I got calls and emails today from several news organizations wanting to know what I thought of the SJC opinion. I decided to keep it brief by issuing this statement:
The SJC opinion is very disappointing given the many indications that LaGuer is factually innocent. The commonwealth’s legal filings have been an abomination in that they have consistently repeated demonstrably untrue assertions and scientifically debunked forensic claims. It is hard to reconcile the fact that police withheld a key piece of evidence with our constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. This legal decision, following an unfortunate politicization of the case, is not the end of the line for LaGuer because the underlying merits of his claims and the need to air them in a public and transparent way cannot be denied forever.
A goodly portion of the statement made it into the AP copy that I’ve seen (thanks AP!). I’ve also noticed that generally the level of journalism on the case today is whole lot better than it was during the governor’s race. Problems with the DNA test are actually being reported, maybe not quite as thoroughly as I would like, but nonetheless. Here’s hoping the fourth estate will finally kick in with some value added journalism, rather than just waiting for pronouncements from on high. I’ll try to do some writing over the weekend in time for Monday morning blogging. Hint as to where I’ll be going: No matter what you think of Ben’s factual claims, this decision is lousy for civil liberties. It’s a precedent that basically tells police and prosecutors that it’s okay to tell jurors half the story as long as what is shared seems to support the overall story. Conservatives and liberals alike should be wary of going down that road.
In the mean time, thanks to those who read and recommended my highly hyper linked post this morning (from before the opinion) on the connections between the DNA lab scandal and Ben’s case. I spoke with Ben today. He is in good spirits. His comment was, “I got four new typewriter ribbons this morning and it looks like I’m going to need them.” If the true goal of the SJC was finality they should have ordered a new trial to finally air out all the muck that has accumulated. Then the chips would have fallen where they may. As it is, they left a toxic sore to fester. This story is not yet done.
In under, say, 1,000 words. Does that exist anywhere?
On BenLaguer.com. Not sure if this is less than 1000 words. John Silber, not generally considered “soft on crime,” issued a strong statement to the parole board AFTER the DNA test that supposedly showed Ben LaGuer’s guilt, but was in fact deeply flawed.
<
p>
Silber’s statement enumerates the problems with the trial.
<
p>
Also note that, had LaGuer accepted the plea bargain that was offered, instead of insisting on his innocence, he would have been free years ago.
John Silber is mad. How about someone that should have spent the better part of his life under a net.
http://www.bluemassg…
If the Governor and Execs think the fellow not guilty, why not just pardon him? Mike Dukakis wasn’t afraid of the pardon. Isn’t this what progressive Democratic governors are for? Take bold action.
Ask Dukakis how he felt after turning that creature free to murder again.
Was “framed” twice.
It would make the Republican takeover of the General Court that much easier in 2008
Joseph Mengele could run for office in MA with a D after his name and be a shoo in. No Republican is going to be elected in this state in my lifetime and probably your life time other than the odd accident.
Willie Horton was never pardoned. He was furloughed for a weekend while serving life without parole and never came back. No one ever thought Willie innocent of anything.
<
p>
In the present situation many believe the man innocent and a victim of the corrupt, incompetent courts and law enforcement agencies. With the news of official misconduct cases breaking so often, I think this could be correct.
<
p>
But, I am not an expert on the case and would stand by those that are in a position to grant or deny a pardon. If the Governor and the Execs believe LaGuer innocent, then the morale thing to do is pardon him. If he is guilty, let him rot.
<
p>
in declaring that “justice has been served” …end of story
Zeig heil! One party now and forever!…let there be NO dissent!
It’s a precedent that basically tells police and prosecutors that it’s okay to tell jurors half the story as long as what is shared seems to support the overall story.
<
p>
It is up to the defense to tell the other half of the story. If the prosecution refused to provide the defense with evidence that it was aware of that might have been exculpatory prior to trial, there might be a procedural issue that would warrant a new trial. Otherwise, I’m not sure what the issue is.
<
p>
It is probably possible in any case to find problems with evidence used in a trial (or that was available but not used) years after the trial. The sad fact, however, is that it would be a nightmare for the courts to have to retry every case years down the line.
