Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The Galluccio hearing, from someone who was there

By

Lawyer Ed Prisby – proprietor of prizblog, BMG denizen “evileddie,” and victim in the four-car accident caused by Cambridge City Councillor and state Senate candidate Anthony Galluccio – wrote up this morning’s probable cause hearing as a comment to this post reporting the news that the drunk driving charges against Galluccio were dismissed.  Ed’s account seemed important enough to me to post separately.  Here’s what he had to say:

People sometimes complaint to me about the law.  They complain about a broken “system,” and complain that justice seems more accessible to those with money than those without.  And for a few years now, since I’ve been an attorney, I’ve been able to tell those people that, by and large, the system we have works, and it usually produces the correct result, or something reasonably close to the correct result.  And I’ve been able to say that with some confidence.

Until today.

This morning I was called into a probable cause hearing in the Boston Municipal Court to determine whether or not there was enough evidence to bring a criminal complaint against Anthony Galluccio for driving under the influence.  The key thing to remember about such a hearing is that it is the clerk magistrate’s job to determine whether ANY evidence exists, if believed by the magistrate, that Galluccio was operating under the influence.

Readers of this blog recall that I have stated, on numerous times, and in many places, that Galluccio was drunk when he caused a four car accident on December 18, 2006 in downtown Boston.  Peter Manderino, the operator of another car involved, has written similarly.

This past week it was revealed that the EMT’s on the scene also informed the Boston Police that Galluccio “appeared drunk”, was “definitely alcohol impaired,” and informed them repeatedly that he was a Cambridge City Counselor.

This morning, the two EMTs, Peter Manderino, his passenger, and I all testified similarly of our observations on December 18 with regard to Mr. Galluccio’s condition.

Galluccio’s defense attorney, predictably, turned the tables right back around on us.  Questions to me centered on how much I had to drink that evening, whether I had “political motivations,” and given that I had spoken with Channel 5, whether or not I was enjoying my “celebrity status.”

I don’t find those theatrics particularly disturbing or all that below board – after all, they belie the fact that Galluccio has very little in the way of actual defense.

No, what I find astounding is that the clerk magistrate made actual FINDINGS OF FACT (reserved exclusively for a jury)when he ruled in Galluccio’s favor, stating that he believed that Galluccio  had consumed some alcohol that night, but not enough to impair him.

That is, quite frankly, unbelievable and completely inappropriate.  Our system is designed to prevent one man from making a determination behind closed doors as to guilt or innocence.

Ultimately, Galluccio MAY have gone before a jury and he MAY have been acquitted.  But we’ll never know now, will we?

Kind of makes you say “hmmm….”

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. What was his name and background? And does anyone know the law about what a Clerk Magistrate may and may not do. How about the names of the prosecutors.

    • He mentions Hogan here:

      <

      p>
      http://cltg.org/cltg/clt2005/05-11-22.htm

      <

      p>
      The Boston Herald
      Friday, November 18, 2005

      <

      p>
      Same old hack story: Court clerks clean up
      By Howie Carr

      <

      p>
      Don’t forget the court clerks! Gov. Romney willing, they’ll be getting a big fat pay raise, too.

      <

      p>
      Oh sure, the oft-investigated sheriffs of Massachusetts are all grabbing obscene pay raises, ditto the preening, underworked hack judges.

      <

      p>
      But what’s gone under the radar screen so far is that the commonwealth’s court clerks have been inserted into the pork-laden bill. And the clerks will be getting not just a pay raise, but a double bump up.

      <

      p>
      They’re getting a bigger kiss, percentage-wise, than the judges – and boy, does that frost the robed ones. Watch your back, Judge Mulligan – your troops have got the long knives out for you.

      <

      p>
      Right now the mostly ancient clerks are supposed to get 75.4 percent of the salary of their court’s presiding justice. Under a provision inserted in the Senate supplemental budget, that percentage goes up to 81.4 percent.

      <

      p>
      What that amounts to is, if the governor goes along to get along, the clerks go from about $89,000 a year to $110,000.

      <

      p>
      Happy Thanksgiving, clerks!

      <

      p>
      And another thing: The assistant clerks, who are usually hacked up themselves, get 71 percent of what the clerks get, so they’re in line for a mega-boost, too.

      <

      p>
      Who are these coat-holding hacks, you ask? They tend to be old, very old. Again, consider the phrase, “Forgotten but not gone.”

      <

      p>
      Consider Joe Croken of the Malden District Court. He was a Torby MacDonald guy – and when was the last time you heard that said of anyone?

      <

      p>
      For those of you too young to remember exactly where you were when you heard Foster Furcolo had been indicted, Torby was a Harvard classmate of JFK (class of ’39) and later a congressman. He’s been dead 30 years.

      <

      p>
      Not wanting to embarrass myself, I phoned the Malden District Court yesterday to make sure Croken hadn’t croaked.

      <

      p>
      “I think he’s at lunch,” said the woman who answered the phone.

      <

      p>
      Out to lunch. That pretty much sums up all the clerks. Down in Hingham, there’s Joe Ligotti – a Johnny Powers guy, another phrase you don’t hear much anymore. Stress does not take a lot of clerks off the board. The previous clerk of the South Boston District Court made it past 90. His name was Flaherty, and he was succeeded by a woman whose maiden name was Flaherty.

