The risks attached to Lemire have to do with the fact that his conduct as a prosecutor will be part of an SJC hearing in December. I am referring to the Benjamin LaGuer case in which it turns out the commonwealth (who Lemire represented as the prosecutor) hid a report from the defense showing that a set of four fingerprints found on a key piece of evidence belonged to someone other than LaGuer. This is no trivial matter, and attorney James C. Rehnquist will be arguing the point in court soon.
The LaGuer case was demagogued to death on talk radio last week with Leominster Mayor Dean Mazzarella kicking things off on the Howie Carr show. That was unfortunate but par for the course when Conte sets his political machine in motion. Thank goodness Howie isn’t in charge of choosing judges.
People who have looked at this case with an open mind, rather than based on whipped up emotion, know the score.
This is not a liberal versus conservative issue. It’s a question of whether we are governed by the rule of law. It is about fundamental fairness. The risk that the Lemire nomination (should he be confirmed) will end up embarrassing Romney on the national presidential campaign trail may be small but it can’t be discounted. After all, a guy named McCain might pick up on it at some point. The Governor’s Council itself stands to be deeply embarrassed if it votes to confirm.
But why take the risk at all when doing the right thing would be so easy? Especially when you consider the consequences for the people of Worcester and indeed the whole commonwealth of a process that subverts competency in favor of politics. Handing out Superior Court judgeships based on finding soft landings for mediocre lawyers when one the DA’s office changes hands is corrosive and ultimately undermines the cause of justice.
Let’s be clear. Whatever you think of Benjamin LaGuer, he did not get a fair trial in 1984. James Lemire was the reason. That story is finally being told. To give Lemire a position of such profound responsibility just months before the Supreme Judicial Court is set to take up the case is nothing short of outrageous.
I’ll leave off with two quotes: One from a politician who is much vilified on BMG. But his words in this instance are to be commended. The other from a jurist with a different philosophical outlook, but whose point illustrates that justice should always be a bipartisan concern.
“Because one of the main sources of our national unity is our belief in equal justice, we need to make sure Americans of all races and backgrounds have confidence in the system that provides justice. In America, we must make doubly sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit.”
President George W. Bush
State of the Union, February 2, 2005
“When police or prosecutors conceal significant exculpatory or impeaching material, we hold, it is ordinarily incumbent on the state to set the record straight.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Writing for the US Supreme Court majority on a Texas case, February 24, 2004.
Almost inevitably when the LaGuer case is raised the retort is: “But the DNA says he did it.”
Let us please put at least the certainty of that statement to rest. A 2002 DNA test did reveal a trace amount of LaGuer’s genetic code in the evidence. It will be perfectly legitimate for the prosecution to introduce that at a new trial. A jury will then have the opportunity to weigh that piece of evidence with the seriousness it deserves. In the mean time four DNA experts have looked at the case very carefully and determined that there is a an extremely high risk that the evidence was contaminated. This is the most recent such opinion:
August 21, 2006
The Honorable Ellen Story
State House Room 167
State House
Boston, MA 02133
RE: Ben LaGuer
Dear Representative Story:
I have examined the material you provided to me in the case of Ben LaGuer. I do not have anything much to add to the reports prepared by Dean A. Wideman and Theodore D. Kessis. Having examined these reports, I can join in agreement with their concerns that the DNA evidence in this case was very possibly tainted. The evidence in this case was collected at a time when standards for the handling of material for DNA typing was poor or nonexistent…. What is especially troubling in the Ben LaGuer case is that it is my understanding that the DNA was amplified by means of the polymerase chain reaction, a procedure in which no amount of cross contamination, however minuscule, can ever be considered negligible. If it is correct that articles taken from LaGuer and/or from his bedroom were mislabeled and mixed together with actual samples taken directly from the victim, then the DNA evidence is of no value, even if the samples were mixed by mistake.
I frankly do not understand why you and your colleagues have been refused information by the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, the Clerk of Courts in Worcester, and the Worcester District Attorney. There is, in my opinion, ample reason for a full inquiry into this case, and I hope that the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will agree.
Yours sincerely,
Higgins Professor of Biology
Harvard University
If we accept that reason must always trump easy answers based on emotion, then we’ve got to pay attention to opinions such as these. If the process that convicted LaGuer wasn’t fair he must be granted a new trial. No matter what the DNA seems to say.
Can you provide a bit more detail on which members of the Governor’s Council will be voting for Lemire, and what, if anything, we can do to persuade them? The poll on the last diary confirmed my initial hunch – Peter Vickery is the most likely champion of the anti-Lemire cause – but it doesn’t say much about what else can be done. More info along these lines would be great!
