Boston Criminal Attorney Blog

I’ve been a trial lawyer for quite some time now. I’ve seen my share of clients who are outright innocent; guilty of a crime but legally “not guilty” due to a legal issue or procedural defect; and then those that are outright guilty. You can’t try cases from both the prosecution as well as the defense table, as I have, and not develop a keen sense of who falls into which of these categories. The skill comes with the territory.

Thus it is with this skill that I comment today on the long, strange trip of Boston city councilor Chuck Turner. The hard-to-miss Mr. Turner seems, like Diane Wilkerson, (the disgraced former state senator who pled guilty earlier this year to several federal corruption charges,) comprised of an arrogance that defies description. (Another hard-to-miss personage, you will recall Dianne Wilkerson as she belonging to the “publicly-stuffing-illegal-cash-bribes-into-her brassiere-in-a-restaurant, then-denying- it” category of arrogance. Turner was investigated by the Boston office of the FBI along with Wilkerson, as part of an undercover FBI probe into political corruption in Boston. He is now on trial in U. S. District Court in Boston, charged with extortion and counts of political corruption.

Despite videotape evidence showing a Boston businessman (Ronald Wilburn,) handing to Turner what appears to almost every reasonable observer to be a cash bribe (offered in exchange for quick approval of a city liquor license,) and despite testimony from Wilburn that he gave Turner that money as a bribe for that license, Turner has for almost two years steadfastly denied he ever took a bribe from Wilburn. To assure full disclosure, it should be noted that Wilburn was cooperating with the FBI, and was paid compensation by the FBI as part of this investigation. It should also be noted that the practice of compensating witnesses in a federal investigation is entirely legal, and has been done in several previous cases. Regardless of this arrangement being legal, as a criminal defense attorney, I don’t think it’s smart at all, as it just hands the defense a basis upon which to attack the credibility of such a witness. But that doesn’t remove the fact that Turner is on tape, and is recorded accepting cash in-hand in a tacit exchange for a liquor license.

What is it with people like Turner, who have been caught blatantly on videotape in the act of illegal, criminal acts, and yet deny those acts ever took place at all? As a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer, it goes without saying that I know that every possible legal avenue of defense must be utilized on a client’s behalf. I respect those legal devices, strategies and maneuvers, and I utilize these mechanisms all the time in my practice. These technicalities deal with the detailed intricacies of law, such as whether a search and seizure was conducted according to constitutional limitations, whether or not certain testimony is admissible, and whether or not precedent exists to support a particular defense theory. That's interesting, and laudable, advocacy.

The issue here for me (and for so many other people,) and my question to someone like Turner, is instead: “At what point can you actually look in the mirror, or show your face in public, and not feel like a complete and total fool denying what is patently obvious to anyone – and not feel, literally, like a laughing-stock?” Faced with such overwhelmingly damning visual evidence, when does the point come when someone in Turner’s position can say “I was caught right on tape. Unless there are legal grounds that can make the tape completely inadmissible, then the time has come to admit what I’ve done, make the best plea deal that I can, and try to grow from this”? If Turner (or Wilkerson before him,) had not denied doing on videotape what is so patently obvious to any rational observer, but instead argued that the tape was for whatever legal reason inadmissible, that would be one thing. That would be an intellectually and legally interesting contest.

But for both of them to deny that they ever did what is so obvious to anyone with two eyes – that’s what kills me, even as a Massachusetts defense lawyer with many years behind me. Turner is not saying, “I’m not going to admit or deny what this videotape shows, but I am claiming that the tape is inadmissible for the following legal reasons: A, B, C …” Instead, shockingly and laughably, he’s saying, “I have no memory of meeting with the person on that tape; I don’t recall who the person meeting with me is (Ronald Wilburn, the man handing him $1,000.00 in cash as a bribe,) and the tape doesn’t show me accepting any money.” Some news to Mr. Turner: The only thing that is likely to get you, is a laugh track as you’re escorted to prison. (I could be wrong about this jury, but that’s my take as of now.)

