On Thursday, 18 June, at 4 PM, the Anti-Violence Project and Join the Impact MA are holding a protest at the Boston Municipal Court, at the corner of New Chardon and Merrimac Streets. We will peacefully picket along the sidewalks to denounce the outrageous sentence imposed on convicted gaybasher Fabio Brandao. Although Brandao left two gay men with brain injuries lying in the street last year, and pled guilty to nine counts arising from the incident, Judge Thomas Horgan let him walk. He was ordered to undergo anger management, as if that would make him less of a hater.
This action is not a civil disobedience. We will not attempt to influence the outcome of any particular, pending case. Our objective is to make the public aware of the cavalier response of the Massachusetts District Courts to cases of aggravated assault resulting in victim injury. Although the hate motive is an aggravating circumstance, Brandao deserved incarceration for what he did regardless of the legislative design for penalty enhancment. Our public officials need to hear the voice of public outrage.
Did you go inside Boston Municipal Court? Did you talk withg some of those waiting, look at the volume of cases being moved? Did you note whether it is 85%, 95% or more that are “pled out” for results just like Brandaos? Was Brandao drunk at the time? Does he have previous offences?
<
p>I am not going to say the sentence imposed by this judge [Horgan] was lenient or harsh because I did not read the Criminal Complaint, I am not privy to the plea negotiations with the DA or Asst. DA that led to the sentence, etc.
<
p>However, I will say that the Boston Municipal Court has a horrific case load, the Asst. DAs are paid all of $35k a year and some moonlight as bartenders – etc. and that the vast majority of cases are pled out just like this one.
<
p>Were the victim statements created, read before the judge?
<
p>What did the DA or ADA seek as a sentence?
<
p>I cannot join a protest of any judge’s sentence without answers to all of those questions – in the absence of good information, good decisions are impossible, frankly.
The Commonwealth has the right to indict and they have the right to move for trial. Here the prosecutor and defense counsel submitted a tender of plea. Unless the prosecutor signs this paper the case cannot be disposed of in a “plea bargain.”
<
p>It is unfortunate that there is no information in the post regarding the facts of the case, the willingness of the alleged victims to come forward and if they did come forward, whether there were any facts that could have harmed the prosecution’s case. It is easy to condemn a plea bargain but both sides enter it with an understanding of the risks and benefits inherent in proceding in this fashion. The prosecutor, probably in consultation with his/her supervisor and the alleged victims, made a decision that this was the way to proceed. Now this man is on probation and has to complete an anger management class. If he commits a violation of the law during the period of his probation or if he fails to complete the course, a probation violation procedure will occur that could very well result in his incarceration. This is a good result. The Commonwealth does not have the ability to try every case that comes before it.
<
p>If one day everyone demanded a trial, THAT would be a tragedy.
not least because they recommended that Brandao be jailed. The whole purpose of penalty enhancement statutes like c. 265, ss 37 and 39 is to ratchet up the sentence of hate criminals where victim injury occurs. For judges not to adhere to the legislative design for stiffer punishment is to nullify enacted laws.
and Judge Horgan rejected that recommendation, with the guilty plea in hand. Brandao does not have priors, as is typical in cases of anti-gay violence (i.e. people who are not otherwise criminally disposed will act out homophobia.) The victims did speak in court. We don’t know for sure if Brandao was drunk because no breathalyzer test was administered.
<
p>I have additional information about the case that I must treat as confidential, but no one apart from the principals in the case is privy to all the information you would require before deciding to protest. We don’t have perfect information to proceed with, but we have good information, and we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The salient fact is that a defendant pled guilty to 9 counts including ABDW and c. 265, s 37 (a penalty enhancement statute), and left two victims with brain injuries lying in the street, but is now a free man. That is a sufficient basis for a protest for the Anti-Violence Project and Join the Impact, although not everyone will agree.
<
p>If you practice in the District Courts, it is not in your clients’ interest that you should join such a protest anyway. The possibility of judicial retaliation is real.
And while I am not usually in District courts [more usual for me to be in Juvenile Court or Probate Court] sometimes I am in “any and every” court.
<
p>It is also true that ‘judicial retaliation” is all too real; while some members of the judiciary are above such behavior, many are not and dealing with vindictiveness is a real possibility without due care. And it can hurt one’s clients so even if you were able to answer my questions, it is not an appropriate form of protest for me to engage in for those reasons.
<
p>What I find confusing about your posts, and maybe others as well, is that I came away not knowing whether;
<
p>1. The results you wish to protest were the result of a plea bargain, or
<
p>2. The result of a trial to a jury, with the judge doing the sentencing, or
<
p>3. The result of a bench trial
<
p>It is true that, even with what you conveyed, if this individual violates his probation, he will do time.
with the knowledge that the prosecutor was recommending jail time. The guilty plea pretermitted the trial. The judge is not bound by the DA’s recommendation, naturally, and imposed his own sentence. Yes, if Brandao comes to the South End, fails anger management, or tries to contact his victims, he would serve time.