Today’s Boston Globe had and interesting article on steps the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association (MDAA) wants to take to cut down on wrongful convictions. Read the article here or here. The concern, according to the Globe article, stems from the large number of wrongful convictions in the state.
“We always have to be scrutinizing what the police do and what the prosecutors do to make sure we obtain justice,” Williams said. “It’s not just about convicting the guilty, but exonerating the innocent.”
The report is the outcome of a 2004 initiative launched because of wrongful conviction concerns . At least 15 erroneous convictions surfaced in recent years, mostly from Suffolk County, which includes Boston.
The Globe article also quotes Boston defense attorney Stephen Hrones giving qualified praise to the initiative. It sums up his position like this:
“The toughest thing of all is changing the mindset of the police,” Hrones said. “They still believe that once they have a suspect, their whole effort is centered on getting as much evidence against that particular suspect instead of thinking the suspect might be innocent and getting leads on someone else who may have done it.”
This mindset will be familiar to anyone who has studied the Benjamin LaGuer case. Witness the observations of former FBI agent, assistant district attorney and private investigator Richard Slowe.
By the way, the MDAA is a frequent visitor to the Ben LaGuer Web site.
The investigator in the clip you provided is discussing only the Grand Jury testimony, not the trial testimony. If the ADA running the Grand Jury allows untruths into evidence in that forum a wrongful indictment may issue. The indictment is not evidence; it is merely a charging document.
<
p>
It is at trial where the defendant gets a chance to contest the evidence. In Massachusetts, defendants get the Grand Jury minutes prior to trial; LaGuer’s defense counsel could have vigorously cross examined the police officers who introduced the false information to the Grand Jury. Provably false testimony at the Grand Jury level is a wonderful tool with which a good defense counsel can undercut the prosecution’s case. I don’t know if the defense counsel did his job in this case, but if he didn’t then LaGuer could have raised ineffective assistance of counsel to his long list of appellate issues.
<
p>
I think defense counsel are doing gods work. They stand beside the defendant at a time when society is calling for the defendants head. Noble images of attorneys real and fictional spring to my mind. I think of John Adams and the British troops charged in the Boston Massacre and Atticus Finch representing poor, doomed Tom Robinson. This being said, I dont think the LaGuer case helps Patrick. LaGuer has been found guilty of one of the most heinous crimes, rape. DNA evidence links him to the crime scene. There are some that say that the DNA evidence was contaminated, either intentionally or by accident. No one will ever know the real truth. I admire Patrick for his standing up for a guy like LaGuer, as it will undoubtedly cost him votes as will his stand on the tax rollback. Maybe Patrick is not such a chameleon after all.
Thanks Herakles for your thoughtful comments. Before I respond to the first part let me say that I agree that LaGuer doesn’t help Patrick. This case shouldn’t hurt him either, unless the oppo tries to make unprincipled and dishonest hay out of observations Patrick made a long time ago. I was as sorry as anyone to see Dave Wedge trying to use LaGuer as a tool for a smear. When I talked to Wedge he didn’t even realize that LaGuer’s case was coming up in the SJC. At least he reported that in his article, but in the end he decided not to let facts get in the way of his mission.
<
p>
The fact remains that Patrick happens to have been on the right side of this case. Not that speaking up for guilty people is wrong, as you eloquently point out, but LaGuer happens to be innocent.
<
p>
You are totally right about the fact that LaGuer’s original defense attorney, Peter Ettenberg, totally blew it. There is a lot that could be said about that. Just a couple points for now: LaGuer was just back from the Army. Rather than going with a public defender he signed his GI Bill check (about $5,000) over to Ettenberg who hired private investigators (one of whom I have spoken to at length) and laid the groundwork for a vigorous defense. But then LaGuer’s money ran out. Ettenberg took the info he had gathered and used it to get LaGuer and absolutely fabulous plea bargain, under which he would have walked in less than two years. Ettenberg went on vacation to Barbados just before the trial and wasn’t prepared for LaGuer absolutely refusing to take the plea bargain. As I understand it Ettenberg tried to get a continuation but the judge turned him down so he went into court woefully under prepared.
<
p>
LaGuer did press for an ineffective assistance of counsel ruling at a 1989 post conviction hearing but the trial judge (Robert Mulkern, since retired) rejected it. You can ask Ettenberg about all this. I tried, but he wouldn’t return my many phone calls.
<
p>
As for the DNA contamination. I’m not so sure that we’ll never know, as you contend in your post. On that I’ll let the statements of four high level DNA experts who have looked at the case closely and then put their names and reputations on record as saying at minimum that this case requires more investigation (some went even further) speak for them selves. Much more can be said on that too, but I’ve gone on too far here already.
PS, It should be interesting to see what LaGuer’s attorney James Rehnquist has to say in his SCJ brief to be filed a week from today.
for the level of information and background on this case. You certainly have done your homework. I agree that this has no impact on Deval Patrick’s campaign one way or another. Wanting to get the facts straight is a principled and correct stand.
Thanks lolorb. As you probably know oral arguments for the case in the SJC are tentatively set for December – i.e. after the elections. I hope as many BMG netizens as possible will be paying close attention no matter who the governor elect is and who they supported in the election run-up. There will also be a new district attorney elect in Worcester County so citizen scrutiny will be very important. Joe Early Jr. is the odds on favorite to be that person. The other contender is Dan Shea. Justice should always be non-partisan. The decision probably won’t come down until 2007.