Jury finds ex-Probation chief ran sweeping criminal enterprise
John J. O’Brien, the disgraced former Probation commissioner accused of corruption, and his top aide, Elizabeth Tavares, today were convicted of mail fraud, racketeering, and racketeering conspiracy by a US District Court jury, which found that they ran the state agency like a criminal enterprise. Another third former official, William Burke III, was convicted of racketeering conspiracy but acquitted of mail fraud and racketeering.
I wonder who his probation officer will be.
Related:
Putting the Globe on Probation
Hitting a Wall on Probation Trial
"Probation trial jury submitted 281 questions to judge; Has added a new dynamic to an already complex case" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe Staff July 21, 2014
Some jurors wanted a copy of the witness list. Then they requested more notebooks. One juror asked for help in remembering the prosecutor’s name.
But sometimes the jurors in the Probation Department corruption trial dug even deeper, asking the judge to put questions directly to the witnesses and lawyers, an unusual request that demonstrated the jurors’ high level of interest in the testimony.
In all, the jury submitted 281 questions by the time it began deliberating Wednesday morning, often in handwritten notes to US District Judge William G. Young, who then posed scores of those questions to witnesses. The jury resumes its deliberations Monday.
The submitting of questions has added a new dynamic to an already complex case, which featured 60 witnesses and 104 questions for the jurors to consider as they weigh whether three top Probation Department officials ran the department like a criminal enterprise.
Allowing jurors to pose questions is “a little unorthodox,” one attorney said. Another legal observer said it could bring unexpected dimensions to a case, even helping the prosecution by asking questions they failed to raise.
“People want to be inquisitive. They think they’re picking up on something,” said Anthony Fuller, an attorney with the firm Collora LLP and a former federal prosecutor who was part of the team that convicted disgraced House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
The questions came before the judge explained the charges to the jury, which usually takes place after testimony.
“They don’t know the law yet,” Fuller said. “But it can give the jurors a way to feel they’re more involved in the process in the trial.”
The jurors have been so attentive that they have asked for post-it notes, tabs, and tape to use during their deliberations as they review the hundreds of exhibits that were submitted. Since deliberations began, they’ve asked three questions about fraud, and asked for a written transcript of the testimony of a key witness, Francis Wall, a former deputy probation commissioner who outlined the alleged scheme.
Former Probation commissioner John J. O’Brien and top deputies Elizabeth Tavares and William Burke III are charged with unlawfully doling out jobs to the friends and family members of the politically connected in exchange for favors from state legislators. Prosecutors allege that the probation officials committed fraud by creating a bogus hiring process to make it look as though they were complying with policies and procedures.
Defense attorneys argue that nothing their clients did was illegal, that it was simply patronage typical of Beacon Hill politics.
I knew what was going on under the dome was criminal.
***********
Rosemary Scapicchio, a noted Boston-based defense attorney, said she has increasingly seen more judges allow questions in the state courts, and she wonders whether the process can by itself influence a jury. “I think it’s a dangerous step,” she said. “In order for you to generate those questions, you have to be an advocate for one side or the other, and that’s where the problem comes in. You shouldn’t want a juror to be in a position to advocate for one side or the other before all of the evidence comes in.”
Scapicchio added that the government has the burden of proving a case, and the jurors shouldn’t be helping by asking questions that prosecutors failed to ask.
Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern University, pointed out, however, that jurors could be more engaged if they feel they are part of the trial from the start.
“It kind of thrusts them into the process in a more active way,” Medwed said. “Are they giving more questions because they’re more attentive, or are they more attentive because they’re told they can ask questions?”
As far as the probation trial goes, he said, “It’s a complicated case, so maybe the nature of the case lends itself to more questions.”
Whatever the cause or effect, the Probation trial jurors sought more details about the case.
Questions asked by jurors showed they wanted more instructions on the law, for example, and they also saw gaps in witness testimony....
--more--"
Also see: Patrick on Probation
