Some avid supporters of Martha Coakley and members of Blue Mass Group continue to insist that Martha Coakley’s views and actions concerning the notorious Fells Acre Day Care case should not be considered relevant for assessing her candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat to replace the the nearly irreplaceable and dearly missed Senator Ted Kennedy. I disagree strongly with that view, and this posting is an effort to explain why I believe Coakley’s handling and present views of post-conviction Fells Acre Day Care issues should be kept in mind by the Democratic U.S. Senate primary voters of Massachusetts as the special election approaches. The other U.S. Senate candidates should also be questioned about their views about Coakley’s post-conviction handling of the case and her current opinion that the overriding interests of justice were served in the Fells Acre Day Care matter. This is because their respective views on the Fells Acre Day Care case and its protracted legal aftermath suggest how protective of our constitutional substantive and procedural due process rights each would be when voting on pending Congressional legislation affecting those constitutional rights as our next U.S. Senator.
First, in the early prison release and extended probation agreement Middlesex DA Martha Coakley struck with Cheryl LeFave of the highly publicized Fells Acre Day Care Center case in October 1999, Middlesex DA Coakley insisted that Cheryl not be permitted to conduct any television interviews during year ten year probationary term.
In my twenty years of working in politics and the local legal community, I have never heard of such any other extended probationary “gag order” placed on a convicted felon, even in high profile cases such as this one. The insistence by Coakley to demand that such an onerous and constitutionally dubious provision be included in Cheryl’s early prison release and probation this agreement raises questions in my mind about her commitment to open government in areas such as reform of the recently narrowed scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) during the Bush era.(Incidentally, this constitutionally dubious provision of Cheryl’s early release and probationary agreement actually expires at the end of October, just in time for an exclusive interview by that rare enterprising local television reporter from one of our local TV outlets representing the MSM.)
Second, Coakley’s present support of the last Supreme Judicial Court Amirault/Fells Acre Day care decision of Sept 1999, which reinstated the overturned convictions of the Amiraults by citing the justice system’s “need for finality”, raises serious doubts about the former Middlesex DA’s commitment to pending federal statutory reforms that would protect the procedural and substantive due process rights of convicted felons.
For example, there is pending federal legislation that would guarantee the rights of all state and federal prisoners access to post-conviction DNA testing. As the junior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, the elected candidate would be voting on pending federal legislation in this area. It would be illuminating to learn from Attorney General Coakley and the other U.S. Senate candidates how their respective professional experience informs their particular views on this highly controversial constitutional criminal justice issue.
Does each Democratic U.S. Senate candidate support or oppose federal legislation that would guarantee the statutory right of all state and federal prisoners, including indigent ones, the right of access and testing to DNA testing that might free the wrongfully convicted? If each Democratic U.S. Senate candidate does support some form of guaranteed constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing, does he or she support applying this DNA testing right retroactively to convictions going as far back as, say, 1986 when the Amiraults were initially convicted? Or maybe, the retroactivity provision should extend only to convictions occurring onward from 1976, the year our nation’s bicentennial? How many DNA tests would the U.S. Senate candidate permit a state and/or federal felon to demand? What scientific standards should federal legislation incorporate in order to guarantee fair and accurate DNA testing? I ask all of the above questions because, as the SJC stated and Martha Coakley, at least, affirms, we all must keep in mind the justice system’s paramount interest in “finality” as a core value of our constitutional republic.
Of course, I doubt any of the geniuses in the local MSM will raise these political and legal issues with AG Coakley or any of the other U.S. Senate candidates. I am confident our local Woodwards and Bernsteins of the MSM will soon become sidetracked this fall with “the horse race” issues they love to cover so exhaustively. Perhaps, David, Charley, or Bob could ask AG Coakley and the other U.S. Senate candidates their views on this pending federal DNA post-conviction legislation the next time one of our alternative, New Media champions encounters one of them in person or in cyberspace.
Finally, if one of the Blue Mass Group editors encounters Pags, as EB III so endearingly refers to him, on the campaign trail, could that BMG editor ask the Boston Celtics owner why I need to take out a second and unattainable mortgage on my home to take my family of four see the Boston Celtics play at the [Whichever Liquid Bank in the Region Can Afford The Corporate Sponsorship Fee This Year] Garden, unless I accept my family enjoying the athletic view and alcohol-influenced scene from one of the nosebleed sections?
