The Globe blog reports that AG and Gov candidate Tom Reilly declared that the site of the Big Dig tunnel collapse that killed one person last night is a “crime scene,” and that he is looking into “negligent manslaughter” charges. He added: “For something like this to happen we’re looking at reckless wanton conduct that caused the unfortunate death of this young woman.”
He’s right.
Please share widely!
Political grandstanding aside, could someone actually be convicted for that?
not waiting a day to go after Amorello’s head (Romney) in the wake of a citizen’s tragic death.
<
p>
Declaring a crime scene is actually doing your job as Attorney General. Since evidence has a habit of “disappearing,” you cannot afford to wait an extra minute.
I don’t know enough about the law to know whether Reilly’s dog is hunting, but I do know that as a regular ol’ citizen, Romney’s rabid exploitation of this tragedy to maneuver Amorello’s head onto the platter is just plain crass. Romney sounded possessed today in blaming this entire thing on Amorello, as if Amorello, himself, caused the slab to fall. If I were Amorello, I’d think of sueing Romney just on principle alone.
Both of these men should be ashamed of themselves. Without one bit of direct evidence they call for the head of Matt Amorello, are you kidding me? Unless they were in another country or should I say state, Mr Amorello was not even the Chairmen of the Ma. Turnpike when this part of the tunnel was built.
More important, a person was killed as a result of an ACCIDENT ! I can’t believe that in today’s society our Political Power brokers would stoop this low, they hell with the victim, let’s just play politics as usual in MA, screw everyone else! I hope we can send these unconsidered phonies a strong message in the near future.
While I no doubt think Reilly is grandstanding, it’s tough to really be angry at him for doing it… because he is the AG.
<
p>
However, seeing as how he’s in a political race, I think he should remove himself from the public face when making politically important decisions like this. He should have had an assistant/spokesman make the announcement that it would be a crime scene.
<
p>
If I were running for politics, yet currently held a position, that’s what I’d do. Why? Because that way you can’t even appear (or actually be) grandstanding. I want the governor’s debate to be about ideas, not some criminal trial that could be in part motivated by a slumping candidate’s desire to reverse trends.
<
p>
You could almost sense that’s just what Romney was doing, trying to take advantage of the situation for his political goals and avoid being stained by serving in Mass while we have this messy Big Dig going on.
<
p>
<
p>
That said, I’ve driven under the Ted Williams tunnel for years going back and forth to college. Freak accidents do happen. Obviously, a thorough check needs to be done and any repairs that are necessary need to be made, but I’m not going to be afraid to use the Big Dig or call the whole project a mistake or stop using it.
<
p>
People need to get ahold of themselves. Things have been falling off our bridges for years now in Massachusetts… they barely made it on the news (and I’m pretty sure there have been people that died too).
<
p>
Not that I’m trying to be insensitive, it’s just important to not let passions get a hold of reality. I look back at what happened just after 9/11 and Massachusetts – in large part – became a bunch of xenophobic, rabid crazies prowling the streets and urging anyone wearing a turban be banned from airtravel/thrown in jail. Seriously, that’s how crazy it was for weeks and weeks (if not months and months). We need to learn how to take a step back and be rational, not letting the news dictate our sanity reactions.
The issues will be criminal negligence, and deception (someone covering up of a known flaw, or even a failure to follow proper review procedures). As I mentioned in the other thread, if those issues are in fact found to have occurred, it could — and probably ought to — make Enron look like a walk in the park.
How can you say Reilly is right? Good luck going after someone criminally here. The negligence standard that Reilly is going to have to pursue is going to be virtually impossible to meet. Reilly’s anger and frustration is absolutely right and is commendable and I am happy he is the AG b/c he is pretty tough. But to start a criminal witch hunt is ridiculous. He is going to have to pursue individual construction workers and show that they basically didn’t care that someone might die. The criminal charges have no likelihood of reaching the upper echelons of the Turnpike Authority. The death is more than unfortunate, it must be a wake up call. But I think that the criminal charges come a little to close to politics.
One minute you want accountability, and the next minute you don’t think this is such a big deal? It’s certainly not too much of a stretch to imagine that some of the individuals (executives? engineers? construction workers?) who worked for the company that installed the roofing were criminally negligent. At a minimum, it is prudent to investigate rather than, what, send a few dozen roses to JP, clean up the concrete, and take the rest of the month off.
