Cat Killer Demands Retrial Unless He Gets a 'No-Jail' Deal

Joseph Petcka, whose last trial over his killing of a 7-pound cat ended in mistrial, is back in court today. According to the NY Post, he is expected to tell a judge "he wants a retrial—unless prosecutors offer him a no-jail deal or drop the charges entirely." Last time, eleven jurors believed that Petcka, who weighs 250 pounds, was guilty of aggravated animal cruelty (which would involve prison time), but one juror held out; the aspiring actor/waiter told the Today show he was thankful for that juror. Petcka's lawyer simply said, "We'll be in court to find out if they're making us a misdemeanor offer that doesn't involve jail."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on October 23, 2008 2:26 PM

Comments [rss]

Brooklynbobby

Anyone who would kill a poor, defenseless animal is dangerous. Bottom line. Let him be someone's pussy in prison.

Kyle T

Ship this fool to Phoenix and make him fight Mike Tyson, an animal that can fight back!

qwerty

#8, the juror claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Besides, you know, the dead fucking cat. And Petcka's "you love the cat more than me!" conniption. And the fact that his only rationale for killing the declawed feline was "self-defense."

I understand the point that you're trying to make, but a little common sense goes a long way.

jaycjay

"waste... taxpayer money for a stupid cat.

I don't really get that argument. Is it saying that there shouldn't be laws against animal cruelty? They shouldn't be enforced? They shouldn't require trials?

The cost of trials, for crimes both minor and major, is part of the justice system. And really, if this trial hadn't happened how would the taxpayers have saved anything? The judge would still get his salary, the courtroom lights would still be on, in fact there's enough backlog that the same number of trials would still have been going on -- as many as can be fit in.

So is the argument against the enforcement of any crime other than... what? Murder? Is that one worth the cost?

Spirit of 76

Petcka isn't 250. It's a typo. Previous reports all said 205.

Francesco DeFlaviis, the holdout, is a strange one. He quickly took down his Facebook page after the trial, but Google still had it cached for a while. He had a picture of himself hauling a little kid with him down a sidewalk. But no dog. I suspect he doesn't like animals. It doesn't look like he likes being in this country, either. His Facebook "friends" were almost exclusively Italian. In turn, those friends have Italian "friends," with very rare exceptions. He's only here for the money he makes at his job as a marketing director for DeLonghi, selling overpriced junk to American suckers. (Go to epinions.com to see how many DeLonghi products get only two or three stars.) I'm sure he looks forward to the day when he can return to his beloved Milan.

screenDoor

#9 - Be that as it may, I would rather have a jury of argumentative jerks than a jury of pushovers. I believe justice is better served that way - it reinforces the "reasonable doubt" standard. One out of twelve is a pretty high percentage...

The Edge

#8- Because the juror's a douche?

screenDoor

I couldn't care less about this trial, but I find it appalling that this juror has been demonized in the press. Why is (or Is) this legal? Even if his logic was faulty, is it not better to err on the side of innocence?

Peer pressure alone is frighteningly effective (See Asch conformity experiments). If you were on trial - would you want that one doubtful juror folding to peer pressure, or scared the media would destroy them if they didn't string you up?

Peter

Let him spend his money on a bogus lawyer and drain him dry.

I am sure that Mommy and Daddy are footing the bill.

ed_Extinct

He really doesn't look like he weighs 250. I would say closer to 200/210 at the max.

Looks can be deceiving. If he has a lot of muscle mass then 250 is logical. I was 210 and then lost a lot of weight doing cardio. When I started to lift again the muscle mass came back and I now weigh 223.

He killed a cat, not in defense, in anger. cook em!

NannyState

As a gesture, the prosecuters might be willing to take the death penalty off the table.

r1b2

Guilty. End of line.

JenChungsBaby

Yeah, great, maybe they can retry him another 12 or 13 times and waste a million or so of taxpayer money for a stupid cat.

Whatever happens he should go on a crash diet so that the next time the papers write about him they can say he weighs 140 lbs. I'm sure that will sway public opinion in his favor.

Snoopy

Re-trial is the best option with no guarantees. Let him spend his money on a bogus lawyer and drain him dry.

Hopefully they will get a jury of twelve that has some brains, although that is doubtful.

He really doesn't look like he weighs 250. I would say closer to 200/210 at the max.

Kojak

The odds are against you son. They'll just get another jury together and more than likely they'll ALL agree that your GUILTY.

If he says he didn't intend to hurt the cat, he should get aggravated feline-slaughter.