Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog

It has been said that hard cases make bad law. Well, maybe. But it also seems that high profile cases tend to make sudden amendments to the law, twist it up into a pretzel and then eat away at it until it is no longer noticeable.

It is a fascinating time for people like me, who actually care about the system and what it is supposed to represent, to watch as rights are slowly eroded and the procedures themselves are bastardized.

I remind you of the “Who’s gonna pay for Whitey’s attorney now that the government has taken all his money circus” that we were treated to a week or so ago.

I understand that my opinions in this blog must anger a lot of people. Sorry about that. The problem is that I also have an annoying tendency to be correct. I direct you to the once-held-as-heroic travesties of South Hadley’s prosecutor and the following “super-tough” action of our legislature to bully Massachusetts bullies.

Well, in any case, prepare to be more aggravated than ever today.

Yesterday, Catherine Greig, longtime girlfriend of Whitey Bulger, began her detention hearing. However, the Magistrate Judge hearing the case is allowing so much venting of so many human systems, that one day was not enough. It is now continued until Wednesday.

On Wednesday, relatives of Whitey Bulger’s alleged victims are supposed to be heard.

By the way, if you were under the impression that the purpose of this hearing is to see whether Ms. Greig should be released on bail while awaiting a trial in which the government has yet to prove her (or Whitey, for that matter) guilty of something…you were actually correct. That’s right….this is not her actual trial. This is to determine incidentals like whether she is likely to return to court to answer the charges against her. By the way…those charges do not include murder, drug trafficking or other things which often “necessitate” someone being held without the Constitutional right to bail.

But, I digress.

The court’s unusual move was apparently made at the behest of United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz’ office. Yes, that would be the prosecution. One of the contestants of what is quickly becoming a new “best show on earth”. The court endorsed the wonderful idea that relatives of some of the 19 people Bulger is alleged to have killed, or whose death he is accused of orchestrating, be allowed to take the witness stand in US District Court.

You may be wondering how their testimony would be relevant to the issues at hand.

Me too.

But, that incidental aside, the important thing is that while the prosecution and defense are dealing with legal issues like bail, the relatives of alleged victims will finally have their first chance to speak in court and lash out at the bad guys before anyone is proven guilty of anything. Now, the logic of this might confuse you alittle. After all, usually such statements are not allowed unless and until a defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But, hey, look …people are not too happy with the justice system these days. After all, as discussed last week, a woman was found “not guilty” of the murder allegations brought against her which most onlookers thought was guilty. Further, a lot of people have been pretty angry with Whitey since he took off so long ago. Now, true, Ms. Greig has not even been charged with taking part in any of the murders…let’s face it…a detention hearing for Whitey would be laughable. These poor folks have been waiting around just chomping at the bit to lace into Whitey and his alleged deeds since Bulger’s capture last month. They’ve been pretty patient…why not throw them a bone?

I mean, who is it going to hurt? Ms. Greig? Come on, she’s a bad lady. She was with Whitey. Why should we do anything to preserve her rights?

Even the attorney for one of the families of an alleged Bulger victim admits surprise “I really haven’t seen it happen before,” he explained. Perhaps remembering who he was representing at the moment, he continued, “But this is such an unusual case that it’s really hard to compare this with happens with other cases.”

Of course! It is the perfect case in which to throw Constitutional safeguards out the window in favor of “feel good” rulings! After all…it’s good politics!

Oh, wait…you mean this isn’t the governmental arm that is supposed to be political?

Uh-oh.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Bad Guys And Constitutional Rights

Yesterday, I wrote about hypocrisy and it would appear that that “h”word has lifted its ugly head again. Perhaps we should just throw in the towel and handle these cases the way the government, and, it would seem, many of us, would prefer.
Continue reading

IF you thought you heard me weighing in on wbz radio yesterday about my last blog’s subjected matter…you were right.

All afternoon long!

Somehow, issues like the right to counsel is important to me. No matter what we think of a particular criminal defendant.

And this defendant, although fascinating, is not very well-loved.