<
p>
That is what the courts are telling you in a decision like this. And that is something that you apparently don’t want to hear.
There was an open discovery order on this case, just like in any other criminal trial. Both Defense and Prosecution are supposed to put everything on the table so that the other side can thinking of a proper response.
<
p>
First, these fingerprints we withheld from the defense, then they were lost. If we are to assume innocence and not guilt like our country requires, we should agree that the fingerprints could have been a different assailant, like Jose Gomez. If the defense had access to the fingerprints they could have compared them to Gomez, and if they matched this case would have gone in a very different direction. I know some of you are chumping on the bit right now to tell me Ben is guilty, but give me your honest ear for a second here. It is possible that the state lost evidence that would have proven that a mentally disturbed man with a history of sexual attacks and violence against women was in the victim’s apartment. We’ll never know as I direct result of the state’s actions. That’s why I say this is exculpable evidence.
Knew who he was, and instantly recognized him as her attacker. This was not an attack in a park on a moonless night with the attacker hooded or masked. Thhis man raped and beat this wman over a period of eight hours and left her for dead. I think that is pretty unshakable.
<
p>
That being said, it is very disturbing that many cases are now being overturned due to proscutorial misconduct, judges who are inept, incompetent and juries who have a collective IQ two points above a rock, evidence that was mishandled and misrepresented and cops who make up testimony out of whole cloth. It is disturbing and frightening. Anyone of us could be in the wrong place at the wrong time and as a result have their lives ruined. Our society seems to have certain crimes that are chic or “sexy” now and proscutors selectively prosecute these cases for extra ink in the dailies or more money. Massachusetts seems to suffer from this more than other states. The Fells Acre case is a classic example. Haven’t we learned anything from the Salem Witch Trials?
I am sufficiently unfamiliar with the merits of this case that I am not going to address them.
<
p>
But, regarding
<
p>
There was an open discovery order on this case, just like in any other criminal trial. Both Defense and Prosecution are supposed to put everything on the table so that the other side can thinking of a proper response.
<
p>
No. I doubt that I would have to give you a tutorial on 5th amendment “self-incrimination” issues.
<
p>
Irrespective of that, the evidence that is available is what it is, and the evidence that was available to the prosecution to give to the defense is what it is. If the prosecution had mishandled potentially exculpatory evidence, that was an issue to be presented at trial. Presumably it was not.
<
p>
I repeat. What the SJC is telling you, and what yo apparently do not want to hear, is that criminal convictions cannot be re-openned just because there is some issue that could have been brought up at trial.
<
p>
That is a bit different than the case with the Amiraults, which I mentioned, because the evidentiary fraud was discovered subsequent to trial.
“I am sufficiently unfamiliar with the merits of this case…”
<
p>
Then why would you go off half cocked trying to argue the points? Inform yourself, THEN voice your opinion. In the process you might find what troubles so many of Ben’s supporters.
<
p>
I fail to see your point about self incrimination when this case has no physical evidence linking him to the crime what so ever. Perhaps you think the fingerprints were his, but if you had read the case you’d know they were proven not to be. That is why they were so valuable; they may have been the real assailant’s. What a shame for justice the state lost them, and now wants to pretend they have no responsibility to try and correct that wrong. This of course is only one of many fishy things in this case that cry to be reviewed.
Both Defense and Prosecution are supposed to put everything on the table so that the other side can thinking of a proper response. (emphasis added)
<
p>
I’m sorry, but the fact is that, under the 5th amendment, the defense is not obligated to put much of anything on the table. Certainly not from the accused. That was my point, obscure though it might have been.
<
p>
I did not address the merits of the case.
understand the “adversarial system”. They typically view “lawyers” with contempt and as “tricksters” who use “procedural protocol” ( visa vis “inadmissable evidence and other “tricks”) as a means to get some incredible monster freed to once again murder rape and horrify… we see this time and time again.
A classic is the “OJ” travesty….. Is there any one that doesn’t believe that this enraged egotistical monster didn’t decapitate and brutally murder two human beings? We learn that his “suicide letter” and ride in the white bronco with pistol in hand ready to commit suicide was INADMISSABLE??????? Where is the justice?? Where is the truth?
