By 1955, Ernie had spent so many hours hunched over a typewriter that he petitioned prison officials to allow him to purchase his own, rather than having to share a machine with other inmates. Although his request was initially denied, his persistence-contacting as many prison officials he could find, in addition to the warden-paid off. That year, Lloyd W. McCorkle, principle keeper of the New Jersey State Prison, announced that inmates would be allowed to buy their own machines after obtaining written permission from the office of the chief deputy. On the surface, this might appear to be a small victory for someone who no longer could control other aspects of his world. But Ernie's dogged determination to get his way also made it clear once again that he was not a man who allowed any obstacle to stand between him and his goal.
When he wasn't corresponding with the judges or attorneys, or writing letters to the editors of different newspapers, Ernie was busy typing out his own legal briefs and compiling records of the injustices that he felt had been handed to him. He continued to read voraciously. Although law books were not always readily available, he often sent away for legal pamphlets and newspaper accounts of other trials. Pleading poverty whenever it came time to pay for a lawyer, Ernie regularly wrote checks-thanks to the generosity of family members and friends-for any documents that he felt might have a bearing on his case. As time passed, the "boy" with the sixthgrade education would prove to be a fairly proficient jailhouse lawyer. He continued to wage a war of words since they were the only weapon left available to him. Although his methods might have seemed a little scattershot, to Ernie there was always a reason for focusing on a particular target.
On Thursday, January 6, 1955, Ernie appeared in Gloucester County Court before Judge Wick seeking dismissal of the remaining indictments against him for murder and aggravated assault. The defendant's petition noted that he was not assigned another lawyer until early 1954 and that his efforts to have his additional trials dismissed were denied by Judge Wick in an order dated March 9, 1954. Described by newspaper reporters as looking heavier than he had previously, Ernie was handcuffed and wore a dapper charcoal gray suit with a blue shirt and a blue-and-red tie. He carried a black briefcase with his notes on the motion for dismissal. At one point in the proceedings, Ernie jumped to his feet to attract his attorney's attention, but Judge Wick ordered him to sit down. Butler argued for more than an hour that the remaining indictments should be dismissed, because Ernie never received a speedy trial for them. He also told the court that the defense had been hampered by the death of six witnesses who would otherwise have been called to testify on Ernie's behalf. They were John Mazzoli, Michael Ferrucci, Louis Ferrucci, Louis Casella, Charles Hornaby, and William Mollineaux. The defense attorney said that these witnesses had not testified during the first trial because Ernie was not apprised of his right to call them. Ironically, in a letter dated January 11, 1955, to Del Brandt, a reporter with the Vineland Times Journal, Ernie admitted that at least two of those witnesses-Ferrucci and Mazzoli- probably would have been reluctant to testify on his behalf.
When Butler presented his motion for a dismissal of the indictments, Guy Lee Jr., the Gloucester County prosecutor, vigorously opposed him. He contended that his office had been prepared to try Ernie on numerous occasions, but had been foiled because of the trouble between the prisoner and his first attorney, Frank Sahl. The prosecutor argued that Ernie would have already been heard on the other indictments had he not maliciously tried to have his attorney disbarred. Lee added that he was still ready to prosecute the inmate on the remaining charges. During the hearing, Ernie occasionally glanced around the room, but other than an uncle, no family members, including those of the victims, were present. The Vineland Times Journal reported, "Ingenito and his attorney are gambling everything in a long shot hope that the former appliance salesman will gain his freedom. If the indictments against him are dropped, Ingenito will become eligible for parole later. If the indictments are not dismissed and he is tried and found guilty on a second murder charge, it is possible that he will receive the death penalty." Butler claimed that the passage of time was prejudicial to his client because Mrs. Ingenito, formerly barred from testifying against her husband, was now available as a state's witness.
Ernie continued to stockpile further ammunition in his battle for freedom. Letters from Drawer N at State Prison, which was Ernie's post office box, continued to turn up at newspaper offices, on lawyers' desks, and were even sent to priests who he attempted to enlist as character witnesses.