Discuss
27 Comments . Leave a comment below.Prosecutors are like that Jack Nicholson character in that Tom Cruise flick. We need them out there, on that wall ... but their professional values unsuit them for jobs that require broad sympathies and fair minds.
Post-conviction testing of DNA has nothing to do with Fells Acre. If you want to go after her for her stance on DNA testing, go for it. This Fells Acre rathole is self-destructive nonsense.
This is just another Massachusetts Democratic Party circular firing squad.
I'm going to try and resist the temptation to comment further.
There are almost 50 million Americans unemployed and underemployed right now and Eddie wants to focus on what did or did not happen in a 1980's criminal court case.
I hope Eddie is not reflecting the election strategy of the Capuano campaign.
Pop Quiz Time: Which candidate is more likely to win the December 8th Primary: The one defending a convicted pedophile, or the one talking about Massachusetts jobs?
We have a very good idea about how Rep. Capuano will vote in the Senate. Better, we have a good idea as to how he will push his agenda.
We don't have as clear an idea as to how AG Coakley will vote or operate. So it seems entirely appropriate to discuss the Fells Acre case and her response to it — just as it is appropriate to discuss any aspect of any candidate's public service.
Finally, in the context of this discussion, your pop quiz begs all sorts of questions. I don't claim to understand the Fells Acre case. Plenty of reasonable people doubt the convictions there. Certainly neither Rep. Capuano nor anyone associated with his campaign holds a brief for the Amiraults as you seem to misleadingly imply.
Charley, I was attempting to raise and connect, respectively, the larger trial and post-conviction procedural and substantive due process rights and First Amendment and statutory "right to know" rights implicated by AG Coakley's views and actions regarding Fells Acres matters to similar respective procedural and substantial due process rights and statutory "right to know" (FOIA)and First Amendment protections asserted, on the one hand, by criminal defendants and felons and, on the other hand, by citizens, including journalists, asserting their statutory "right to know" and First Amendment legal protections in the face of a hostile, bureaucratic, or, at best, indifferent federal and state government.
Perhaps, as your comment above suggests, my attempt to connect these related matters in my original was not as clear and convincing as it could have been. I hope the explanation above clarifies things for you and other BMG readers of my original post.
I will leave it to my favorite attorney, David, to straighten us both out. Thanks for the bump.
This is not the first time you have pitched this diatribe to BMG readers ( reference: your Sept. post on the same topic)...I have to agree with the above comments...this appears to be a pretty transparent circular firing squad by some DSC poobahs and the Capuano supporters.
Fasten your seat belt, Martha...when you are the frontrunner, you will be attacked from all sides. They need to bring you down in order to raise themselves up...it says a lot more about them than you.
The sjc was right. Rehashing without anything new to say just uses up everyones time. Just say Coakley is a power hungry witch and move on to the next subject.
I think your attempt to couple post-conviction DNA testing to the Fells Acre case is nonsense.
We certainly have enormous issues around forensic DNA handling in this state. For example, the State Police crime laboratory has been in the spotlight for various failures like this, this and this.
These are egregious failures with horrendous consequences, for society, for innocent men and women improperly convicted of crimes, and for each victim who now must live with the knowledge that the criminal who violated him or her cannot be prosecuted (because of the statute of limitations) after such government bungling.
It's difficult for me to see how this issue connects to the Senate race, but by all means chase it if it matters to you.
Nevertheless, if your subject is post-conviction DNA testing or forensic DNA handling in general, then LEAD with that (in your choice of title for example). By conflating it with Fells Acre you create the appearance -- to me at least -- of pandering.
not in the sense that discovering Martha Coakley's demeanor toward wrongfully convicted individuals is pretty darn important. She is asking to become a lawmaker afterall.
Massachusetts backed Alaska in yesterday's Supreme Court DNA case
As far as I'm concerned there should be no arbitrary date set. If the person convicted is still alive and if it is scientifically possible to conduct such a test, then there should be a test. It's never too late to release the wrongly-convicted.
Given the fallibility of our system, every effort should be made to confirm an individual's guilt or innocence through whatever scientific means are available. Post-conviction DNA has exonerated hundreds of wrongly conviced people. Neither the system nor society benefits from wrongly convicting and incarcerating innocent individuals as such errors erode confidence in the system in the end.
