June 3, 2007
Early returns are generally good New DA gets plaudit, some criticism
Just over a week ago, District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr. faced
down a swarm of television crews after the arraignment in Gardner
District Court of a 32-year-old woman and her boyfriend charged with
beating their 2-year-old daughter, who had died in the hospital a
few days earlier.
The May 24 press conference was at least the fourth time that Mr.
Early, who has been in office for five months since becoming
Worcester County’s first new district attorney in 30 years, had made
himself available to the media after a violent crime.
By contrast, Mr. Early’s notably reclusive predecessor, John J.
Conte, rarely went before the cameras during his 30 years in office.
If he did have something to say regarding a crime, it was usually “no
comment
June 22, 2007
Asquino refuses to admit fault in alleged hit-and-run
FITCHBURG -- Mount Wachusett Community College's president refused to admit he knowingly struck another car and drove away in an August 2006 incident, sinking his attempt at a plea deal in Fitchburg District Court Thursday.
"I cannot, in all candor, admit to something that did not happen," Daniel M. Asquino, 65, told the judge. "I'll admit to it to get it over with."
District Court Judge David Cunis told Asquino that he could not accept a plea deal if Asquino would not confess to the crime.
"There's an element of knowingly causing damage here," Cunis said. "He's denying knowledge."
Asquino faces a charge of leaving the scene of a property damage accident, which police allege occurred early in the morning of Aug. 14, 2006.
Asquino, of Cranston, R.I., is now scheduled to go to trial on Sept. 4 in Fitchburg District Court..........
Rice said she is very pleased by how District Attorney Joe Early Jr.'s office is handling the case, "because sometimes when people have high positions, they let it slide."
June 25, 2007
First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling returned in Video case, request for preliminary injunction so affirmed.
An important decision of First Amendment and Internet law was issued on June 22, 2007.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is as follows: Jean v. Massachusetts State Police
.The court ruled that the First Amendment prevents law enforcement officials from interfering with an individual's Internet posting of an audio and video recording of an arrest and warrantless search of a private residence, even though the individual had reason to know the recording was made illegally.
The Court stated in the ruling:
"We conclude that the government interests in preserving privacy and deterring illegal interceptions are less compelling in this case than in Bartnicki, and Jean’s circumstances are otherwise materially indistinguishable from those of the defendants in Bartnicki, whose publication of an illegally intercepted tape was protected by the First Amendment. Jean's publication of the recording on her website is thus entitled to the same First Amendment protection."
The State of Massachusetts will have thirty days to file an appeal. If the State does not appeal the ruling the next step will be to return to US Federal Court and have Justice Dennis Saylor issue the permanent injunction.
June 28, 2007
Internet video post is upheld on appeal
A federal judge’s ruling that a Leominster woman could continue to post a video of a state police arrest on her Web site has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in a case that attracted the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The case moved to the First Circuit last summer with then-Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly contending that U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV erred when he extended a restraining order that bars state police from forcing Mary T. Jean to take the videotaped arrest of Paul Pechonis of Northboro off her www.conte2006.com Web site. Had Ms. Jean been convicted of unlawfully posting the video, she would have faced up to two years in prison.
In his April 2006 ruling, Judge Saylor cited the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Bartnicki v. Vopper upholding the right of someone to publish information if they received it legally, even if the person believed the original source of the information was illegal.
“We conclude that the government interests in preserving privacy and deterring illegal interceptions are less compelling in this case than in Bartnicki, and Jean’s circumstances are otherwise materially indistinguishable from those of the defendants in Bartnicki, whose publication of an illegally intercepted tape was protected by the First Amendment,” wrote First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez. “Jean’s publication of the recording on her website is thus entitled to the same First Amendment protection. Consequently, we agree with the district court that Jean has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of her suit for a permanent injunction. The district court’s decision to grant Jean’s request for a preliminary injunction is affirmed.”
continuedJuly 6, 2007
Security video from Geoghan slay hits Web
State correction officials are investigating whether the killer convicted of strangling and stomping a pedophile priest posted a security surveillance video on YouTube showing prison guards desperately trying to pry open cell doors as the murder took place.
The Herald was alerted to the posting yesterday in a handwritten note purportedly written by Joseph Druce, who was convicted of first-degree murder in the Aug. 23, 2003, slaying of 68-year-old John Geoghan.
“The truth about officer involvement in John Geogan’s (sic) death,” the taunting note says, directing the reader to www.youtube.com/Joseph Druce. “The truth about officers allowing J.G. to die through their neglect.”
The 10-minute video was posted June 12 under the heading “the first of many.” It shows a gaggle of correction officers at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center pulling at the cell doors of Druce’s cell.