I would start by contacting your own councilor. (Do you want me to post some talking points here?) The hope is that Romney will withdraw the nomination. There is really no reason I can think of why he’d want to go to bat for Lemire. You can certainly call Gov. Romney’s office. You can also do a lot by calling or emailing your own councilor and work your way out from there. Keep in mind that their tradition dictates that they defer to the most local councilor, in this case, Dennis P. McManus. So that’s where the pressure needs to be concentrated.
<
p>
on the Drinking Liberally blog, I’ve asked our members to call and ask their representatives how they plan to vote: http://drinkingliber…
If we get the drinking constituency mobilized there’ll be no stopping us.
<
p>
Seriously, thanks for the post to DL. It’s great. I think we actually have a shot at scuttling this nomination. If not at least we’ll have made an important point. Judgeships are too important to be filled with stealth nominees.
And I just saw the Where Do I Vote link. Very cool. What a good resource for people to find out who their councilor is.
Thank you Charley for promoting this post!
<
p>
I’ll be posting updates through the day and will be checking in to answer any and all questions posted here. The vote in the Governor’s Council (unless Romney withdraws the nomination) is set for noon tomorrow. I am not alone in working hard today to make sure Lemire does not get the job.
<
p>
I’ll be back when there is more to report.
Within the politics surrounding the recent nomination by Republican Mitt Romney of Worcester ADA James Lemire for a lifetime Superior Court Judgeship lurks the seedy world of political patronage
<
p>
In 2002 during the last gubernatorial election, James Lemire of Paxton,and Mary McCauley Lemire of the same address both provided contributions to the Mitt Romney for his Governor Campaign to the total of $350.00 dollars.
<
p>
In 2005, the now debunked re-election campaign of Democratic Worcester Attorney John Conte, James Lemire using his work address of 2 Main Street, Worcester provided a $500 dollar contribution.
<
p>
To contribute to the two individuals, one Republican who nominated you (Mitt Romney) and the other a Democratic, your employer, who went to your nomination hearing to provided support for your nomination revels the true world of Massachusetts political patronage.
<
p>
During the Judgeship hearing, Worcester ADA Lemire was confronted by a panel member as to his participation in the Benjamin LeGuer case.
<
p>
Leominster Mayor, Dean Mazzellera, long time John Conte, Worcester DA supporter, initiated a political dramatization posed as a question: based on the drop a dime to local media outlets which provided front page coverage concerning the LaGuer case.
<
p>
This question regarding the LeGuer case had already been raised, by the Democratic gubernatorial Primary candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly of Deval Patricks support issued in a letter, which at that time received hardly any media coverage.
<
p>
The election to a Superior Court Judgeship position should be based solely on the determination of merits, honesty and legal aptitude.
<
p>
The fact as to the fingerprints not matching Mr. LeGuer being withheld from the defense, in which Worcester ADA James Lemire was the prosecutor, is fact, no media spin can refute this.
<
p>
The eight member panel involved in voting should take an immediate step backwards in the very least and delay their vote until further investigation can be conducted into James Lemire qualifications.
As I suspected, Peter Vickery is voting no. However, he says he doesn’t think anyone else will vote with him. 🙁 I’m not sure how I missed this, but Vickery lost his primary by about 500 votes out of 80,000 cast. Oy!!
<
p>
Have not yet heard back from McManus or Timilty.
The previous writer submits that the election to a Superior Court Judgeship position should be based solely on the determination of merits, honesty and legal aptitude. Based upon that specific standard, James Lemire should be confirmed and appointed to the bench.
<
p>
By way of background, and to point out my Blue Mass Group bona fides, my name is Jim Leary and I am a Democratic state representative from Worcester. I am a long-time supporter of Deval Patrick, having endorsed his candidacy some 18 months ago, as well as being an active supporter of other BMG favorites such as soon-to-be Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray and Congressman Jim McGovern. My days and nights now are generally dedicated to the goal of doing everything I can to ensure the election of the Patrick-Murray ticket (which is part of the reason that I logged on to BMG today).
<
p>
In addition to being a state representative, I have been a lawyer in Worcester for the past 11 years. I have served locally as a law clerk to the judges of the Superior Court, as an assistant district attorney, and as an attorney in private practice. It is in my capacity as a member of the local legal community that I have come to know and respect Jim Lemire, and it is in this capacity that I offer my strongly held opinion that Jim Lemire meets, and in fact exceeds, all of the relevant qualifications that we ought to seek in a Superior Court judge.
<
p>
My familiarity with Jim Lemire comes entirely from outside of the political realm. I do not know his politics and, in fact, I view Jim as being mostly non-political in nature. We are on friendly terms, but certainly not close to one another. I do, however, know Jim as an attorney. We have handled numerous cases against each other, including at least one jury trial (and perhaps more). In each instance he has impressed me as a knowledgeable, fair-minded, talented and honest advocate for his clients.
