Cahill mistrial: let it go

As you probably have heard, after acquitting ex-Treasurer Tim Cahill’s co-defendant Scott Campbell (Cahill’s former campaign manager), the Cahill jury today declared itself hopelessly deadlocked on Cahill himself, leading the judge in the case to declare a mistrial.  How, after acquitting Campbell, there could have remained any possibility of convicting Cahill on a conspiracy charge is a mystery to me, since conspiracy by definition would seem to require more than one person … but I digress.

Attorney General Coakley should let this one go.  I don’t know enough about the new law under which he was prosecuted to say anything about it in general, but this wasn’t a good case.  A possible five years in prison for running TV ads touting the lottery out of … the lottery’s advertising budget?  Sorry, but I don’t see it.



Discuss

6 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. I agree totally. Ms. Coakley should let it go. I also disagree with Mary Ann Marsh and Michael Goldman who are quoted in this morning Globe. I believe people were following the Cahill trial and that it just confirms again to more than me that Ms. Coakley has bad judgment. I know several (more than three) Democrats who would never again support her running for a higher office.

  2. No Cahill Fan

    As a simple citizen observer, this No Cahill Fan, does not see the merit in pursuing a re-trial. The actions by then Treasurer(DINO) Cahill were dubious and likely motivated by self-promotion. The matter was discovered and adjudicated and found to beneither, not guilty or innocent, but rather a mistrial.
    AG Coakley only pursues low hanging fruit. She thought that she could clip the kid from Quincy and claim to have done something about corruption in, on and around Beacon Hill, when in fact, she has done NOTHING. Open Meeting Laws are a farce, even benign procurement by govt. entities is abused.
    She was quoted on NPR this morning as refusing to disclose the amount of money, OUR MONEY, MARTHA – you public servant, you……..it has cost to bring the Cahill case to trial.
    The best work that Martha Coakley has done recently was to sleep through her campaign for US senate so that we could find and elect Elizabeth Warren.

  3. This reminds me of Teapot Dome

    How, after acquitting Campbell, there could have remained any possibility of convicting Cahill on a conspiracy charge is a mystery to me, since conspiracy by definition would seem to require more than one person … but I digress.

    Former Sen. and Interior Sec’y Albert Fall (corrupt as could be but also the designated “Fall” guy in fact as well as name) was convicted of accepting a bribe from oil baron Ed Doheny (whose name lives on through LA roads and beaches and the Beach Boys songs that reference them). But Doheny hired a top-notch lawyer and was acquitted of paying the bribe.

    I agree with the consensus on this. Not a Cahill fan but they shouldn’t try the case again.

  4. Honestly

    Why are DAs and AGs elected again? Seems like a terrible way to get qualified public servants. Electing them and judges has done wonders in IL for transparency, honesty an clean government. At least Coakley isn’t the daughter of a corrupt house speaker. But boy is she a moron.

  5. I add my baritone to the hearty chorus

    of Not Cahill Fans.

    And to be honest, Not Coakley Fans. I think it’s hard for non-attorneys to judge the prosecutorial establishment, but it’s seems from my unprofessional vantage point that it’s a sick freakin’ culture in which certain people drop all that the government can bring to bear for the purpose of career-making.

    As far as electing judges go, it’s a recipe for buying judges. Here’s the exception that proves the rule.

    • I tend to agree but

      As far as electing judges go, it’s a recipe for buying judges.

      One person I respect, Chief Judge Shirley Abrahamson of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, argued otherwise in the 2001 NYU Law School Brennan Lecture. Chief Judge Abrahamson suggests that having well-regulated nonpartisan elections, in March rather than the typical (and political) election season, can work very well in a state where the public is open to rational discussion.

      I’m not so sure we have many such states right now. My view is that, particularly in these hyper-partisan times and in the absence of meaning campaign finance restrictions, it’s very hard for courts with popularly elected judges to make necessary but unpopular decisions. I prefer the courts, at least where true individual rights are concerned, to be a protection against the tyranny of the majority.

      it’s a sick freakin’ culture in which certain people drop all that the government can bring to bear for the purpose of career-making

      True, as far as it goes. My recollection is that that the Mass. AG was not an elective position a few decades ago. Does anyone know for sure? But whether elected or appointed, the state AG’s office offers temptations for anyone looking to gain political attention via very public prosecutions. An appointed AG may have political ambitions just as much as an elected one.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Sat 30 Aug 6:27 AM