In February 1955, Ernie tried to obtain a copy of the transcript of his divorce hearing, but after he failed to persuade someone to give him one, he claimed the $35 cost was too expensive. That same month, he also wrote to attorney John J. Kitchen of Woodbury, requesting all of the names of the members of the Ethics and Grievance Committee who had previously rejected his allegations against Frank Sahl. That March, he wrote to the chief of police in Stratford, New Jersey, requesting that his sister, Mary Jane Wald, be arrested for larceny. Ernie said that he had repeatedly written to his sister, requesting that his personal property be turned over to an unnamed cousin. Since Wald refused to cooperate, he stated, "I am sure I can show intent to steal and this is a Grand Larceny offense because the money, clothing and personal property exceeds a great deal over $50.00." (He probably meant $500.)
On February 6, Ernie contacted Shick again to discuss the possibility of an appeal should Atlantic County decide to prosecute him on the assault charges. When Shick responded that he was not going to be further involved with Ernie's affairs, the inmate wrote to him again: "If an appeal is necessary in this case, and I lose the right to an appeal because of any action on your part, or inaction, you better start working on a good spiel and have yourself two good attorneys as you are going to need them. As someone just as yourself should not be permitted to practice law in this State. Where did you get your shingle at anyway, at Pep Boys?"
His attitude did not sit well with Shick, who informed him that "in the event there is an adverse decision, in your matter, that I am of the opinion that an appeal would not be justified, consequently, will not ask the Court to assign any Counsellorat-Law nor will I make any effort to appeal the decision." In the end, Prosecutor Emory Keiss of Atlantic County announced that year he had "conceded" Ingenito to Gloucester County authorities, for arraignment of the five killings there, rather than pursue the assault charges for the attack on Frank and Hilda Mazzoli.
In the meantime, a letter to Butler dated February 21 showed Ernie's continued need to try and argue both sides of his situations, as he had so often in the past. Ernie wrote, "Yes, it is true in my letter of January 25th, I felt you were right in not pressing for a decision in this matter. But, after going over this matter a great deal and much thought, I cannot consent to any delay in this case." Early in March, Judge Wick denied the motion to dismiss the remaining indictments against Ernie. Butler and LeDuc began working on yet another appeal, but this time, the judge's decision meant Ernie would ultimately have his day in court-whether or not he welcomed the opportunity.
As the date of his next trial moved closer, Ernie scrambled to gather as much evidence as he could to support his claims of mistreatment at the hands of the Mazzolis. He contacted Leggett's Canning House in Landisville to obtain copies of his paychecks to prove that he had financially contributed to the household. Ernie filed a motion that forced Gloucester County sheriff Wayne M. Ralston to release the names of visitors he had received while imprisoned at the county jail. After he was provided with a copy of the list, the inmate informed the sheriff that it was incomplete and inaccurate, because he did not receive all the visitors it showed and the names of some visitors had not been included. In March, the inmate also contacted Dr. Ralph Banay, one of the psychiatrists who interviewed him after his arrest. Ernie wanted copies of the report Banay had given to his lawyer, but the doctor said he could not make that information available to him. Ernie was not pleased by his response, answering that patients should always be
allowed access to their medical records.
Shortly afterward, Butler filed an appeal on his client's behalf in Gloucester County, a fact that the inmate tried to use to embarrass Shick into having the charges dismissed in Atlantic County. Ernie wanted to know why Butler could move forward with his case, but Schick couldn't? Fortunately for Ernie, on March 6, 1955, the two indictments against him for assault with intent to kill on Frank and Hilda Mazzoli were finally ruled nolle prosequi, a Latin term that meant the Atlantic County prosecutor's office decided it was not worth spending county time or money on pursuing a trial. Once again, by not prosecuting Ernie on these two indictments, the full weight of his actions on the night of November 17, 1950, was effectively diluted. When he continued to be barraged with correspondence from Ernie, Shick responded on March 25, 1955: "I advise you to write Judge [Anthony] Cafiero [of the New Jersey Superior Court] directly and request him to relieve me and appoint another lawyer for you."