The “truth ” was that money and racial bias ( on the part of the “jurors” most of which slept through the trial their minds having already been made up) can allow you to literally get away with murder?
I am delighted to see that Governor Patrick has realized that this creature deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.
…the prosecution in the OJ case was incompetent. One, for a reason that is incomprehensible, the District Attorney got the trial moved to downtown Lost Angeles from the area including Brentwood, which is where one would have expected the trial to take place.
<
p>
Two, the trial took an incomprehensible amount of time. What was it–almost a year? For a case as simple as this, if you can’t tell your story–and that’s what a trial is from the prosecution’s standpoint, a story, particularly in a case as simple as that was–in a few weeks maximum, you don’t have a story to tell. You have a meandering ramble. That might have worked for Faulkner, but not for a trial.
….sure how you came to believe that you have the authority to speak for the “common man” but I assure you, you don’t. If you have a personal opinion you should express it, but pretending to be the voice for the man on the street adds nothing but reason to presume you are being disingenuous.
Gross assumptions that keep innocent men in jail. There are too many questions in this case to just foo-foo away the fact LaGuer seems innocent. This crime was horrible, so it is even more important that we make sure we have the right man in jail. The alternative is to assume we do, and allow the assailant to strike again. Whoops, too late…
<
p>
http://www.benlaguer…
<
p>
We could go back and forth on this, or you could simply read more, than ask Eric questions about the case. Argument for its own sake really has no place when I man’s life hangs in the ballance. Thanks for your understanding.
….his case made it all the way to the SJC. He has, in effect, had several days in court. The system may be flawed, but Mr. LaGuer has been given more deffernce than almost every other convicted felon currently serving time. I have read all about the facts of this case, and at the end of the day a jury had enough information to find him guilty and the justice system afforded him every opportunity to question the appropriateness of that finding based on the rules of the appeals process.
The fact that Ben’s case has been the subject of so many motions for a new trial is more an indication that there are so many problems with the conviction – that very astute lawyers were willing take on – than an indication of his guilt. But the really outrageous thing is that the motions he brought in the early 1990’s were denied based on flawed forensic evidence, which in fact should never have been considered because it didn’t have anything to do with the questions being adjudicated. Specifically, I am talking about the 1983 forensic report which stated (wrongly, it turns out) that there was Type B blood in the evidence retrieved from the crime scene. The judicial decisions refer to that B blood as linking Ben to the crime and therefore weighing in favor of his guilt. In 2001 a DNA test was performed on that blood on the theory that if it was Ben’s then there would be little question as to his guilt. The amazing thing is that the blood turned out to be the victim’s. The even more amazing thing is that she had Type O blood. This was so startling that the Boston Globe led with that development in an article on the case. So, yes, Ben has had several bites at the apple. But a closer look shows that by rights he should have won a new trial years ago and that he lost in court based on shoddy (if not fraudulent) police work. This is why it is so important that the facts of this case finally get a fresh hearing, hopefully in the context of a new trial. Once you start studying this case in detail it quickly becomes apparent that Ben didn’t do it. Framing that in a way that will succeed in court is difficult, as we are seeing. But the underlying merits of his claims indicate that he will be back in court again. Or at the very least an investigation into the history of the case must be undertaken. Ben’s past defeats should not prejudice future hearings.
I appreciate that you took time to inform yourself on this case, and that people are going to draw different conclusions based on the same information. I think it is productive to discuss what we see and why we find our conclusions in order to learn from each other. That being said, I would like to address a couple of things you said:
<
p>
“Mr. LaGuer has been given more deffernce than almost every other convicted felon currently serving time.”
<
p>
This may be true, but it is my belief that it is warranted in this case since I can think of no other that has so many litigating circumstances. The strange behavior of the investigating detective, the missing evidence, the lost evidence, the complete lack of a physical tie to the crime scene, and the mental condition of the victim all make me wonder what really went on.
