Home » Business » Raul Valle Faces New Charges After Attorney Drops Out in James McGrath Case

Raul Valle Faces New Charges After Attorney Drops Out in James McGrath Case

by Priya Shah – Business Editor

Shelton, CT – Raul Valle, acquitted of murder adn assault⁢ charges in the 2022 ⁤stabbing death of James McGrath and injuries to three others, will​ face a new trial on lesser⁢ charges wiht newly retained legal ‌counsel. The Milford Judicial District Clerk’s Office issued a summons to Valle on Sept. 23, requiring his‌ appearance in court on Oct. 15, 2025.

Valle,⁣ 16 at the time of the ⁣incident ⁣and ⁣a student at St. Joseph‍ High School, was involved in a fight at a house party on Laurel Glen Drive in Shelton on May 14, 2022,‍ resulting in the ​death ‍of Fairfield Prep student James McGrath ‍and injuries to Ryan Heinz, Thomas ⁤Connery Jr.,‍ and Faison Teele. He previously‍ testified‍ he acted ⁣in self-defense, stating he was “terrified,” “scared and surrounded.”

A jury trial concluded July ⁤9 with Valle found not guilty of murder,‌ two ⁢counts of ⁢first-degree assault, and one count⁢ of second-degree assault.‍ Though, the jury ⁢was unable to reach verdicts on ‌charges of​ reckless first-degree manslaughter in​ McGrath’s death, reckless first-degree assault in the ​stabbings of Heinz and Connery, and second-degree reckless assault in Teele’s‍ stabbing, ‍leading to a mistrial on those counts. The jury foreman revealed in a‍ post-verdict interview‍ that self-defense was not a central topic of deliberation, and jurors were reportedly voting 11-1 ⁤in favor of conviction on the manslaughter and assault charges‌ when ‍deliberations ended.

Valle was initially‍ represented by attorney ⁢Richard Smith, who discussed the case at meetings not involving⁣ Valle. Following the conclusion of ⁤Smith’s portrayal,Valle ⁣was left without counsel,prompting the court to directly summon him. the court’s ‍letter states, “Like any individual with an assigned court date, you⁢ may‍ represent ‍yourself, or have a private attorney present to act on your behalf.” it ‌also warns of a potential ‌arrest warrant for failure to appear. A man at the address⁢ listed on the court summons declined to comment when approached Friday afternoon.There were no bond conditions​ associated with the amended charges.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.