That same month, Ernie contacted Robert Levy of New York in an effort to interest the attorney in his libel case against the New York Daily News. Levy responded that he did not handle such matters. The New York Legal Aid Society provided Ernie with a list of attorneys' names, but no one expressed interest in bringing his case to court. In the meantime, Ernie continued to write to Butler about his appeal on the additional indictments in Gloucester County-one day thanking him profusely for his help and the next berating him for not proceeding with the case according to his wishes. The prisoner was especially demanding about being present in court when Butler was ready to appear before the judge. It became apparent in the voluminous correspondence that after four years in jail, Ernie still refused to accept any responsibility for his actions on that fatal night and placed the blame for his incarceration squarely on what he saw as a corrupt legal system. He seemed to feel that his truth was the only truth, and he wasn't going to rest until he could prove everyone else was wrong. In order to do that, he needed to appear before the judge. Ernie continued to push his attorney to obtain a copy of the transcript from his first trial in the event his motion for dismissal of the remaining indictments was denied.
On April 15, the appellate division of the New Jersey Superior Court heard arguments on AM 62-54, State v. Ingenito. In May, Ernie wrote to Judge Cafiero once again, asking that Sahl be compelled to provide him with copies of the transcript of his first trial. The following month, Cafiero responded: "Inasmuch as your appeal is pending before our Supreme Court, I think it is well that matters remain in status quo. However, if your attorney has need for the transcript, have him communicate with me and I will see that it is made available to him."
The judge's response was undoubtedly frustrating to Ernie. Despite Butler and LeDuc being his attorneys of record, he probably felt that he was being forced to act as his own legal counsel. As a result, Ernie very likely believed he should be granted the same rights as any defense lawyer. The state Supreme Court ultimately denied Ernie's appeal regarding dismissal of the additional indictments but that decision did not quench his thirst for what he considered to be justice.
In May, Ernie sent Butler and LeDuc an affidavit regarding those witnesses who died before they could testify on his behalf. In the statement, the inmate noted that his wife's paternal grandfather, John Mazzoli, would have told the court "that the defendant's life was made more than miserable over a span of years when he resided with his in-laws." Ernie stated that had he known that he could have called Mazzoli and four other witnesses to speak in 1951, he never would have been convicted on the charge of murdering Pearl Mazzoli.
Where was the transcript from Ernie's first trial? This subject remained a continuing theme through his letters to Butler as the months progressed. But a new, slightly paranoid tone began to permeate his correspondence-one that harked back to the alleged conspiracy between the lawyers and the court to keep him in jail. On May 8, 1955, Ernie wrote to Butler:
Sir, I have a right to this transcript, and I do want to see it. I know for a fact that the Gloucester County Jail Register has been changed to show that I received visits that I did not receive. I also know that the records in the Gloucester County Clerk's office has also been changed. All this has been done and I am sure at Mr. Hannold's request, I can not prove this, but I can prove that they have been changed.
There was no record available to show that Ernie ever attempted to prove that statement to county officials.
That same month, Ernie began talking to his lawyers about filing an appeal with the United States Supreme Court, in an effort to get the remaining four indictments dismissed. His attorneys agreed to assist him with presenting his case to the Supreme Court, but as a result, the state postponed any further action until a decision was handed down from the federal level. The federal Supreme Court rejected Ernie's appeal in May, once more setting the stage for his return to court in New Jersey.
On June 9, 1955, Ernie wrote to Judge Cafiero, protesting the fact that Frank Sahl and Herbert Butler had spoiled his chances of a successful appeal by not appearing in court on his behalf in a timely fashion. He asked the judge to grant him time to argue the motion himself, and if Cafiero declined: "Then I'd suggest you send me a formal order denying the motion which will thereby fix my grounds for appeal, should one be necessary."
In July, Ernie contacted Cafiero again to tell him that Butler and LeDuc were no longer serving as his court-appointed attorneys. Since he now had to formally represent himself, the inmate felt it was only fair that he receive his long-awaited copy of the transcript from his first trial. Had his attorneys been officially relieved of their responsibilities? Or was this just another ploy by the defendant to delay going to trial? Ernie's only response came from Cafiero's secretary. She advised him that since the Superior Court judge was then on vacation, she was forwarding all of Ernie's correspondence to Judge Wick-the man who had long since fallen out of the prisoner's good graces. And, he wasn't the only one.