What’s even more stunning, from a defense attorney’s perspective – is Turner’s insistence (obviously, against his attorneys’ legal advice) to actually take the witness stand in his defense. Not only did his lawyers advise (read: beg) Turner not to do this, a friend of his attending the trial actually grabbed him by his coat sleeve yesterday, pleading with him to change his mind. But arrogance of this type knows no reasoning or rationale. A defendant in a criminal trial has the right to not testify or act as a witness against himself. By taking the stand yesterday and today and delivering the literally unbelievable drivel that he doesn’t ever recall the meeting with Wilburn which the tape shows, that he doesn’t recall even who Wilburn is, that he didn’t accept any money even though the tape shows cash is passed into his hand by Wilburn – Turner subjected himself to cross-examination by the prosecution. The result was, depending on whether you’re a clear-thinking person or not – either downright laughable, or downright painful. It was reported that Turner’s own lawyer sunk down in his chair as Turner took the stand, cringing at the train wreck he was powerless to stop.

If you want a glimpse at Turner’s arrogance, take a look at his political website. (I won’t link it here.) It’s introduced with a large caption of “Bald, Bold and Bright”. On it, Turner proclaims that “Despite 45 years of dedicated service to the people of my community and the people of Boston, the federal government … (is) attempt(ing) to convince the public that I am guilty of extortion of $1000 and lying to FBI officials. … I believe the trial will enable the public to recognize the unethical and immoral behavior of those who are conspiring to silence me.” Tell us: Silence you from exactly what, Chuck? God, is this pathetic. Of course, almost anyone who says this, is (as previously with Dianne Wilkerson’s case,) accused not only of being biased, but "racist." I actually read in The Boston Globe last week, that a supporter of Turner’s actually had the temerity to justify her claims of his innocence with something directly along the lines of “He’s our Martin Luther King, Jr.” What a disgusting, perverted thing to do – to compare a moral giant like MLK Jr., to the likes of this man. What an insult to Dr. King, one of the greatest moral leaders of our century, a figure on the same level with Ghandi.

Earlier today, when Turner was entering the courthouse, he was asked by reporters if he had considered (as any sane person in his position would have done,) a plea deal. His response? “Do I look crazy to you?” Yes, Chuck, you do. You look it, you sound it, and you either are it, or you’re one of the most arrogant people alive today. And as to that website tagline, “Bald, Bold and Bright”, I’d suggest a more fitting moniker: “Dumb, Defiant, and In Denial”.

I’ve seen juries do some strange things in the past, but regardless of what verdict is returned, this whole trial has been laughable. It’s been embarrassing to watch. Don't be surprised that I say this, even though I'm a criminal defense attorney. To quote Kenny Rogers, "You gotta know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em." The time long since passed when Chuck Turner should've folded 'em. If this jury acts with any sanity, the only thing he's going to be folding in the future, is bed sheets in a prison laundry.

It’s ironic that a considerable number of drivers charged with Massachusetts DWI/OUI/Drunk Driving offenses so far this year, have hit city or state police cruisers. Just this past Monday, the commander of the Massachusetts State Police, Colonel Marian J. McGovern, was struck by an alleged drunk driver while driving her cruiser in Shrewsbury. Tragically, on June 18 of this year, State Police Sergeant Douglas Weddleton, of Brockton was struck and killed by an alleged drunk driver. The veteran state trooper, 52 years old, was struck when he was working a construction detail in Attleboro. Cases like this are awful.

Just two days ago, another such incident with a state trooper and an alleged drunk driver played out, closer to my town of Westwood. State trooper Jonathan Nickles suffered minor injuries Thursday night when an alleged drunk driver smashed into his cruiser while fleeing from Milford Massachusetts police, according to state police authorities. This was the seventh time this year that an on-duty state trooper has been struck by an alleged drunk driver. Trooper Nickles was driving to work in his marked cruiser when he noticed local police cruisers with their emergency lights on, heading in his direction. Trying to assist, he turned on his own emergency lights and positioned his cruiser on Route 109 in Medway, directly in the path of a pickup truck that was fleeing from Milford police. The driver of the truck smashed into one car, then hit Nickles’s cruiser before coming to a stop the parking lot of an adjacent bar.