His name is Attorney General Tom Reilly, not Attorney General Deval Patrick. Otherwise, he would just be doing his job! 🙂
I certainly didn’t even come close to saying this is no big deal. This is a HUGE deal. However, I am taking issue with the criminal nature that Reilly is pursuing. I think the criminal investigation is a red herring. The Turnpike Authority cannot be held liable for the manslaughter. No construction company can be held criminally liable. If anyone is going to be held criminally liable it will be some construciton worker who has to be held up to make everyone feel better. There needs to be real investigations but I just think this criminal grandstanding will detract.
The doctrine of respondeat superior could certainly make any of those employing parties responsible. How do you know that the issue wasn’t caused by negligence engineering? Or inadequate management by Bechtel? Or premature sign-off by the Turnpike? How do you know that the negligence was not so egregious that it could amount to negligent manslaughter? You don’t. That is why you have criminal investigations.
<
p>
You would want AG Deval Patrick to do the same thing. 🙂
That doctrine will not apply for the manslaughter charges that Reilly is talking about. Only an individual can be held liable for manslaughter, it is sort of hard to put the Turnpike Authority in jail.
if it was a private company (Bechtel, et al), they could be prosecuted in a civil suit — and the evidence on the scene would help.
<
p>
If there was an individual employee who was negligent, he might be prosecuted. It’d have to be a pretty extreme situation, but I’d rather the AG investigate and determine that there wasn’t gross negligence than to not investigate at all.
Andy,
<
p>
Do you think there is any contradiction in suggesting that Reilly should not have certified the gay marriage petition even though the SJC would have made the decision it did, but saying that pursuing a criminal investigation is foolhardy because it might not lead anywhere?
<
p>
I don’t think that the politics of what we’re discussing can be separated entirely from the question of being “principled” but it seems to me that the logic of supporting one path dictates supporting the other.
<
p>
I know I am being a little unclear, but I think part of the problem is that this hinges on what we mean by being principled.
<
p>
Personally I am glad Tom Reilly is the AG right now. If there is someone/something deserving of punishment, I am confident he’ll root it out.
There are so many different ways to go after the Big Dig. I am not taking issue with Reilly demanding investigations, he should. I am confused as to why no one is troubled with the fact that a prosector has determined a crime and now says he going to find the evidence to support it. Isn’t that a problem? I support Reilly in any effort to figure out what went wrong because obviously something went very wrong. I do not support his show in regards to looking for manslaughter charges.
<
p>
Reilly has the ability to go after some of these individuals criminally but the criminal charge he has thrown out there, negligent manslaughter, will not, in my opinion, be able to reach the top guys who are responsible for the overall poor quality of this construction. Proving that a CEO of a construction company was close enough to this tragedy as to have the requisite elements of the crime cited by Reilly will be nearly impossible. Reckless, wanton conduct is a tough standard. It is more likely that an individual construction worker can be held to this standard and frankly I don’t place the blame of the years of neglect and poor management at the Big Dig on the construction workers.
<
p>
Reilly should have called for investigations both criminal and civil. If someone wants to pin the death of this woman on the CEO’s and construction companies leave that to the family to do in a civil wrongful death suit. There are so many issues that the AG can win on that getting bogged down on this incredibly difficult issue to prove would be a failure to do his job.
<
p>
Let me state again, Reilly is doing his job. I have no problem with Reilly investigating this. I take issue with the way that he announced “charges” before he had any evidence. That is sloppy.
<
p>
As for the SJC issue I think it was entirely up to Reilly to make a different interpretation than he did. We only know now he would have been wrong because we have the advantage of having the SJC decision. If we go back to when he made the certification I think there was a reasonable argument to deny that certification on the belief that Reilly’s interpretation of Art 48 was that the petition in question would reverse a judicial decision. The AG’s job is to make legal interpretations. Those who say it is to enforce the law aren’t be entirely true, to enforce a law you first have to determine what you think it means. Sorry for the long comment.
That is how he operates.
Ask Tookie.
<
p>
The man is dumb and a media whore.
put in jail by Scott Harshbarger?
Although, it was became more and more apparent to everyone that the guy was getting screwed.
No apology necessary for the length of the comment, thanks for the thoughtful response. I am still unsure where I come out on this and your response was helpful.
And as to FC’s question: sure, depending on what facts are established. It probably wouldn’t be premeditated murder, but there are crimes of negligence.
A Boston.com news report has more. Including:
<
p>
âEverything is on the table,â Reilly added. âI’m talking about the Turnpike Authority. I’m talking about anyone that’s signed off on this project.”