On August 9, 1955, Ernie contacted Gloucester County prosecutor Guy Lee Jr. to inform him that he wished to file criminal charges against E. Milton Hannold, who had served as prosecutor during his murder trial. Ernie claimed that Hannold was guilty of "non-feasance and malfeasance while in office, and obstructing justice, in violation of the State Constitution, Article 7, Paragraph 1; and in violation of Statute R.S. 2:182-5, and 2A:158-5." Ernie charged that Hannold had deliberately kept his additional cases out of court to prevent him from receiving justice. "Mr. Hannold knew that I was convicted on perjured testimony at my first trial," he wrote, but this time he offered no specifics on who lied under oath. Ernie also stated that the prosecutor had rushed him to trial inside of a month, preventing the defense from being adequately prepared in time. So on one side, Ernie argued that he had not received a speedy trial on the remaining indictments, while on the other he declared that he had been convicted because his first trial had been presented too quickly. Once again, he was arguing both sides of his case, hoping that someone would listen.
That September, Ernie heard from Judge Cafiero, who advised him that Frank Sahl was in possession of a copy of the trial transcript, but that the attorney was unwilling to turn it over to his former client. Since Sahl had personally paid for the copy, the judge was reluctant to force him to release the material. Instead, Cafiero offered to have copies made of any part of the transcript that Ernie might need, as long as it wasn't "too lengthy." In response, Ernie asked for a copy of the section relating to the first day of his trial that witnesses were called to testify, as well as the closing arguments of both the prosecution and the defense. A few days later, Ernie received another letter from Cafiero, stating that no material would be released until Ernie received a verdict from the federal Supreme Court on his appeal.
On September 21, 1955, Ernie wrote to Lee protesting that the state had no right to bring him before a judge on the four additional murder charges until his case had been decided by the United States Supreme Court, especially since he no longer had legal representation
. "You surely must be aware that Mr. Butler deserted the ship and that I am therefore without an attorney-nor do I have money to hire counsel." In the letter, he asked the prosecutor to help him get new counsel. In typical fashion, Ernie wrote, "I herewith request that you see that five (5) counselors-at-law be appointed to represent me inasmuch as I have four (4) capital charges pending against me. I base my right to counsel on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as well as Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45," in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the accused has the right to an attorney from the time of arraignment until the beginning of trial.
To Ernie, due in court on four separate charges, it made perfect sense that he should receive a different court-appointed lawyer in each case. After pleading once again that he was too poor to pay for his own counsel, the inmate told Lee to make sure whomever was selected was "competent." In the letter, he wrote, "Knowing that I cannot receive a fair trial at this time, I am not going to court giving it any jurisdiction over me whatsoever." Apparently, Ernie was going to carry a lot of hostility into court. But did Ernie truly believe that he would be able to reject or avoid any future verdict that was handed down? He was no doubt starting to worry that the death penalty was now becoming more of a possibility.
As the trial date loomed, the state asked different doctors to examine Ernie to determine if he was fit for trial. On September 26, 1955, Dr. F. Lovell Bixby, the director of Corrections and Parole for New Jersey prisons, responded to Lee: "I am requesting Doctor [Ralph] Brancale, Director of the Diagnostic Center, to arrange for a prompt examination of Ernest Ingenito to determine whether his mental condition is such that he can stand trial." Apparently, the proposed interview wasn't scheduled all that promptly, because it was not until the afternoon of Friday, January 6, 1956, that Dr. J. B. Gordon recorded his thoughts about Ernie at the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office. Gordon and his medical colleagues, Dr. Brancale and Dr. Harold S. McGee, worked for the State Department of Institutions and Agencies. They had examined the prisoner in the presence of Lee and county detective George Small. Dr. Gordon reported that since Ernie refused to leave his cell for the interview, the three doctors visited him there at the state prison. At first, Ernie sat on a trash can at the back of his cell and refused to talk. Gordon described the inmate's attitude as "rather surly, sullen, antagonistic and suspicious." After the doctors had been there for a while, Ernie finally moved slowly forward and talked "freely and frankly" to his visitors.
Rain of Bullets: The True Story of Ernest Ingenito's Bloody Family Massacre Page 18