Milford police immediately took the driver, Dana J. Scovil, 36, of Webster, into custody. According to a Milford Police Department report, Scovil was charged with operating under the influence (second offense), reckless operation of a motor vehicle, marked lanes violation, possession of alcohol in a car, and failure to stop. Scovil reportedly refused to take a chemical breath test and he was charged with drunken driving based on a strong odor of alcohol, and because he was unsteady on his feet and had glassy eyes – all of which would be standard operating practice for police making an arrest for OUI/DWI. Scovil also allegedly tossed a half-full can of beer out of the truck during the pursuit, according to police. Scovil pleaded not guilty in Milford District Court, where District Court Judge Robert B. Calagione set his bail at $10,000 cash for the new charges and revoked bail in an open case in Dudley District Court. Scovil’s attorney can expect that of these violations are going to be prosecuted very aggressively.

As I’ve said before to my readers and all those who I speak to on this subject: Drunk driving is an extremely serious crime. While as a Norfolk County Massachusetts DWI/OUI/Drunk Driving lawyer, I believe that every person accused of drunk driving has the right to the best defense possible, I’ll say again in the same breath: Drunk driving is an extremely serious offense, and no one should ever drive after drinking. Period.

If, notwithstanding this repeated advice, you find yourself arrested or accused of OUI/DWI in Massachusetts, contact our office. We know how to effectively represent your legal interests. And trust me, if you’re arrested on a Massachusetts OUI/DWI/drunk driving charge, you’re going to need the best legal talent you can find. Contact us: We know how to safeguard your legal rights in a tough situation, and we respond rapidly, 24/7.

Now a few days old, the new Massachusetts Anti-Texting Law, (St. 2010, C. 155, "Safe Driving Law",) stands out as Exhibit Number One (among many Exhibits) of how the Massachusetts Legislature goes about attempting to “solve” what is clearly a problem in this state: Electronically distracted drivers. There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind as to the seriousness of this problem. Distracted drivers (“distracted” in this post means distracted due to use of cell phones and text devices,) are as dangerous and lethal as drunk drivers. I’ve seen more idiots behind the wheel, thinking that they can actually dial a cell phone or text and still drive safely. Note to such idiots: You’re operating two tons of steel and glass, moving at speeds that can easily kill and maim (a car moving as slow as 10MPH can easily kill someone, never mind 40, 50, and 60MPH.)

Even the shallow minds that occupy the Legislature couldn’t deny the danger presented by this lethal habit --- so was their response to craft an effective, balanced measure that would make practical sense in the real world? Of course not – this is the Legislature, where, shall we say, the atom has never been split, and never will be. No, instead they passed this measure – signed into law by Governor Patrick – which actually claims to be able to legitimately outlaw texting – while keeping dialing and talking on a cell phone – the very same devices as used for texting – quite legal. I’ve seen idiocy before, but this law takes the cake. This is about the most unenforceable laws I’ve seen enacted in Massachusetts in a while.

The law – which went into effect September 30, allows police to slap drivers with $100 fines for sending or receiving text messages while behind the wheel - is patently unenforceable. (The penalties are even worse for drivers under age 18.) How in God’s name is a police officer supposed to be able to see so close up to a driver’s hand, to know whether he or she was dialing a phone call or texting a message? The very same devices – a cell phone – do the same thing. An officer may be able to see, from either the side of a road or through a cruiser window, that a driver is using a cell phone keypad, but it is nearly impossible to prove that the driver was not dialing a phone call, but texting. Importantly, a driver doesn’t have to hand over his phone to prove whether he was texting or phoning. (For that, police would need a search warrant – ridiculous to even discuss in such a situation.) So exactly what is an officer or trooper supposed to do once he or she stops a driver who is seen holding and using a cell phone? Answer: Presume the driver was texting, and hit them with a fine. A moron could dodge this law. It’s just ludicrous.

The only applicability to cell phone calls is a provision in the law that bars drivers under the age of 18 from using a cell phone to make a call. This half-way measure has only invited objections from the ACLU of Massachusetts, which worries the law gives cops an excuse for stopping minority drivers who are known to use cell phones a lot – or a pretext for police to stop any motorists police deem suspicious. In my opinion as a Norfolk County Motor Vehicle Violations Attorney, if the Legislature wanted to address the grave problem of distracted driving, they should have applied the prohibitions to all use of hand-held cell phones while operating a motor vehicle - texting or phoning. Period. Of course, legal challenges to such a statute would follow; I’m fully aware of that. My view: Let those challenges come. But at least make the law uniform and sane. This measure is ridiculous, and just as bad, it won’t likely made the roads in Massachusetts much safer at all.

