Peter Manderino, a victim of convicted drunk driving offender Cambridge City Councilor Anthony Galluccio, has announced he will file an OJ-like civil suit after Clerk Magistrate Daniel Hogan decided last week not to pursue the most recent OUI charge against the politician.
Galluccio caused a four-car accident in December when he plowed into the back of a car stopped at a red light. The BPD evidently attempted to brush the issue under the rug but was forced to reopen the investigation after Channel 5 broadcast a hard-hitting investigative report. Now Clerk Magistrate Daniel Hogan, a politically well-connected scion of an old-time government family, is apparently trying to do the same. Despite testimony from multiple unrelated parties to the accident that Galluccio was drunk — “legless,” in the words of one — Hogan found insufficient evidence even to warrant a proper hearing on the subject.
The outrage has been palpable in local media coverage — not to mention scathing on this blog. “Galluccio arrived with his two high-powered, politically-connected attorneys leading the way,” reported Channel 5. “The police officer who interviewed state Senate candidate Anthony Galluccio after a December car accident said hospital workers had to put the âirateâ and âcombativeâ Galluccio in restraint,” was the lead for the Cambridge Chronicle’s article.
The BPD must now decide whether or not to appeal Hogan’s ruling. We’ll see how serious the city really is about drinking and driving, or if it’s all just lip service aimed at teenage prom-goers. [Click “Discuss” to vote in the poll].
This suit is stupid. It is simply a fight between insurance companies which are routine and in the normal course of business./ What are the damages this fraud is claiming and what makes his case and claims different than the ordinary car accident? Get real guys.
<
p>
Magistrate Hogan did the right thing based on the police officers’ testimony. Their testimomny was consistent with their polioce reports. Complaint should not issue and Hogan should be commended for not bowing to political and public pressure. Hence, the lifetime appointment. The same facts for a nobody would get the same result in a magistrate’s hearing.
<
p>
Was Galluch drunk? Probably
Do Boston Police make many OUI arrests? Very few
Did the Boston Poice care who he was when they were there? Probably not.
Do boston police patrolmen like paper work at 2:00 a.m.? Probably not.
<
p>
But..whatever the answers are to the above questions, the facts presented at the hearing do not change. Good Job Magistrate Hogan.
Ernie, you predicted the great Barrios dropping out of the DA’s race and you were right. And you’re right with your analysis on the Galluch hearing. Barrios’ supporters on this log will keep raising Galluch’s alleged drunken driving to change the discussion away from Barrios screwing his supporters and taking their money for his own opportunism. Has he given back the money he raised yet? Why is Barrios getting a free pass from the media? Is there a connection between Chairman Barrios & Kathy O’Toole and that is why the investigation was re-opened? ALSO, I think Barrios drops out of running for re-election to the Senate as well. Things just aren’t going well for him. He looks crushed and dejected and the public are finally seeing the white knight is just an opportunistic, self-centerd fraud who destroyed his Representative district and then left his Senate district unrepresented while he thought he could fake everyone out for the DA race.
Although as I said before, I think it’s ridiculous to expect candidates to return money donated to a campaign they later drop out of (how do they know who to give it too? what if they already spent it on the very campaign it was given for), and just as ridiculous to assume that people who donated for his DA run would suddenly no longer be supportive of him, and I also noted that pretty much every candidate who runs for a new office uses campaign funds they built up from running for another office if available…
<
p>
… Barrios is actually going above and beyond what would be reasonable to expect. I heard from people who donated to Barrios for his DA run, that they got letters from his campaign informing them they could ask for their money back.
How about an option for those of us who weren’t involved, weren’t at the hearing, and don’t like jumping to conclusions when we don’t feel we have all the facts? 🙂
<
p>
I can’t vote for either of the options you put in the poll.
I don’t think this site has been about the facts so much as it has been about implying Galluccio’s guilt. No offense, I still love BMG but the bias here is obvious. If you think Galluc is bad and you want him out, say so.
The EMTs said he was drunk. The driver of every other vehicle and other witnesses said he was drunk. Even the Clerk Magistrate concluded that he had been drinking, thereby contradicting what Galluccio told Channel 5. The cops said they didn’t smell alcohol – but then again, the cops dropped the ball on this case until Channel 5 called them on it, whereupon they “reopened” the investigation, and then decide to press charges even though their own guys say they didn’t smell alcohol. You do the math.
