for dismissal on the outstanding indictments. While Ernie expressed his gratitude in a letter to Butler, he also told his lawyer, "If you are going to ask for anything less than a dismissal and a judgment of acquittal, I am sure I cannot agree with you." Despite their conflicts, Butler opted to remain Ernie's lawyer. In August, the attorney sent his client a copy of the legal brief he had prepared and invited Ernie to note any changes or comments that might make it more effective.
In the midst of the correspondence with his Gloucester County attorney, Ernie received notice on August 5, 1954, from David Brone, the assistant prosecutor for Atlantic County, that Philip Shick of Atlantic City had been appointed by the court as his defense attorney for charges filed against him there. Brone said that Shick would probably push for a dismissal of the assault indictments that were scheduled to be heard by the grand jury when it met on September 7 at the courthouse in Mays Landing. At that time, the prosecutor's office apparently planned to "resist any such motion," but that position would change by the time the Atlantic County grand jury was impaneled.
Shick initially tackled his new role with enthusiasm. He wrote to Ernie the next day, advising the inmate about his appointment. In response, Ernie asked to meet with him at the prison as soon as possible. As with his other lawyers, the relationship, which was cordial enough at the beginning, would sour within months. Ernie continually tried to control his defense and promote his own agenda rather than allow Shick to handle matters according to proper procedure. Ernie still wrote his own motions, which he expected Shick to present to the judge, and bombarded his new lawyer with copies of court decisions that he believed related to his case. The prisoner's latest goal was to file a clemency petition with the governor, if he could get the charges in Atlantic County and the remaining cases in Gloucester County dismissed.
On September 8, 1954, Judge Woods withheld his decision on whether or not to proceed with the remaining indictments against Ernie. He apparently was waiting for a decision from the New Jersey State Supreme Court about the case. Once again, Ernie had decided to take his case to a "higher power" in hope of avoiding further prosecution. During the September 1954 session, Supreme Court justices Sidney Goldmann, Walter J. Freund, and Milton M. Conford heard Ernie's petition, which stated the following: "On June 11, 1952, assigned counsel petitioned the Gloucester County Court to dismiss the remaining six indictments for lack of prosecution. This motion was denied by the Gloucester County Court and a trial date of October 13, 1952, was set by the Court." The motion cited the fact that on July 23, 1952, Ernie had petitioned the Gloucester County Ethics and Grievance Committee about the "unethical and unprofessional conduct" of his assigned counsel. When Judge Wick was advised of Ernie's petition, he canceled the trial date since he felt it was not appropriate for the defendant to appear in court without counsel or accompanied by someone with whom he had a strained relationship. As the justices considered their decision, September 24, Ernie's next anticipated court date, came and went without any trial.
Butler tried to explain to Ernie that his repeated allegations about being denied the right to a speedy trial on the remaining charges were not the reason his next trial had been delayed. His lawyer explained that Ernie's case had not already been heard because of the inmate's repeated demands that Sahl be removed as his court-appointed attorney. In addition, Ernie's constant battles with his current attorney and endless appeals to the courts had done nothing to move things forward. When Butler stated at the end of September that he was ready to bring a motion of dismissal before the judge, Ernie responded by the following week: "I am only hoping this is true and that you are not saying this only to stall me. And if I do not hear from you by the 15th of this month (October 15th 1954), I am going to file the papers myself, regardless what you tell me."
This exchange triggered yet another disagreement between the two men. On October 18, Ernie sent a letter to Judge Woods, asking for Butler's removal as his court-appointed attorney. The prisoner noted, "If Mr. Butler can not make a motion in over nine (9) months, I am sure he will never be able to make one." In the end, Butler remained as Ernie's lawyer. That October, Shick, also under attack from his client, tried to get the court to release him from his responsibilities. He was also unsuccessful.
So, the delays continued. On December 2, 1954, Judge Wick wrote to Ernie advising him that Judge Woods would not be available for the immediate future due to illness. As a result, Wick would handle any motions that Ernie wanted to file. The prisoner was upset by this change because he felt that Wick was prejudiced against him and would not be sympathetic to his pleas. However, lawyers and judges were not the only targets of Ernie's wrath at that time. In December 1954, Ernie threatened the New York Daily News with a $2 million lawsuit because he claimed the paper had defamed him in a story about a riot at the New Jersey State Institution for the Insane, as the state mental hospital was then known.
That November, three hundred inmates had taken over the dining room, attacked their attendants, and set fire to piles of broken furniture. The paper named Ernie as one of the ringleaders. While Butler tried to dissuade him from pursuing any civil action in the matter, Ernie began a letter-writing campaign to lawyers throughout New Jersey and New York. In a letter to Jersey City attorney Frank Schlosser, Ernie said that he was described as the "mad, crazed, and the maniac leader of a riot staged by inmates" at the institution-a mistake that he felt could only be rectified with a substantial settlement, especially since he had never been judged insane or sentenced to the state hospital. At one point, he even argued that he was trying to get the money in order to help his children, whom he was sure had already "suffered enough." His efforts to obtain legal assistance to argue his libel case were unsuccessful.
Schlosser did advise Ernie that before he could take legal action, he had to first seek a retraction from the paper. Harry Green, a colleague of attorney Philip Lipman, told Ernie to take up the matter with his personal lawyer, but the prisoner chose not to speak further with Butler about his claim. After discussing Green's recommendation in a letter to Lipman, Ernie attached the following postscript: "If you have seen my sons, will you please let me know how they are doing? I have not been able to see my children for over four years now. And if possible, let me know if my ex-wife has remarried? Someday the day of judgment will come and may God have mercy on her soul."
Rain of Bullets: The True Story of Ernest Ingenito's Bloody Family Massacre Page 17