<
p>
Look out Tip O’Neill and Rose Kennedy — your names are all over this thing!
<
p>
I don’t know how I feel about a manslaughter charge — I’d have to see evidence of some real sloppiness — but Reilly’s opportunism is pretty transparent. Couldn’t he first bring an injunction to keep the tunnels closed until every inch has been scrutinized and declared safe?
Reilly is transparently doing his job. Good for him.
<
p>
The tunnels ARE closed and they ARE being inspected. Since there was a death, it should be treated as a crime scene in order to secure evidence and make the proper determination of what, if any, criminal activity has taken place.
<
p>
Was it opportunistic for Deval Patrick to issue a press release to promote his call for in special IG? Was it opportunistic for Gabrieli to make a statement at the South Shore Chamber? Personally, I don’t think so, but neither of them are as directly involved in this matter as Tom Reilly.
<
p>
Let’s allow Tom Reilly do his job and judge his actions on the final work product.
Like you say, you’d “have to see evidence of some real sloppiness.” Reilly’s job as AG is to look for that evidence. If he finds it, he should indict. If not, he should drop it. I can’t see how that constitutes “opportunism.”
might actually be those panels that fell into the tunnel tragically killing a young woman. I don’t know, but I bet that seems like solid preliminary grounds for establishing a case for negligence.
I agree, a criminal investigation is called for. I guess the force of his rhetoric is what surprised me – calling out the Turnpike by name, for example, rather than the contractor. Struck me as trying to take charge of the ongoing Romney-Pike brouha. It sounded like he was ready to slap the cuffs on Amorello right there. But I suppose take-no-prisoners talk is what we want from an AG.
A useful link here from a law firm operating under the catchy name Mass Murder Defense. I assume they take clients who are only accused of killing individual victims.
Your link helped me solidfy my point.
<
p>
<
p>
I think reading that people will get more of an understanding of how difficult the task is in front of Reilly should he pursue this and frankly I think it also shows how it is unlikely that he will succeed. I bolded the key elements needed to be proven. Those are going to be some tough hoops to get through and in the end we will probably end up only netting construction workers while letting the big guys go. That isn’t good enough.
is obviously not to net construction workers. However, if there are construction workers who were cutting corners to save money or whatever (and reports are already surfacing that there were), it may be necessary to go after them initially, and then cut a deal with them to pursue the people responsible for implementing policies that led to the disaster. Standard Operating Procedure.
<
p>
As for foreseeability…hmm. Was it foreseeable that if corners were cut in hanging 3-ton panels above a heavily-trafficked roadway, something bad might happen? That one seems to answer itself.
<
p>
Think about it, Andy – this happens all the time. Do you think that liability for the nightclub fire in Rhode Island should be limited to the guys that installed the non-fireproof insulation, or who set off the fireworks? The prosecutors don’t – they’re going after the nightclub owners. Or, to take a rather more extreme example (but one in which the general principle doesn’t seem all that different), do you think liability for Abu Ghraib should be limited to “a few bad apples” who worked at the prison?
<
p>
The Globe has more on these questions today (but don’t take the concerns expressed by the defense lawyer they interviewed too seriously – what do you expect him to say?). No one’s saying it’s going to be an easy case to make. But that doesn’t mean Reilly shouldn’t declare that criminal charges are a possibility, and that he shouldn’t investigate fully to determine whether charges are warranted. That’s what he’s doing, and I’m glad he’s doing it.
As I think I have repeatedly said I am happy Reilly is investigating because it is pretty clear something is very wrong. There really is no point in having more a discussion then that. As per usual in Massachusetts we are much happier with people threatening then actually doing anything. I wonder how this state ended up where it is with the Big Dig?
(flog flog) but I’m a little puzzled by your viewpoint. You’re glad that he’s investigating, but you’re unhappy with his announcement that he’s undertaking a criminal investigation. What, exactly, should he have done differently? For him to have taken criminal charges off the table at the outset would have been highly irresponsible. By announcing that it’s a criminal case, he is able to preserve evidence, as well as indicate that it’s an important matter that will be taken very seriously. He hasn’t said who he’s going to charge, if he’s going to charge anyone, nor could he – he hasn’t done the investigation yet. I just don’t see the problem.
But I’ll drop it. 🙂
I am just not sure what else I can say. I have written two fairly large comments on the subject. I don’t want a prosecutor calling out a charge when there is no evidence yet.
Big Differnce.
We do not know if a crime has been committed yet.
