Innocent In Prison Project International

[admin]

Vito R. Russo
SSCF 64522
700 Charlestown Road
Springfield, VT 05156-4400
U.S.A.

DOB: 5-22-1966
(possibly innocent)

Case No: 1619-11-02 WmCr
Date of the Crime: 11-17-2002
Date of Conviction: 4-4-2003
Sentence: 15-21 years for attempted aggravated assault

http://www.justicepursued.com/
Vito Russo's Website

[admin]

Note:

One cannot be guilty of a crime that has never been commited.

[emarse]

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR JUSTICE OCTOBER 17th 2007 at 8:30am in ROOM 4

RUSSO vs. STATE OF VERMONT DOCKET NO. 295-7-05 WMCV
FOR HIS POST CONVICTION RELIEF TRIAL

WINDHAM SUPERIOR COURT HOUSE

LOCATED AT: 7 COURT STREET, NEWFANE, VERMONT 05345
(802) 365-7979 OR www.vermontjudiciary.org

IN OCTOBER 2002 VITO RUSSO LOST EVERYTHING AT NO FAULT OF HIS OWN. HIS HOME, PROPERTY, BUSINESS AND BELONGINGS. THE UNIQUE VERMONT MOTEL AND GIFT SHOP FRAUDULENTLY TAKEN BY JOHN MCKAY WHO WANTED RUSSO’S FAMILY HOMELESS AND OUT OF HIS WAY, WITH A MILLION DOLLAR MOTIVE. RUSSO’S FAMILY WAS VITO’S ONLY MAIN CONCERN WHEN HE STOPPED AND OFFERED MCKAY $5000 CASH FOR HIS CONCENT THAT VITO’S WIFE AND CHILDREN COULD RESIDE IN THEIR HOME THROUGH THE HOLIDAYS,ONLY 2 MONTHS. INSTEAD RUSSO WAS FALSELY ACCUSED BY THIS SAME PERSON THEN WRONGFULLY CONVICTED.

SENTENCED TO 21 YEARS FOR A CRIME HE DID NOT COMMIT
FEDERAL CHARGES CAME FROM THAT SAME ALLEGED CRIME WHICH WAS DISMISSED RECENTLY AFTER A JURY WAS PICKED FOR TRIAL AND AFTER 3 YEARS OF HARRASEMENT TO RUSSO AND HIS FAMILY. THE EFFECTS WERE DEVESTATING AS RUSSO LOST HIS WIFE THAT ONCE STOOD BY HIS SIDE.

THE EVIDENCE PROVED THERE WAS NO INTENT, THREAT, HARM NOR ANY VIOLENCE… THE ORIGINAL CHARGE WAS ATTEMPTED SIMPLE ASSAULT!
NOW VITO RUSSO GOES FOR A POST CONVICTION RELIEF TRIAL TO PROVE HE WAS FALSELY ACCUSED AND WRONGFULLY CONVICTED …IT IS SAID THAT IT IS BETTER FOR TEN GUILTY TO GO FREE THAN FOR ONE INNOCENT TO SUFFER INCARCERATION.

A COMMITMENT TO THE POOR IS THE MEASURE OF THE SOUL OF A TOWN.
WHERE IS JUSTICE AND WHAT'S OUTRAGEOUS?

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR JUSTICE
AND JUSTICE FOR VITO RUSSO….

Please visit our website at http://www.justicepursued.com

YOU MAY WRITE VITO J. RUSSO at vjarusso@yahoo.com or
CCA-LAC #330696
PO Box 900
Beattyville, KY. 41311

Or to contact attorney
Chris Montgomery for PCR Trial (802) 775-2508

[admin]

Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law

www.iippi.org/pdf/vitorusso.pdf (10 pages)
signed by Chris Montgomery, Esq.
for Vito Russo
on October 29, 2007

[admin]

Audio-File of Hearing

2006-258
STATE OF VERMONT v. VITO RUSSO*
Davis, Dan, Esq. Fulcher, Allison, Esq.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2007 at 10:45 AM (10 min. hearing)
http://jwebaudio.synecology.com/feb07/2006-258.wma


http://www.dui1.com/DuiCaseLawDetail612.htm
State v. Russo
10-8-2004

[emarse]

On Jan. 8, 2008 Vito's lawyer told him that his conviction has been overturned and he should be returned to Vermont as soon as possible.

Finally, after 5 years we are seeing some Justice! We are very excited and waiting his return. At this time he is still being held in Lock Down at Lee Correctional in Kentucky.

Thank you for all your support!

[admin]

Conviction overturned for man jailed in 2003

Author: NICOLE ORNE, Reformer Staff
Article ID: 7940922
Date: January 11, 2008
Publication: Brattleboro Reformer (VT)

Friday, January 11 BRATTLEBORO -- The man found guilty in 2003 of chasing a Brattleboro man's car down Marlboro Road, firing shots from a sawed-off shotgun, had his case overturned this week. Vito Russo, 41, of Brattleboro, had been sentenced to 15 to 21 years in prison for charges of aggravated assault, DUI, unlawful trespass and driving with a suspended license.


Following a petition for post-conviction relief, Vermont Superior Court ruled Monday that his attorney, Eileen

Read full text at http://www.reformer.com/archivesearch

[admin]

Bail-seeker faces habitual offender charges

March 28, 2008

By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff

BRATTLEBORO — A former Brattleboro resident who was convicted in 2003 of chasing his neighbor in his car and shooting at him repeatedly, tried once again Thursday to be released on bail pending his new trial.

Vito Russo, 41, who has served five years of a 21-year prison term, was recently granted a new trial by Superior Court Judge David Howard on the grounds that his public defender failed to hire an expert witness to dispute ballistics evidence.

Russo allegedly chased John McKay in his car and shot at him repeatedly in a dispute over a foreclosure that McKay had initiated against Russo. The two men were driving on Route 9 in West Brattleboro.

Full text at www.rutlandherald.com
Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.

[admin]

In re Russo (2008-070)

2010 VT 16

[Filed 26-Feb-2010]

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


2010 VT 16

No. 2008-070

In re Vito Russo Supreme Court

On Appeal from
Windham Superior Court

September Term, 2008


David A. Howard, J.

Allison N. Fulcher of Martin & Associates, Barre, and Vito J. Russo, Pro Se, Springfield, for
Petitioner-Appellee.

Tracy Kelly Shriver, Windham County State’s Attorney, Brattleboro, for Respondent-Appellant.


PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.


1. SKOGLUND, J. Petitioner, jailed for a term of twelve-to-fifteen years on a conviction for aggravated assault, sought post-conviction relief (PCR) on the grounds that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at his trial. The PCR court agreed, concluding that petitioner’s trial attorney deprived him of effective representation by failing to engage a firearms expert to testify at trial and failing to test-fire the rifle at issue. The State appeals and argues that the trial attorney’s tactical decisions were within an acceptable range of professional judgment and, even if there were unprofessional errors, petitioner produced no evidence showing, within a reasonable probability, that absent those errors the outcome of his trial would have been different. We affirm.

Full text at http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/supct/current/op2008-070.html