<
p>
Moreover, Jim Lemires reputation among members of the Worcester County Bar is impeccable. Those of us who have had the opportunity to observe him day after day as a legal advocate can attest to his characteristics of honesty, integrity and professionalism.
<
p>
Like many, I have read about and heard about the Benjamin Laguer case. In the coverage that I have reviewed on that case, an allegation has been made that a police detective failed to fully reveal fingerprint evidence found at the scene. Whether this allegation is true or not, it is notable that the allegation is specific to the detective. It is critical to keep in mind that Jim Lemire may have been the prosecutor, but he was not the investigator. This is a critical distinction.
<
p>
In my dealings with, and observations of, Jim Lemire – both in his capacity as a prosecutor and in his prior capacity as a highly-regarded criminal defense attorney I have never seen ANYTHING that would make me question his integrity or honesty. In fact, everything that I have observed about the man indicates to me that he would be an excellent judge. His calm demeanor and fair-mindedness, combined with his extensive knowledge of criminal and civil law, would make him an outstanding trial court judge.
<
p>
The fact that Lemire has been nominated by a Republican governor should not be fodder for criticizing his character. Instead, he should be judged on the merits, based upon his overall record and his overall reputation as an attorney. On both counts, a fair and objective review of his qualifications indicates that he ought to be confirmed for a seat on the Superior Court.
<
p>
(By the way, Jim has no knowledge that I am submitting this and, in fact, would probably discourage me from doing so if he knew.)
James Lemire might be all the things you say about him. And as for your bona fides and credentials I have heard nothing but nice things about you.
<
p>
Still, you are missing the point.
<
p>
First of all, have you read James Rehnquist’s brief to the SJC on the LaGuer case? That would be a good place to start. Turn to page 12 and you will see that there was a correspondence between LaGuer’s lawyer at the time, Peter Ettenberg, and Lemire about the existence of fingerprint evidence. You can’t just blame this on the detective, who passed away many years ago. Sorry, but the buck stops at the commonwealth’s attorney.
<
p>
The bigger point is that the case is going to the SJC. Even if Lemire’s role was as benign as you seem to think it was, his role has the potential to blow up in the Governor’s Council’s face.
<
p>
Lemire is deeply implicated in this mess. I saw Peter Vickery last week after he raised the issue of the missing fingerprints at the Governor’s Council hearing. According to Vickery, Lemire told him point blank that his only involvement in the case was at the trial. NOT TRUE! He defended the verdict at the 1985 appeal, and again in 1989 when he came back from private practice to defend the verdict again. Lying (its a strong word but it fits) to the Governor’s Council should disqualify Lemire right there.
<
p>
If Lemire is such a stellar nominee let him wait until the SJC process has run its course and then, if it seems right, the next governor can nominate him.
<
p>
The point here is that Lemire’s name was forwarded the day after the primary election, when nobody was paying attention. And word of the hearing on the nomination appeared in the T&G barely 24 hours before the hearing took place. Now we’re going to a vote a week later. Please tell me that you at least agree that this is no way to advance people for such important positions.
<
p>
The qualifications of a potential Superior Court Judge should be evaluated in the light of day. Not through an essentially sneaky process overseen by a lame duck council reporting to a lame duck administration.
<
p>
The people of Massachusetts and your constituents in the 14th Worcester District in particular deserve better. Much better.
How can you comment of his political capabilities, and integrity, if you have not known him in this capacity. Also, as a prosecutor, it is his job to make sure that he has all the evidence, which he received via discovery, and he should check the validity of that information.
<
p>
The last I knew, police detectives and prosecutors work hand in hand. For you to blame the detective is simply semantics. When do detectives knowingly withhold evidence in a high profile case? As a prosecutor, they are the ones to determine what evidence in presented in the case not the detectives. We all know John Conte’s C-Pac State Police Unit works directly with the District Attorney’s office.
<
p>
Jim, just because you support Patrick Deval, has absolutely no bearing on Lemire’s ability to become an impartial Supreme Court Judge.
<
p>
During his private practice, he may have been a good defense attorney, but the records show as a public ADA, his ethics have become questionable.
<
p>
For you Jim Leary, to use your political position to influence a Judgeship nomination, is suspect at best.
<
p>
The Judicial System is designed to be impartial and not influenced by political pressures.
<
p>
Jim, when was your last conversation with Mr. Lemire. I wonder what prompted you to so vehemently write this post in support when no other person has, political or otherwise.
<
p>
I look forward to your reply.
