Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog

In my last posting, I indicated that I would answer some questions regarding the James Whitey Bulger multi murder matter currently pending in federal court. Of course, there are many questions that we all have. I was referring to issues brought up on my last few postings on the matter.

We began with talking about the immunity issue in the case. It did, more recently, occur to me that some people may not know what immunity is, much less whether the government can give it to somebody
Immunity is basically immunity from prosecution. In other words, Whatever you testify about, say in a grand jury, you cannot be prosecuted for. In such cases, the prosecution can, and does, give immunity in return for somebody’s testimony. Since the prosecution is the authority that will bring criminal charges, it is only the government, the prosecution, who can give immunity from prosecution. In the Defendant’s case, the allegation is that, in return for him giving information, acting as an informant, the government gave him widespread immunity from prosecution..

The Defendant claims that the government said that he is immune from prosecution for the rest of his life no matter what the crime is. Even murder. The government on the other hand is saying that they would not make such a deal …that to make such a deal which includes murder is against public policy.

This might be a topic for other blogs in the future. But I would like you to think about this right now.

Over the past years, including very recently, we have had situations where in law-enforcement officials have been found not to be living up to their olds and, in fact committing crimes. We have had more than one chemist discovered to be falsify evidence. We have had a detective admitting to stealing evidence from the evidence locker. These are just a couple of examples of what we know about. I will remind you that the government often takes the position when someone is arrested for the first time that the only reason they arrested for the first time is because that was the first time they were caught. Not that it is the first time that they committed the crime.

Apparently, the rules are different when it comes to someone who once worked on their side.

In any case, you may be thinking there is no big revelation here. After all, all these people are simply human beings with human weaknesses and foibles. I would agree with you.

And that is what I want you to think about.
Continue reading

Although the week has been bumpy in terms of blogs (sorry about that), Attorney Sam’s Take has been discussing the theatrics and legal maneuvering of the multiple murder matter of James “Whitey” Bulger (hereinafter, the “Defendant”). Meanwhile, there was alittle drama taking place behind the scenes, far from the halls of federal justice.

Apparently, the Defendant was quietly examined at a Plymouth hospital last week for an irregular heartbeat. For some reason, it has been considered one of the top stories for Massachusetts today.

Perhaps it is because people wonder if health issues are going to prevent the Defendant’s date with a trial jury currently slated for this coming June. There has not been, yet, any suggestion that the defense will not be ready for trial as a result of said health issues however.

I found it particularly interesting how this news came to light. Apparently, the Defendant had written to a longtime friend of his last week letting him know about the incident and indicating that “Exercise is over for me.”

The significance of the exercise is that he had previously claimed that he had been doing more than 100 push-ups a day to stay fit while in isolation.
Continue reading

As last week came to an end, Attorney Sam’s Take was discussing Boston’s favorite Multiple Murder Matter which is taking place in federal court.

It seems as if I am not the only one who finds the festivities in United States v. James “Whitey” Bulger (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) to be a performance fit for the Twilight Zone. I direct you to Matt Connelly and an article penned by him which link appears at the end of today’s blog.

Boston’s number one multiple murder matter continues to defy the spirit, if not the letter, of regular criminal procedure. Issues which seem to most of us to be “no-brainers” seem to be gut-wrenching and mind-numbing for the legal experts assigned to make the decisions.

When I was a prosecutor back in New York, I learned that it is of little value to gain a conviction if that conviction is likely to be thrown out by a court of appeals. Such ideas seem to have been part of criminal justice history in the Defendant’s case. The latest such issue plaguing the court is whether the Defendant should be able to present part, or all, of his defense at trial. This defense seems to be that the United States Attorney’s Office gave him carte blanche authorization to commit any crime whatsoever in perpetuity, including murder.

The federal prosecutors have presented a number of arguments why the Defendant should not be allowed to present this defense. They include, but are not limited to, the following reasoning:

“We would never grant such immunity. His argument is absurd.”

Interesting approach, but it seems like an argument against the facts asserted by the Defendant to me. In jury trials, questions of fact are left to the jury, not the judge. Therefore, at least as far as this argument goes…one would expect the defense should be presented and the jury should determine how “absurd” it is.

“Even if he was given immunity, he would not be given immunity to commit MURDER! That would be against public policy!”

Continue reading

I warn you in advance…following this Boston murder story may well turn your mind into a pretzel and make you dizzy.

Not for the reasons you, and a lot of the media may think, though.

The subject matter is a case which Attorney Sam’s Take has discussed before. It is the continuing saga of James “Whitey” Bulger (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) and his federal prosecution for multiple murders laid at his feet occurring during the 1970’s and 1980’s.

I particularly think it is important for me to refer to him as the Defendant as I coontinue to notice that people need to be reminded where he stands in this matter. He is a criminal defendant. He has been convicted of nothing. Yet, everyone, from the press to many of my fellow defense lawyers feel comfortable forgetting that nasty word “alleged” when it comes to him. I suppose this is the case to do that, though. After all, the rules by which we handle criminal defendants seem to be turned on their collective heads ever since his return to Massachusetts.

But I have ranted about that enough in my previous blogs. Let’s deal with a more current aspect to the story. It involves the issues of whether the Defendant used to be an informant for the federal prosecutors and whether or not he was granted immunity by them for criminal acts during this time.

The Defendant’s defense team has argued that he was granted immunity which would seem to having resulted from the Defendant’s serving as an informant. Or did defense counsel ever really say that the Defendant was actually an informant who gave information to federal law enforcement?
Continue reading