The congressman suggests lowering the standard from beyond a reasonable doubt to preponderance of the evidence. Its on his website. Im all for the death penalty if their guilty.
Mikey wants to do away with constitutional protections in criminal gases involving "heinous" crimes such as attacking him. Feel much safer.
Gibberish. I think you've indulged in too many "criminal gases." Great link, too.
Mike is obviously interested in lowering the standard to find guilt from beyond a reasonable doubt to the lower standard of just preponderance of the evidence. He feels strong enough about this to brag about it on his own website. You dont seem to have the same convictions or havent you read his website and just gabbing.
It's what we all do here.
Try to get a handle on your double posting, too. Reading what you have to say once is quite enough; twice is simply intolerable.
http://mikecapuano.com/pages/c...
Being willing to discuss something does not constitute an endorsement of that thing. Try again.
From Cunningham's site:
Probation conditions frequently, in my experience, mirror parole conditions, and include a requirement for both an admission of guilt and a statement of responsibility. I know that when I was working for the Department of Correction's community re-entry and integration effort, I never encountered one con who was not subject to the guilt & responsibility requirement.
Martha Coakley did not prosecute the Amirault case. The Amirault case did not involve DNA. Martha supports post-conviction DNA testing. In your previous diary you stated your #1 reason for not supporting Martha as, "First, as an Assistant Middlesex DA she recklessly overcharged and tried Louise Woodward with second degree murder." Funny but Martha was not responsible for charging Louise Woodward either. FOIA? What? Yea, its unlikely media would raise such a non issue. Here are the issues: Economy Jobs Health Care War Encourage your candidate to state a position on these issues rather than coninuing with the Amiraults and Louise Woodward.
What is the diarist's relationship to the other candidates?
to be supporting Khazie in a previous diary. Little on his website in the way of issues.
It didn't sound at all like an endorsement so much as, "Here's something that's potentially good." It even had a disclaimer that he didn't know much about Khazie's positions.
Martha Coakley was chief of the Child Abuse Prosecution Unit of the Middlesex District Attorney's Office when the indictment against Ms. Woodward was brought by the Middlesex County DA, Tom Reilly, and, as such, was directly responsible for bringing the second degree murder charge against the au pair, Louise Woodward. Perhaps, you are unfamiliar with how a district attorney's office operates in real life as opposed to how their operations are depicted in most televised courtroom dramas. Anyway, Mr. Reilly, acting similarly to nearly all DAs in Mass. and across the nation, merely signs off on most of the charging decisions brought by his senior ADAs such as AG Coakley.
With respect to AG Coakley's support of post-conviction DNA testing, does she support all of the sweeping provisions in the model federal DNA testing legislation advanced by The Innocence Project. I would be very surprised, but pleased, if "your candidate" endorsed passing all of these costly, time-consuming, burdensome provisions on police departments, medical examiners, and district attorneys offices.
I am afraid you will need to re-read my text in my original about the highly unusual post-conviction and probation terms DA Coakley demanded of Cheryl Amirault LeFave to comprehend the point I was making about my doubts about U.S. Senate candidate Coakley's commitment to open government and the pursuit of justice. Ms. Coakley has endorsed the criminal justice system's "need for finality," reasoning by the Supreme Judicial Court in the Amirault case, and that troubles me because it indicates a lack of commitment to upholding procedural and substantive due process in our courts. I never stated that Ms. Coakley "tried the Amirault case." Try re-reading the BMG postings a little more carefully next time before you begin your next passionate defense of "your candidate" online.
Finally, I don't "have a candidate," in this election, but you would be correct that my postings strongly suggest that I believe there are two candidates, Congressman Capuano and Alan Khazei, who would make superior U.S. Senators than Attorney General Martha Coakley.
about a case where you get second degree murder conviction and a fifteen year sentence only to have it reduced to manslaughter and time served, 279 days?
You can say she overcharged and got a jury without a backbone.
I'm curious to know what it is about this post that made you decide to put it on the front page. That is a sincere question. As someone trying to learn more about one of the three candidates in whom I am interested, I have to say I have learned very little here.
Otherwise, it's a pretty clear violation of the ROtR prohibition on blanket unsupported statements.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Mon 20 May 1:19 AM