The orange jump-suited Whitey Bulger (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) was brought once again to Boston’s federal court yesterday afternoon via an escort that one would expect would be reserved for a comic book super villain, or at least the late Osama Bin Laden. With security in and around the building, the Defendant found himself surrounded by familiar faces.

There was, for example, the Donahue family…wife and son of one of the Defendant’s alleged victims. They are vowing to attend as many of the proceedings as possible.

Also, there was the so-called “provisional attorney” who has been appointed to represent the Defendant until someone else, private or court-appointed, takes over.

Also, a small bevy of lawyers were there…waiting in the wings to potentially become associated with this high-publicity criminal matter.

One person we know was not there.

That would be Brother Billy. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that the government is trying to dip into his pockets to find monies that may arguably belong to the Defendant.

Earlier, federal prosecutors had moved to drop the 1994 racketeering indictment against Bulger in order, so they said, to focus on the later indictment that charged the Defendant for other crimes…such as 19 Massachusetts homicides.

In its papers, U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz said that prosecutors consider the later 1999 indictment charging the Defendant with 19 murders to be the stronger case.

This is true. The Defendant faces life in prison, or death, on those charges. Further, even if the court were to forget that the Defendant had been “on the lam” for so long, it would not likely grant any chance of bail in the homicide cases.

This move brings a new wrinkle to the genesis of what already promises to be a long drawn out legal drama. You see, the Defendant has to decide whether to accept the dismissal or still try to force the government’s hand to prove him guilty.

What the government’s motion did do was to postpone the decision on whether the Defendant will receive court appointed counsel. As you may recall from Monday’s blog, the Defendant is saying that, without access to the monies that the government has already taken from him, he cannot afford to hire counsel.

The government is basically setting precedent by weighing in on the subject, arguing that there are other means by which the Defendant can procure counsel.

And so, aside from all expectations of an afternoon of legal action…nothing really got done. Instead, a new time-table was set by the court which is now to play out (at the moment, at least) this week.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Prosecutorial Investigations And Even Playing Fields

In the criminal justice system, whether it be state or federal, we like to fantasize that both sides have equal footing.
Continue reading

I have often told you that the days in which the only people who have to worry about getting investigated or charged with wrongdoing was one of “Them” are long over. Them would be the “typical” criminal-type who spends his or her life engaging in criminal activity. Clearly, these are people who know upon each waking day that the day’s activities may well end with them in government custody.

I don’t think that Paul Brasco, president of the Waltham City Council, and Paul Tracey, a Waltham police officer, (collectively, the “Accused”) expected that they would suddenly find themselves subjects of an internal affairs investigation. Further, they probably never expected that said investigation would result in a request to the United States Attorney’s Office to look into bringing federal charges against them.

Yet, that is what has happened.

A tenant of Mr. Basco’s, 33-year-old Edgar Gonzalez, 33, (hereinafter, the “Tenant”) says that the Accused improperly threatened him with deportation during a visit back in February. As a result, he says that his civil rights were violated. The resulting investigations have found against the Accused. The Tenant is now asking the US Attorney to take action.

Brasco tells a sharply different story, saying that Gonzalez has no lease and is squatting on his property and that at no time did he and the officer threaten Tenant with deportation. He did, he says, only warn that he would be served with a notice of eviction within 24 hours.
Officer Tracey, may face disciplinary action after the internal investigation found he appears to have violated department policy by accompanying Brasco.

Tenant said through an interpreter yesterday that he had stopped paying rent because of malfunctioning lighting and heating in the apartment. He said that he is Guatemalan and that he has lived in Waltham for 18 years, but he declined to comment on whether he is a legal resident.

Brasco said he called Tracey because the officer is his neighbor and friend. Brasco said it was late in the evening, and he wanted to find out who was on his property so he could follow through with eviction proceedings. When his property management company could not send someone with him to the apartment, Brasco said, he asked Tracey, who was on duty, to meet him there.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Criminal Allegations And Free Speech

First of all, before you indulge your Constitutional Right to free speech argument, understand that your speech is not quite so free.
Continue reading