In 2005, the Herald obtained a security video that showed Druce coldly pantomiming Geoghan’s murder - a tape that showed how he used a paperback book to jam the sliding cell doors.
July 9, 2007
You can both videotape and publicize police abuse - Jean v. Mass. State Police.
Mary Jean, who the 1st Circuit described as “a local political activist in Worcester, Massachusetts” publishes a a website critical of Worcester County District Attorney John Conte (www.conte2006.com). Coincidentally (insert sarcastic sneer here), she wound up the focus of an investigation for the illegal publication of a videotape of police misconduct. Fortunately, she lives in a free state.........
Interestingly enough, the District Court specified that the police could continue to investigate whether the tape had been obtained illegally, and if so, if Jean had any liability for its production. In other words, they did not issue a ruling that contradicted Commonwealth v. Hyde. Now that’s too bad, because the Mass. Supreme Court needs to have its hand slapped for that one, but such is life.
Now the Mass. State Police and their counsel went insane and appealed. As a cop and as a lawyer, you put up your hand and vow to “uphold and defend the Constitution.” It is beyond comprehension how anyone who has done so can attempt to suppress the publication of lawfully obtained information of public importance. It’s called an unlawful prior restraint. See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
Despite the Massachusetts State Police’s attempt to turn the Commonwealth into the Massachusetts Police State, the First Circuit preserved this cornerstone of the Republic - for today. They held that Jean has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that the First Amendment protects the posting of a recording under such circumstances. Consequently, we uphold the preliminary injunction............
And here is the video. The audio is a little unclear, but you can hear them tell him that he is under arrest for “statements made on the internet.” How that justifies a complete warrantless search of his entire home is beyond me — and apparently beyond the police, which is likely why they don’t want you to see this video.
By the way, if they’d like to stop me from publishing the video too, I will keep my ass nice and clean so that when they kiss it, it is not an entirely unpleasant experience for them.
July 10, 2007
Alleged child abuser’s retrial scuttled by DA
LEOMINSTER—
Frank E. Garcia Jr. will not face a new trial on charges he molested
three boys at a child care facility five years ago.
Mr. Garcia’s second trial was slated to begin yesterday in Marlboro
District Court, but Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early
Jr.’s office decided not to prosecute the case..........
The case was moved to Marlboro, where the prosecutor’s decision not
to prosecute the case was made public yesterday.
Mr. Sultan said in an interview after the hearing that he had been
given a heads-up last week that the case against Mr. Garcia would
not move forward. He said the prosecution’s decision left his client
with mixed feelings.
“He’s innocent and he was looking forward to going to trial to prove
his innocence,” Mr. Sultan said. “On the one hand, it’s
disappointing he’ll never get the chance.”
July 11, 2007
EAST BROOKFIELD— A Warren man, charged with letting teenagers drink in his Bemis Road home in the hours before one of them died in a horrific car accident in late 2005, was found not guilty by a jury yesterday in Western Worcester District Court.
Marc T. Holly, 47, cried and hugged his wife and children after the verdict was read......If convicted, he would have faced up to one year in jail and as much as $2,000 in fines jury of three men and three women may have been swayed by defense lawyer Michael H. Erlich’s assertion that a Warren police officer purposely withheld a witness statement that would help prove his client’s innocence ......
Officer Mark Chase testified that he had no recollection of taking a statement from Zachary Robidoux and did not know that it was in a folder he brought to Hampden Superior Court to be used in a case against the driver in the fatal crash.
Mr. Robidoux, though, testified that he went to the station and
wrote out a statement in Officer Chase’s presence one day after the
officer pulled him over and asked to talk with him about the
party......
The written statement was eventually found after an assistant
district attorney in the Springfield court read a newspaper article
about the missing document and alerted prosecutor John F. Kennedy at
the East Brookfield court that he had a copy.
July 30, 2007
WORCESTER— Legal documents are routinely filed each business
day in Worcester Superior Court.
But rarely do the filings set off the kind of firestorm caused by a
motion entered in September 2006, accusing former city Election
Commission member Lawrence Trapasso of bribery and extortion and
other officials of being involved or turning a blind eye. The motion
contains allegations that ended up before a Suffolk County grand
jury and led to Mr. Trapasso’s indictments this month on three
counts of bribery and one count each of extortion and larceny of
more than $250.....
Yet for all that it helped trigger, the motion filed on behalf of Charlton resident Keith Doucette has drawn little public attention........
“He went to the people he knew and trusted in Worcester and they
told him the truth about the way you get things done in Worcester,”
Mr. Swomley said.
“You find a fixer like Trapasso. He’s a fixer. Larry Trapasso is
living proof that this is how things are done in Worcester.”