<
p>
This is one of the most naive assertions I’ve seen on BMG. Yes, judges are not directly elected and do not run for re-election in MA (Thank God!) but the selection of judges remains almost entirely a political process.
<
p>
The Governor and the Governor’s Council (mostly Democrats) are elected last time I checked. they pick the judges.
<
p>
The Judicial Nominating Commission (which is the first group to vet potential judges on behalf of the Governor) is highly political. For example, it’s chaired by Romney appointee Christoper Moore, who is nominally “unenrolled” but a member of the conservative Federalist society, a former clerk for conservative Judge Michael S. Kanne of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and is the author of the now-infamous “The Executive Power of Constitutional Interpretation” (a law review article positing that the President may render an independent legal and constitutional judgment about legislation and the nature of his own powers).
<
p>
<
p>
This is totally unfair. Rep. Leary has every right to state his views on judicial nominations. He was clear and upfront about his knowledge, opinions, and beliefs. That’s more than I’ve come to expect from public officials and certainly well within his 1st Amendment rights.
I absolutely agree with the post of James Leary. James Lemire is a fine attorney and he will make a fine judge. Anyone who thinks that John Conte is responsible for Jim’s nomination is not familiar with the players or the local scene.
<
p>
“Speaking Out” is a one issue poster (check his particulars). I respect his right to be vehement about his cause, the innocence of Benjamin Laguer, but I am taken aback by the vitriol of his attacks on a decent man. James Lemire hasn’t been shown to be guilty of anything. Mr. Laguer, on the other hand, has some troublesome DNA evidence to contend with.
<
p>
I also, did not speak with James Lemire. We are friendly, but not close friends. I am compelled to comment because a. He is a fine prospect for Superior Court Judge; and b. James Leary is a stand up guy who couldn’t let this crap get posted without comment.
<
p>
I certainly hope “Speaking Out”‘s rant and the coordinated comments (“Gee, tell me again who to call.”) are just a tempest in a teapot. I would hate to see a good nomination be dragged out because of some manufactured “groundswell” of misguided opposition.
<
p>
Oh, and to “edadv”: Its Deval Patrick, not Patrick Deval. I suppose he or she can be forgiven. He or she is a new poster (just signed up a few minutes ago)
Certainly not against James Leary or you.
<
p>
But against Lemire? Absolutely. Lemire’s roll in this case has to be weighed in terms of the human costs of his actions. A man has been in prison for 23 years because the trial he received was fundamentally unfair. Think about that for a minute won’t you? LaGuer was a 20-year-old kid when he was picked up because he happened to be living next door to the scene of a horrible crime. He is 43 years old now. Just ponder that for a few minutes. Can you brush 23 years of suffering off so easily?
<
p>
Lemire’s roll was more than just as the prosecutor in 1984. I’ve read the transcripts of the post-conviction hearing in 1989. He twisted logic beyond my recognition to make the conviction stick.
<
p>
A prosecutor I know and respect once told me that he had the best job in the legal profession because his only obligation was to the truth. If the evidence pointed towards innocence (even years after the fact) there was no reason for him not to try to rectify the situation. He’d go after the guilty relentlessly.
<
p>
So before you try to write me off as a one-issue poster I invite you to read the article I wrote last summer for the Valley Advocate. If you’ve read that, then maybe we’d have something to talk about. And before you make any back handed references to the DNA, please read to the Daniel Hartl letter posted above and the other letters he refers to. Again, then maybe you and I would have more to talk about.
<
p>
You might be surprised at how conservative my views are on a number of issues. I happen to believe that personal responsibility is an important value for society. James Lemire doesn’t pass the smell test when it comes to owning up what was done on his watch. Even if it was the detective’s fault (which I doubt) he’s had plenty of opportunities make amends. He’s passed them all up.
<
p>
I phoned Lemire several times when I started investigating this case several years ago. He never returned a single call.
<
p>
The point of my posts today are simply to note that Lemire’s conduct will play a roll in the upcoming SJC hearing on LaGuer’s case. Again, please read James Rehnquist’s brief before writing that off. Why would the Governor’s Council want to pick someone with his baggage (and so much poential for embarrassment) when there are so many more qualified people to choose from?
to make an ad hominem attack on someone with whom you disagree?
<
p>
He specifically did not comment on Lemire’s politics; he commented on his experience dealing with Lemire as a member of the bar.
<
p>
And of course the appontment of judges is a political matter; hence all of the “Call your councilor!” pleas on this website. The appointment of judges is a thoroughly political process; one hopes that the judging after appointment is less so. After all of your posting about this, evidently to influence the politics of the appointment, your denunciation of someone else who is doing the same thing is a bit silly.
<
p>
And the insinuation in the last two paragraphs, made against an official who identified himself, by an anonymous poster on a message board, is contemptible.