      <

      p>
      You can see why the House is expected to go along with the Senate’s pay raises. Among the former House members who will be getting another $400 a week out of this: Rick Walsh (West Roxbury), Paul Malloy (Marlboro), Carlton Viveiros (Bristol County Housing), Ed Teague (Falmouth), Kevin Finnegan (Peabody) and Bill Nagle (Ware). Was Clerk-Magistrate Arthur Tobin of Quincy a rep before he was the state senator?

      <

      p>
      His son, of course, is Steve Tobin, who is now the state rep. “Merry Christmas, Dad, I voted for your pay raise.”

      <

      p>
      Does the name Timilty ring a bell? Come on down, Norfolk Superior Court Clerk Walter Timilty. He’s one of those Timiltys – the K-Mart Kennedys – who include a rep, a solon, a governor’s councilor and an ex-con.

      <

      p>
      Come on down, Clerk Kevin Creedon of the Brockton District Court. It’s going to be a great Thanksgiving for the Creedon family. Brother Mike, a judge, is going up to $133,000, and Kevin’s in line to make $110G. Thank you, Sen. Bob Creedon, another brother, and his wife, Rep. Geraldine Creedon.

      <

      p>
      Who’ve I missed here? Clerk Dan Hogan of the BMC – I believe his dad was a judge. Sal Paterna of Dedham – a Bellotti guy. Joe Faretra – a Sargent guy. One final blast from the past: Joe Croken, the Torby MacDonald guy in Malden. He’s 81, a young 81. At the clerks’ meetings, they call him “the kid.”

  3. . . . who was Gooch’s lawyer?  He should be getting basketfulls of referrals.

  4. is if you go out drinking and driving, don’t hit a lawyer with political connections — he may just demand justice 😉

    <

    p>
    I wouldn’t be surprised if the GOPpers turn this against us as a case study in cronyism on Beacon Hill. And Galluccio isn’t even there yet!

    • Isn’t if funny that Dan Conley’s office (Suffolk DA) refused to get involved, even before they had a chance to review the file! The Boston PD can still appeal, but don’t hold your breath on that one.

      <

      p>
      Anybody who believes this one wasn’t wired from the get-go is a fool.

      <

      p>
      Where is MADD when you need them?

      • It was wired from the beginning; curious how Boston Police (Kathleen O’Toole) opened this up after some months for more investigation; and more curious is Barrios’ chairmanship of Public Safety. Hmmm. Did the spinmeister Barrios anticipate a withdrawal and needed to needle any potential opposition for his seat if & when (which he did) decide to re-run for Senate? Hmmm. What a blow to the opportunistic incumbent Senator. Imagine all the work he needs to do to convince people he’s the knight on the white horse and they (start the tears now) deserve a Senator’s attention and he’s ready to give it to us now (after he realized his Tampa Florida carpet-bagging wouldn’t help in conservative Middlesex County). Oh, get out the popcorn for this one…Galluch is hanging in there, Barrios is wounded (he might just resign altogether)…..what a great Summer it’ll be…

        • There is only one reason why she “re-opened” the investigation (actually, there was never an initial investigation after the night of the accident): Janet Wu embarrassed the crap out of the department, which let an obvious drunk driver slip away so easily. The wiring came later, after a weak presentation before the forgiving magistrate, one who would have issued a complaint in any other case if the defendant hadn’t been a good ole boy.

          <

          p>
          I don’t know about the Senate race. But if Galluccio claims he has been proven “innocent” that is simply untrue. All he is now is free of a criminal charge; but just he is just as guilty as ever.

          • The magistrate did the right thing. This case was not guilty because the investgation was completely flawed. The hearing showed that. This was not a bag job or anything like that.

            <

            p>
            Oh, isn’t it a shame we have a right to cross examine witneeses against us.

            <

            p>
            I want to hear more about this civil suit being brought by one these self-rightous victim/witness.

            <

            p>
            Oh, by the way, Icalled this one too.

            <

            p>
            And the beat goes on…

            • “Not guilty” is actually just as incorrect as “innocent.” The purpose of a show-cause or probable cause hearing is to determine whether there is any evidence, which if believed, would support a conviction. The magistrate’s job is not to sort out guilt or innocence, only to determine if the ball should start rolling. It is not his job to judge credibility unless the evidence is absolutely incredible (blind man saw the accident; aliens ate my grandma).

              <

              p>
              If you asked Hogan about probable cause hearings on the day before the hearing, that is exactly what he would have told you.

              <

              p>
              So instead, you have this hearing where three different eye-witnesses say he was drunk. Two have no claims whatsoever. An EMT records he was alcohol impaired. Many people smell alcohol. He causes an accident involving five cars (some might consider that evidence of “impairment”) and then tries to leave the scene (except he is pulled from his car).

              <

              p>
              Ernie, my man, in the world of criminal law, that is enough to issue a complaint. There is only one reason this complaint did not issue, and that was political favoritism.

              <

              p>
              Don’t fool yourself into thinking there was no complaint because investigation was flawed. No doubt that it was. It was awful. But, as you probably know, there are things called “statutes of limitations” which accommodate flawed investigations, allowing matters to go forward even if there was no arrest when there should have been one.

              <

              p>
              The case proves not only the politics still work just fine in the BMC, it also shows that the Boston P.D. is more than willing to go lightly on drunk driving, despite the clamour from our dear Mayor for safety and enforcement.

Archives