Jury deliberations underway in Raucci case

The jury of six men and six women are now deliberating  in a back room of the Schenectady County courthouse, weighing the facts in Steven Raucci’s arson and terrorism  trial.

The deliberations began around 6:15 p.m. after Schenectady County Judge Polly Hoye spent several hours schooling jurors on the facts of  the law that apply to the case. The four alternates were thanked for their service and sent home. 

Raucci  faces 22 counts, including several counts of criminal mischief, conspiracy, and weapons offenses for alleged vandalism incidents and firebombing homes in four Capital Region counties since 1993 until days before he was arrested on Feb 20, 2009.

Not long after that, the former facilities director and energy manager retired from his school post.

 Prosecutors say the crimes stemmed from his job and union activity as president of the CSEA local unit. He was removed from that post once the allegations surfaced.

Raucci, 61, faces a stiff sentence, if convicted of the top level terrorism and arson counts.

Categories: Raucci trial
Paul Nelson

2 Responses

  1. For Common Sense says:

    This situation points to the need for public employee pension reform. A public employee who is convicted of a felony that relates to his or her job should forfeit any pension rights.
    That would mean that Raucci, if he is convicted of a felony, would receive no pension for time worked in the public sector. Raucci pulled a fast one when he “retired” the moment his reign of terror was uncovered.
    The taxpayers should not have to support a convicted thug for the rest of his life. Granted, he probably needs the money to pay his legal bills, but he should have thought of that when he tried to maim and murder people he had a grudge against.
    The same should apply to members of the legislature. A felony conviction equals forfeiture of pensions, past and future.
    This is an election year. Voters who are upset at the thought of having to pay criminals should ask the candidates whether they would support such a law.

  2. Cireely says:

    Why was Ely never called to testify? This baffles me.