<
p>
So Andy is right. I thought it was bizarre that Reilly is already calling it a crime scene rather than a “possible crime scene”.
<
p>
Very unprofessional on his part. But that has never stopped him before.
It’s the right thing to do for the right reason.
<
p>
I would think there will certainly be a lawsuit filed, so it definitely sounds reasonable to look at criminal negligence.
<
p>
Some times doing the right thing and unintended good politics line up.
Reilly is right, except this is Dan Conley’s job.
Time to put on the lawyer hat. I’ll do more research on the criminally negligent homicide.
<
p>
The current state of the law on corporate criminal liability can be found at COMMONWEALTH vs. ANGELO TODESCA CORPORATION, 446 Mass. 128 (2006). (This material is PUBLIC RECORD, so I’m quoting without fear of copywrite infringement.) The case can be found at http://www.masslawyersweekly.com/signup/opinion.cfm?recID=119981
<
p>
In a 4/3 split, the majority stated:
<
p> As a threshold matter, the parties agree that corporate criminal liability is governed by the standards outlined in Commonwealth v. Beneficial Fin. Co., 360 Mass. 188 (1971), cert. denied sub nom. Farrell v. Massachusetts, 407 U.S. 910 (1972), and sub nom. Beneficial Fin. Co. v. Massachusetts, 407 U.S. 914 (1972), and in Commonwealth v. L.A.L. Corp., 400 Mass. 737 (1987). In Commonwealth v. Beneficial Fin. Co., supra at 256, we held that before criminal liability may be imposed on a corporate defendant:
<
p>
“The Commonwealth must prove that the individual for whose conduct it seeks to charge the corporation criminally was placed in a position by the corporation where he had enough power, duty, responsibility and authority to act for and in behalf of the corporation to handle the particular business or operation or project of the corporation in which he was engaged at the time that he committed the criminal act … and that he was acting for and in behalf of the corporation in the accomplishment of that particular business or operation or project, and that he committed a criminal act while so acting.”
<
p> We rejected the argument that corporations can be liable criminally for conduct of employees only if such conduct “was performed, authorized, ratified, adopted or tolerated by” corporate officials or managers. Id. at 254.
<
p> We reiterated these principles in Commonwealth v. L.A.L. Corp., supra at 743, in which we concluded that a close corporation could be criminally liable for the conduct of employees who sold alcohol to minors, despite the fact that corporate officials had no knowledge of the sales, and that corporate policy strictly prohibited selling alcohol to minors. In addition to emphasizing that there is no requirement that corporate officials had knowledge of their employees’ criminal acts, we also explained that the intent element of an offense does not change the applicable principle of corporate criminal liability: the standards outlined in Commonwealth v. L.A.L. Corp., supra at 743 & n. 3, apply to employee crimes that are malum in se and malum prohibitum.
<
p> The Appeals Court correctly summarized the elements of corporate criminal liability:
<
p> “To prove that a corporation is guilty of a criminal offense, the Commonwealth must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that an individual committed a criminal offense; (2) that at the time of committing the offense, the individual ‘was engaged in some particular corporate business or project’; and (3) that the individual had been vested by the corporation with the authority to act for it, and on its behalf, in carrying out that particular corporate business or project when the offense occurred.”
<
p>
Commonwealth v. Angelo Todesca Corp., supra at 605, citing Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court § 5.07 (1995); Commonwealth v. L.A.L. Corp., supra at 744.
I don’t think anyone disputes that the Big Dig contractors could be held criminally liable but given the standard for criminal negligence it is unfair to make public statements implying some level of criminality when you have no evidence. At most, this is suggestive of simple negligence in the design or construction of the panels. It’s a kajillion dollar wrongful death suit for sure, but not criminal.
<
p>
Whenever someone dies, politicians inevitably lapse into bouts of hyperbole
This is only one go for Reilly. We can expect more of the same during the campaign to the DP primary.
<
p>
He has spent his life as a DA or the like. He has one tool — the hammer of prosecution. Everything he sees is a nail. Bam!
<
p>
If you look at his campaign Website, you’ll see that all issues have a law/prosecution/punishment angle, including education.
<
p>
This is what he knows. This is what he does.
Attorney General Thomas Reilly’s negligent homicide probe prevents federal lawmakers from holding comprehensive hearings, (U.S. Rep Stephen) Lynch said. “That basically puts a hold on all other processes. We cannot in Congress subpoena people who are already subpoenaed in a criminal” investigation, Lynch said.