<
p>
Was he legally intoxicated? I don’t know, and I don’t pretend to. But it sure strikes me as a jury question.
No one at BMG to be the best of my knowledge has said Galluccio was guilty of any crime that night. I believe what has generated some outrage is that a politician — who should be held to a higher standard as a leader, actually appears to be being held to no standard at all — in other words, given a pass because of his buddies in the business, which in this case is law enforcement (see results of poll above, which right now has 7/9 members of our jury thinking that Hogan let down the people he is sworn to serve). First, Galluccio is pardoned for drunk driving — why? Then, the BPD doesn’t even bother to investigate him at the accident — incompetence, favoritism, or a view by the police officers that drunk driving is no big deal are all unacceptable. Now, Hogan doesn’t even familiarize himself with the man at issue before he plunges right into making a big decision. “Hogan said he was not aware of Galluccio’s past record,” Channel 5 reported. Drunk driving is as serious a crime as assault with a dangerous weapon in my personal opinion, and cases like this should be treated seriously, not brushed aside — especially when they involve our elected leaders. Thus, outrage because the process is not being taken seriously, not conviction in advance. If the BPD appeals, and he is then acquitted at trial, and if he also wins the civil suit, I think people will accept the result.
Just admit it David. You love Barrios and will do anything to help your white knight. Get over it. NOT GUILTY, NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO GO FORWARD & get out the popcorn because it’s Galluch v. Wounded Barrios and Barrios is bleeding bad.
I just want to clarify: The poll doesn’t ask “is Galluccio guilty?”, and it doesn’t ask “do you think this should have gone to trial?”. To the former question, I’d answer “I don’t know”, and to the latter, I’d answer “probably”. Instead it asks whether “Justice was done” or “Hogan protected his buddy”. I don’t see how anything we’ve read on Blue Mass Group could make anyone believe either of those things. People who are closer to the case, who were at the accident, or at the hearing, may know things we don’t. But just based on what’s been in the news and on our blog, both of those options seem like jumping wildly to conclusions IMO.
I was upset that Councilor Galluccio would not face a hearing for what at this point appear to be very serious charges, and I’m glad that someone is stepping forward, and sacrificing their own time and energy (with no direct return for them) to bring these charges forward in a civil suit.
<
p>
For me, many mistakes are forgivable in principle, at least the first time. Even drunk driving, I would include in this, because drinking and driving (separately) are such deeply embedded parts of our culture. However, driving while intoxicated is dangerous to everyone, and a public official who engages in such behavior as a habit (even an infrequent habit) cannot, in my opinion, remain a public official. Therefore, for me to forgive Mr. Galluccio as a public official, he must convince me that he intends with every bone in his body not to drive drunk again. That requires two distinct steps: one, an open admission of the act; and two, a statement of the steps he is taking to prevent it happening again. This might be, for example, an admission that he is undergoing counseling for his drinking (which should not be scoffed at; rather, I would take it as a very meaningful action); or, any other statement that would explain how Mr. Galluccio is taking positive actions to change his behavior.
<
p>
Unfortunately, Mr. Galluccio has not even gotten to step one. He has made (to my knowledge) no public admission of driving while intoxicated. Rather, in the immediate aftermath, he claimed explicitly that he had been sober. If Mr. Galluccio had later, after thinking it through, retracted his statements and admitted his guilt, I wouldn’t have faulted him greatly for his initial dishonesty. However, even that did not happen. Mr. Galluccio has to this day not explicitly acknowledged that he was driving while under the influence; he has only said that he accepts “responsibility” for the incident and wants to put it behind him. (Good luck with that.)
<
p>
There is a moral issue of honesty here, but there is also more than that. This part is solely my opinion, but for what it’s worth: I think someone is unlikely to change a habit or a weakness until they admit to it. I apply this belief directly to Mr. Galluccio. The day I hear him admit, publicly, that he was driving drunk on that night, and that he asks for forgiveness as a public official and states his plans to take control of his drinking, on that day I will think Mr. Galluccio stands a fair chance of never endangering people on the road again. As things currently stand, however, I make no such assumption and would feel safer were Mr. Galluccio not on the roads–not to mention, happier about our local government were he not a public official.