The recent spike in murders in Boston have more than one candidate for public office, and more than one conservative talk show host, waxing on and on about how Massachusetts and other states should adopt the death penalty. Oh God, I think, not another round of this mindless debate. “Now!” the conservatives and law-and-order types cry; “Now is the time!” Like a broken record, death penalty advocates repeat that it will 1) Deter crime and 2) That even if it doesn’t deter crime, that as “the ultimate punishment, the punishment should fit the crime.”

For the one millionth time, let’s make something clear: Credible study after study, and empirical, real-world experience after real-world experience has shown: The death penalty does NOT deter violent crime. That is inarguable, and has been well settled among reasoned minds for many years. As a Boston Massachusetts murder defense attorney, I have sat and spoken with a number of murderers and violent criminals, and I can assure you: Not one of them ever stopped and thought to himself, “Wait a minute, isn’t there a death penalty in this state? On second thought, I won’t commit this crime.” Murderers kill because they have depraved hearts and minds, and no morality or human decency. Death penalty statutes have never deterred violent crimes such as murder, rape and felony-murder. It just doesn’t work that way.

Another major reason why the death penalty is inadvisable, owes to the significant possibility that it may be applied incorrectly – i.e., that an innocent person could be executed. In the event that doesn’t convince those who still doubt this reality, visit The Innocence Project, where DNA evidence has exonerated many wrongfully-convicted inmates sitting on death row. Another major, and much more practical, argument against capital punishment is the financial cost – to you and me, the taxpayers. What cost am I talking about? Most people have either not considered, will not consider, or do not believe, just how much money it costs in mandatory appeals following a death penalty sentence. Nor, very importantly, do most people understand how much time these appeals take, and where they have to wind their way through in the court system. They can cost millions of dollars in legal and administrative fees – and who pays for this? You and I do – the state and federal taxpayers. Death row inmates do not have money to pay for private lawyers to handle their appeals through the state courts, the United States (federal) District Courts, the United States Courts of Appeals, and if necessary all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But I’m not going to devote this post to these very powerful arguments against the death penalty. I think the better way is to appeal to common every day sense as to what the word (and the practice) of “punishment” really means. Death penalty advocates are so blind in their zeal, they’ve forgotten what “the ultimate punishment” in the modern legal system consists of. No, it isn’t being drawn and quartered, or stoned, or hung, or facing a firing or even electrocuted. Those were all dreadful, barbaric, and painful ways to inflict capital punishment. Today, that is hardly the case: In the majority of states that have the death penalty, execution is by lethal injection – a nearly painless, easy, quiet, almost peaceful death. Most people over teenage years have undergone some type of medical or surgical procedure requiring general anesthesia – aside from an IV needle, it’s an entirely painless procedure. The same system used to administer anesthesia to a medical patient, is used to execute someone by lethal injection: After the IV is inserted, three drugs are administered. The first renders the prisoner unconscious. After that first injection, he or she feels nothing, and is conscious of nothing. The second injection causes respiration to cease; the third injection causes heartbeat to cease. That’s it: No pain. No suffering. The “patient” is merely put to sleep, and doesn’t wake up. It’s the most peaceful, merciful death anyone could ask for.

How death penalty advocates can claim that this kind of “punishment” is worse that an entire lifetime being locked in a cage, incarcerated with some of the most violent, savage animals society has ever known, is beyond me. How constant incarceration, deprivation, prison rape and violence, and literally a lifetime of despair can be thought of as less of a punishment than simply going to sleep and not waking up, is beyond me. I’ve never understood this reasoning (which is advanced by people that know next to nothing about the U.S. prison system.) Thank God I was born and raised with the values and morals that I have, but if I were the type of person to commit murder, and I faced a choice between life in prison or the option to be spared all that lifetime of torture with a peaceful, painless, easy death, I’d choose death by lethal injection in a second.

So I don’t oppose the death penalty because I’m ‘soft on crime.’ I oppose it because it’s too easy a way out for the truly guilty. Exhibit ‘A’ for that argument are the two animals who admitted what they did in the 2007 Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion murders. After they’ve had the vigorous legal defense that they are entitled to, I’d love to see them rot in prison every day for the rest of their lives. Yes, criminal defense attorneys know justice when they see it.

And I’ll always call a spade a spade.