Suspect pleads not guilty in slaying
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Calif. — A short, slender man speaking in a hoarse voice pleaded not guilty on Thursday to 11 federal charges, including the murder of a Transportation Security Administration screener and the wounding of three other people during a rampage last month at Los Angeles International Airport.
The charges could bring him the death penalty. The decision on whether the government will seek the ultimate penalty will take a long time and ultimately will rest with U.S. Attorney General Erik Holder.
Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23, who was wounded before his arrest, occasionally touched a large, white bandage on his neck during a three-minute arraignment before a federal magistrate in the West Valley Detention Center east of Los Angeles. The center has a medical facility.
The defendant spoke in a near-whisper as he acknowledged his name and that he had read his 11-count indictment.
Trial was set for Feb. 11 in a downtown Los Angeles federal court. But that was a formality required to meet federal speedy trial requirements. Ciancia can agree to a delay later if his lawyers determine more time is needed for preparation. A pretrial hearing was set for Jan. 27.
U.S. Attorney's spokesman Thom Mrozek said prosecutors continue to investigate the event, which wreaked havoc at one of the nation's largest airports and disrupted air travel nationwide.
Ciancia is from Pennsville, N.J., and moved to Los Angeles in 2012.
Authorities say the unemployed motorcycle mechanic arrived at the airport's Terminal 3 on Nov. 1 with the intention of killing TSA workers. Officials have said Ciancia had a grudge against the agency, but they have not indicated what prompted it.
A motive was not mentioned during the brief hearing.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.