 |
Emergency Line
24 Hours a Day
(978) 995-1122
Lowell Office
Nine Middlesex Street
Lowell, MA. 01852
Tel. (978) 452-7100
Fax (978) 452-3278
|
|
 |
|
The Lowell Sun, June 11, 1992
Lowell man innocent of attempted murder
By LINDA HERVIEUX Sun Staff
CAMBRIDGE – A Middlesex Superior Court jury yesterday found Lorum Lam innocent of attempted murder, the most serious charge lodged against the Lowell man in the July 1990 beating of an ice cream vendor in the South Common.
The jury, which had been deadlocked on the charge, returned the verdict at about 4:30 p.m., four days after deliberations began. On Tuesday, the jury found Lam, 21, of Lowell, guilty of two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon – a wooden board and shod feet. Lam was scheduled to be sentenced today. He faces a maximum 20 years in state prison. Lam was among three men charged with beating ice cream vendor Arthur Lettas, now 20, at the common. The jury returned the guilty at midday Tuesday, telling Judge John P. Forte they were deadlocked on the most serious count – armed assault with intent to murder. Forte sent them back to deliberate that charge. After three days of testimony, the jury began its unusually lengthy deliberations last Thursday.
Prosecutors alleged that Lam was among a group of youths who kicked Lettas and beat him into unconsciousness with a wooden plank as the vendor’s 9-year-old nephew looked on. Prosecution witnesses said the July 8, 1990 attack was triggered by an exchange of obscenities and a soda can that one of the youths threw inside Lettas’ truck, moments after he stopped at the park to sell ice cream. Lam, who testified in his own defense, said he was not involved in the beating and only confessed the crime to Lowell police because detectives told him he could go home if he told them what happened. Lam’s co-defendants, Vily Soueun, 21, and Vanny Men, 20, pleaded guilty earlier this year to reduced charges and are serving state prison sentences.
Lam’s lawyer, P. Scott Bratton, said he will appeal the guilty verdicts, citing errors of law made by the judge when instructing the jury.
In addition, Bratton said he intends to argue that Lowell police violated Lam’s rights when they did not immediately allow him to make a telephone call from the station.
|
|