<
p>
You also said:
<
p>
“…at the end of the day a jury had enough information to find him guilty…”
<
p>
I have two counterpoints to this portion of your statement. First, I have to agree with you. The evidence that was presented on Ben’s behalf at the original trial needed to be expanded to include the eyewitnesses that were with him after the crime was already underway. My understanding is that they were never contacted by his defense lawyer, and therefore did not testify at the trial. I think also that were I a juror and understood the four fingerprints on the telephone that were not Ben’s (a known fact as of 2001) it would weigh heavily on my mind. They didn’t get the chance because this was surpressed (accidentally or otherwise) by the state. This is one of the reasons I would like to see him get another trial. The state has a responsibility to right the wrong they created here. ADA Sandra Hautenan would have the public believe that this is a slam dunk case based on the evidence, and we shouldn’t even bother with another trial. If that’s true there is no harm in proving it. I don’t want to see a guilty man go free, I want an opportunity for all the questions to be given a proper answer, and have an impartial jury decide his fate, which leads me to my second point.
<
p>
“The goddamned spic is guilty just sitting there; look at him. Why bother having the trial.” ~Joseph P. Novak, member of the all white all male jury that convicted LaGuer in 1984.
<
p>
After reading this statement, how can anyone say that this man got a fair trial with this as a known truth, supported by the SJC itself? No disrespect meant, I just don’t get it. Racism is an ugly but factual part of life, and when it happens we need to act.
<
p>
The last point you made I would like to address was this:
<
p>
“…the justice system afforded him every opportunity to question the appropriateness of that finding based on the rules of the appeals process.”
<
p>
To the letter of the law, this is the truth. My opinion is this was executed in bias fashion. One example that brings me to this conclusion is how the SJC even ruled that the jury had racist issues, yet somehow that point gets dismissed. The quote from the juror I used is documented; it doesn’t get much uglier than what was said.
<
p>
I eagerly await your response. opposing points of view greatly help one see what they have not, or do not wish to.
I think its fair to note some differences between Mr. LaGuer’s appeal, just decided by the SJC, and your campaign on his behalf.
<
p>
First, the appeal filed by his lawyers did not concern DNA, the victim’s mental health, the man you accuse of committing this crime, or a racist juror. The only issue on appeal was whether the failure of the prosecution to produce the fingerprint report was sufficiently exculpatory to entitle Mr. LaGuer to a new trial. As you noted, the Court concluded that the fingerprint report would have been merely additive to arguments already made at Mr. LaGuer’s trial: that no physical or forensic evidence linked him to the crime scene. According to the SJC, this argument was made at trial, and essentially admitted by the prosecution’s witnesses. I certainly agree that the report should have been made available to the defense before the first trial. However, it is far from clear that having the report would have changed the outcome of the case. If the other factors you mention in your campaign entitled Mr. LaGuer to a new trial, I assume his lawyers would have raised those points on his behalf.
<
p>
Many of the issues you raise in your campaign possibly could have been raised either on trial or as points of appeal. For example, you allege that the victim was incapable of knowing who her attacker was. This argument could have been raised at trial. Why wasn’t it raised? Ineffective assistance of counsel also is grounds for appeal, but no such appeal was taken. Again, why not?
<
p>
Was the question of the racist juror brought to the attention of the Court? If so, how did the court deal with it? If not, why not? Did this one juror sway the views of the other jurors? I agree that his comments are reprehensible. Did Mr. LaGuer’s lawyers ask that this issue be investigated, or is it only part of your campaign?
<
p>
Two of your favorite issues could not have been raised before the SJC. Mr LaGuer was not convicted on DNA evidence, so I doubt that alleged flaws of the post conviction DNA test can be used to get him a new trial. Of course, you are disappointed that the test did not prove his innocence. But since the DNA was not used to convict him, the flaws in the subsequent test procedure do not entitle him to a new trial today.
<
p>
The opinion of the psychiatrist who made the determination of dangerousness is hardly admissible (nor should it be) as evidence of whether Mr. LaGuer actually committed the crime.
<
p>
As to your campaign, I would make a couple of suggestions:
<
p>
Don’t quote Mr. Silber.
<
p>
Be very careful about accusing others of committing this crime. This is defamation, per se, and could but you in the awkward position of having to prove in a civil case that it is true. Mr. LaGuer is a public figure, but not everyone else is this case is a public figure.
