Defense waits for discovery motion in Magri case

Former Oak Bluffs building inspector Raphael Magri appeared in Edgartown District Court on Monday as part of an ongoing case in which he faces two felony counts for the possession of a high-capacity feeding device. — Rich Saltzberg

Former Oak Bluffs building inspector Raphael Magri appeared before Judge Benjamin Barnes in Edgartown District Court Monday morning following his arraignment on two felony counts of possession of a high-capacity feeding device in November. Magri previously pleaded not guilty.

As The Times previously reported, Edgartown Police allegedly found two high-capacity gun magazines kept in a safe at Magri’s. The safe was taken from the home and opened. Police originally went to Magri’s home to seize his guns and ammunition following a suspension of his license to carry (LTC) and his Firearms Identification (FID) card. The suspension came as a result of police learning that Magri allegedly posed a danger to himself. At a Sept. 27 firearms suitability hearing, Judge Edward Lynch upheld the LTC and FID suspensions. 

On Monday, Tim Moriarty, Magri’s attorney, told Judge Barnes prosecutors had yet to satisfy a discovery request, and asked for a postponement of Magri’s pretrial hearing until Feb. 21. The assistant district attorney Matt Palazzolo said the commonwealth could satisfy the request by Feb. 21, and agreed to the date, which was approved by Barnes. Magri made no comments in the courtroom. Magri has served on the Edgartown Fire Department as a lieutenant. Edgartown Fire Chief Alex Schaeffer previously told The Times Magri is “on leave until there is a finding.” 

 

3 COMMENTS

  1. Massachusetts gun laws are so vague when it comes to feeding devices, no ones career should be stunted over this issue. Apparently these feeding devices that were manufactured after a certain date are banned, the problem being there is no actual date stamped on this devices. Often one can purchase these devices online and or at gun shows, and one takes the verbal representation of the seller about it’s date. Since no harm was done, excuse this man, and then formulate a clear method to determine a date of manufacture.

  2. I don’t understand how your readers are provided an opportunity to publicly comment on this court case, but when the very same case, or any other for that matter, is listed in the Court Report, we are denied?

  3. No one with incidents of (alleged) mental instability should have any guns. How much of a deadly weapons cache is enough to make someone feel better about himself, anyway? Is it like an addiction to buying shoes, purses, or jewelry? I can just imagine the “throw the book at em” comments if the guy wasn’t white or American. Amazing the excuses people make if they think illegal guns belong to someone who is like they are. “Determine a date of manufacture”… seriously? Careers tend to get sidetracked by felonies. That’s reality.

Comments are closed.

Previous articleSix candidates seek appointment to Airport Commission
Next articleKatama mechanical error bogus, SSA says