Man loses appeal in Galaxy Seafood case

June 30, 2015 at 12:00a.m.

YOUNGSTOWN

A man who was convicted for his part in the attempted robbery of a North Side seafood restaurant in which the robber was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer working security lost an appeal of his conviction Monday.

Nathaniel Dumas, 40, had asked the 7th District Court of Appeals to reverse his 2012 convictions from Mahoning County Common Pleas Court on the grounds he was barred from the courtroom for disruptive behavior and denied access to the proceedings in person even though he apologized.

Dumas said in his appeal the move was a violation of his constitutional right to confront all witnesses against him.

However, the appeals court ruled that case law has upheld the banning of defendants from court for disruptive behavior, even if they have apologized.

Dumas was one of two men convicted for their roles in the death of Warren V. Wright, 32, of Youngstown, at the Galaxy Seafood restaurant on Belmont Avenue on April 8, 2011. Wright tried to rob the restaurant but was shot and killed by former city police officer Michael Walker, who was working security.

Dumas was charged with murder because the prosecution said he was Wright’s accomplice in the attempted robbery that resulted in Wright’s death. He was to be the getaway driver in the crime and was sentenced to 28 years to life in prison by former Judge James C. Evans in February 2012.

During the trial, Dumas was banned from the courtroom by Judge Evans for several tirades. He watched the proceedings via Skype from a room in the courthouse. In his appeal, he said Judge Evans denied him his right to confront the witnesses against him, and his verdict should be overturned and a new trial ordered.

But the appeals court wrote that case law cites several examples of defendants who were barred from the courtroom because of their behavior and that a judge has a right to do that if a defendant’s behavior is that bad.

The appeals court also said that even though Dumas apologized, he had a record of being disruptive several times and even wrote a letter in which he said he would disrupt the proceedings.

Given those past examples and also citing other cases, the appeals court said Judge Evans was within his rights to keep Dumas from the courtroom.