<
p>
I am taken aback by your characterization of people with mental illness, e.g. the victim was mentally ill so she didn’t know who attacked her, Mr. Gomez is mentally ill so he probably committed the crime, etc.. Maybe Mr. Gomez did commit the crime. A scary picture is hardly proof of this.
<
p>
We have a system by which one accused of a crime can confront and cross examine his accusers. This system is called a trial. One of the very important reasons that new trials are not easily granted to make sure that all arguments are presented, and that nothing is held back for a second bite at the apple.
<
p>
As noted by the SJC, the whole case was about identification. Twelve jurors heard the victim identify Mr. LaGuer. They also heard his alibi defense and his counsel’s theory that Mr. Gomez committed the crime. They heard her testimony in person and believed her. Why shouldn’t I believe her, too?
There are several points to make in this case, but if we are to focus on one, let it be the fingerprint evidence.
<
p>
At trial there was knowledge of a partial fingerprint, but no knowledge of the four full fingerprints set found on the base of the trimline phone. The reason this is important is because while a partial fingerprint can exclude LaGuer, it is not enough to incriminate someone else. Anyone can leave a fingerprint around, and it can be argued away. When you have a full set of fingerprints set in a pattern as to show how they were made, like in the form of someone ripping a phone from a wall, the evidence takes on a whole new light. This would have undoubtably led the defense, and jury verdict, down a very different road.
<
p>
The state has the responsibility to assume innocence instead of guilt. The fullest potential of this fingerprint evidence is that we would be able to exonerate Ben because we found proof of another person as the assailant. Investigation into this person could have led us to the proof we need to convict him and banish all doubts as to who really did this. The SJC seems unwilling to entertain this possiblity.
…the presence of an alleged perp’s fingerprint can place the alleged perp at the scene of the crime at some point in time, but the absence of the alleged perp’s fingerprint at the scene cannot be taken as suggesting that the perp was never there.
<
p>
Accordingly, I’m not sure what the absence of LaGuer’s fingerprint evidence at the scene is supposed to mean.
<
p>
One problem that LaGuer has in winning a new trial is that apparently the only eye-witness, the alleged victim, is dead. It is unlikely that the court would give him a new trial after a jury verdict and numerous appeals under that circumstance.
<
p>
It’s obvious that you have an emotional attachment to this case, but recognize that, unless it can be shown that the police were engaged in misconduct in their investigation and prosecution of the case, it is unlikely that the conviction will be overturned. If you recall, a WBZ-4 reporter got the conviction of an alleged perp overturned a few years ago (I don’t recall either of their names), after it was made clear that the FBI had been engaged in misconduct in securing his conviction. That is likely to be the only way to overturn LaGuer’s conviction or secure him a new trial.
If these fingerprints were known to the defense, the invesitgation into them may have led to proving a different assailant.
<
p>
Perhaps we would have found them to be a known sexual deviant, who upon being confronted with this evidence would have confessed to the crime.
<
p>
Perhaps we would not have found a match, yet the idea of having a full hands set of fingerprints in the same pattern one would make when they go to tear the phone off the wall would put doubt in the minds of the jury. We know they are not Ben’s, yet for him to be the assailant he should have left fingerprints…. in the same pattern.
<
p>
These questions linger as a direct result of the state’s actions. First they supressed the evidence, then they lost it. What concerns me is the SJC’s ability to dismiss the points I’ve made as impossibilities.
<
p>
The same justice system is used for all of us. That’s why we need to be ever vigilant. I am not saying that we swing open the doors and let the man go free, I’m simply asking we have a new trial where all the questions can be asked, and the state settles its debt to Mr. LaGuer for not sharing this evidence when they could have.
Presence of fingerprints at a crime scene merely indicates that a possible alleged perp was there at some point in time. It doesn’t say when the alleged perp was there.
<
p>
Absence of an alleged perp’s fingerprints at a crime scene does not suggest that the perp wasn’t there. The alleged perp may have taken care not to leave fingerprints.
<
p>
Now, respond to me. What is your personal interest in this case?
here (scroll down to bottom)