On the night of April 30, 2021, 43-year-old Rolandas Paradnikas of Lithuanian origin was returning home. A slum house in a Kentucky neighborhood gandiaWhile his wife and 13-year-old son were waiting for him, he was attacked by a citizen armed with a 22-caliber gun and an iron bar, who shot him five times in the chest and abdomen. Not content with this, the murder suspect hit his head with the iron bar in question, causing him to suffer a concussion as a result of severe head trauma and eventually to his death.
The alleged perpetrator of this crime, Arunas A., 43 years old and of the same nationality as his victim, denied before the people’s jury this morning that he killed his citizen or even saw him on the day of the events. However, at the same time, in response to the prosecutor’s questions, while denying one by one the circumstances that accused him of the death, the defendant also hinted at the love affair he had with the deceased’s partner. is subjected to alleged mistreatment by his partner. Thus, the key to the crime and the alleged justification are given to the members of the people’s court.
Arunas, who fled to his country at dawn three days after Rolandas’ death, confessed in court, “He was a bad person for hitting her.” He accepted a simple “maybe” statement regarding the message he sent to the victim’s widow saying he regretted nothing, but later clarified with the help of an interpreter that he had made no reference to the crime. As for the rest of the evidence against him, the defendant limited himself to denying it or saying he did not remember it.
HE The prosecutor’s office requested a fifteen and a half year prison sentence for the defendantIn particular, fourteen years for murder and another one and a half years for illegal possession of weapons, with aggravating circumstances such as abuse of superiority.
The special prosecutor’s office, on the other hand, believes that the events constitute the crime of murder, appreciating the situation of treason because the attack took place in a treacherous manner and in which the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, he requests a twenty-year prison sentence for murder and a two-year sentence for illegal weapons possession.
While the defendant’s defense maintained his innocence, he demanded the release of his client because, according to the defendant’s claim, he was not even with the victim that night. Since his arrest in August 2021. Similarly, the defense argues that the accusation against its client was based solely on the testimony of the deceased’s partner, who accused Arunas some time after the crime, but did not admit to the alleged romantic relationship with the defendant.
In today’s session of the hearing in front of the popular jury, all three witnesses testified via video conference. One of the local residents was an eyewitness to the murder. The woman, who did not hear any sounds, saw how the attacker hit his victim with a stick while he was on the ground, but she could not see the face of the fleeing killer. Another neighbor also saw him running away from the scene, but since he too could not see the killer’s face, he could not determine whether it was the defendant or not.
A third witness, a neighbor and friend of the deceased, described three events prior to the crime that indirectly pointed to the defendant’s guilt. On one side, they saw the burnt car of the deceased, and although they did not see him start the car, he told them that he was Arunas, and even the defendant was acquitted of this incident. What he witnessed was that the alleged murderer had drawn some graffiti on the wall of the deceased’s house a few days before the events. Although he didn’t know what was written at the time, they contained a message of love for the deceased’s partner.