There is time limit on this.
"Witness at trial tells of charade in state hiring; Says scores were altered to boost favored Probation Dept. applicants" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe staff June 12, 2014
A retired Probation Department supervisor on Wednesday became the first witness in the trial of former commissioner John J. O’Brien to describe in full detail the alleged scheme to manipulate the department’s hiring process, saying that the supervisor and others regularly embellished scores to appoint the friends and family members of state legislators.
Francis Wall, a retired deputy commissioner, described for more than four hours how O’Brien and state legislators wrested control of Probation Department hiring from judges and then covered up the hiring of politically connected job candidates.
“We would change scores, we would embellish, to make sure we did everything we can to make sure they were the number one candidate,” Wall testified Wednesday.
Some of the legislators who recommended job candidates were House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and his predecessors Salvatore F. DiMasi and Thomas M. Finneran, as well as Senate President Therese Murray, and jobs were prioritized for the hierarchy of the Legislature, Wall said.
“The commissioner needed to have a good rapport with the legislators,” Wall told jurors. “In order to do that, we needed to secure their recommendations for particular jobs. . . . We were the beneficiary of better budgets because of that.”
And now you know why Massachusetts has so many dumb laws. Violated and you get.... probation!
Government is nothing but a jobs program for the well-connected!
The candidates approved for jobs included Douglas MacLean, son of former state senator William “Biff” MacLean, who raised concerns among probation officials when he disclosed to members of an interview panel that he was a drug addict and had a history of crime. He was hired nonetheless. Wall described nine other politically influenced hires Wednesday.
Wall said that he was at the center of the scheme and lied to keep the scheme secret, out of loyalty to O’Brien.
Wall’s description came on the 17th full day of testimony in the public corruption trial, which has seen current and former state legislators, probation officers, and judges offer bits and pieces of what prosecutors say was a rigged hiring process run by O’Brien and his allies. Jurors have been engaged throughout the trial, frequently sending the judge their own questions for witnesses.
Lawyers for O’Brien, during brief questioning at the close of testimony Wednesday, sought to portray Wall as a serial liar who has shaped his testimony for prosecutors to avoid being charged in the case. They questioned his repeated use of the word embellish, suggesting his testimony was influenced by prosecutors.
Wall has an immunity agreement that protects him from prosecution in exchange for his testimony, though prosecutors warned that he can be charged with perjury if he is not truthful. O’Brien’s defense lawyers say Wall has given conflicting accounts in past testimony to FBI agents and a grand jury.
Uh-oh.
Prosecutors allege that O’Brien, the commissioner from 1998 to 2010, and top deputies Elizabeth Tavares and William Burke III ran the department like a criminal enterprise, by hiring the friends and family members of state legislators over more qualified candidates. In exchange, prosecutors contend, the legislators routinely boosted O’Brien’s budget, helping to build his political power. The jobs were considered political currency.
You know who paid for those jobs, pensions, and benefits while services in other areas were being slashed?
Defense attorneys have argued that their clients did nothing illegal, even if the hirings could be considered patronage, saying the practice was typical of Beacon Hill politics....
And that is what is wrong with Beacon Hill politics.
But prosecutors say O’Brien and his deputies committed fraud by falsely claiming to judges who had to approve the appointments that the department had followed all hiring protocols.
On Tuesday, Wall told jurors of O’Brien’s work with Finneran, the former House speaker, to wrest control of hiring from local judges, after legislators complained that judges would not hire their favored candidates. A change to state law in 2001 gave O’Brien hiring authority, though he was required to certify that the appointments complied with a hiring manual.
After the law was changed, Wall said Wednesday, O’Brien carried out the alleged scheme. He or Tavares or legislative liaison Ed Ryan would give Wall and other deputies the names of preferred candidates, and the deputies would in turn pass those names to an initial hiring panel, with the direction that the candidates be advanced to a final round.
On most occasions, Wall and at least one other probation supervisor would sit in on that final round and would score the candidates in the order that O’Brien wanted, Wall testified. O’Brien would ultimately hire his preferred candidate and certify for judges that he chose the candidate after an extensive hiring process.
Wall said that a candidate’s qualifications played “very little role in the final selection process.” Most often, he did not even know a candidate’s qualifications, Wall said.
Wall also testified that the process of establishing hiring panels helped make the hires “grievance proof,” protecting the hires from union grievances protesting a hiring. On several occasions, Wall said, he was subpoenaed to testify in arbitration proceedings under oath, yet he falsely claimed that the hiring process had been proper.
“My concern was we were about to embark on taking an oath, and in that final hearing basically be telling lies on how we conducted the interview process,” Wall said. “We did lie about the process being a fair process and how we judged the people.”
Wall said that O’Brien told him that “it was important that the process remain in effect, to have a good relationship with the Legislature.”
Wall is slated to resume testifying Thursday.
--more--"
Related: Defense lawyers ridicule key witness in Probation trial
Also see: Probation officer tells of promotion
Patronage would be exposed if all job openings were posted online
"Probation supervisor says family friend aided promotion; Tells of a cafe visit after job interview" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe staff June 17, 2014
A state probation supervisor told a federal jury Monday that a high-ranking Probation Department deputy who is on trial on corruption charges helped him obtain a promotion eight years ago over more qualified candidates and was a longtime friend of his family.
Frank Glenowicz, a Franklin Superior Court assistant chief probation officer, testified in the public corruption trial of William Burke III and two codefendants that Burke had showed up at a restaurant in 2006, after Glenowicz had interviewed for the promotion.
Oh, no, it's reached my neck of the woods.
Glenowicz’s father arrived at the restaurant soon afterward, and Burke approached him and told him, “Your son has been promoted,” according to testimony by Glenowicz.
“He gave him the badge to hand to me,” Glenowicz told the jurors.
About a month later, Burke again was at the restaurant, Joe’s Café in Northampton, and Burke introduced him to state Representative Thomas Petrolati. Burke told Glenowicz that he ought to thank Petrolati.
Related: Wife of representative got probation job, ex-official testifies
Isn't that a violation?
A month later, Glenowicz donated to Petrolati’s campaign for the first time. Glenowicz does not live in the legislator’s district.
Glenowicz’s promotion is one of the allegedly politically motivated hires prosecutors say Burke, former probation commissioner John J. O’Brien, and deputy Elizabeth Tavares carried out in the 12 years O’Brien oversaw the department, according to a sweeping indictment charging the trio with mail fraud and racketeering.
Prosecutors say the defendants ran the department like a criminal enterprise by hiring and promoting the friends and family members of powerful state legislators over more qualified candidates. In exchange, prosecutors say, the legislators routinely boosted the Probation Department’s budget, helping O’Brien build political clout.
Prosecutors say the hiring practices went beyond political patronage and crossed the line into fraud.
Richard O’Neil, a regional probation administrator, also testified Monday, telling jurors that Tavares would give him the names of preferred candidates and that he would make sure to advance those candidates, even if they were not his top choice.
Defense lawyers, who say their clients did nothing illegal, argued that O’Neil also pushed through candidates who were favored by now-retired Bristol Probate and Family Court Judge Elizabeth LaStaiti, who has already testified and is expected to be called back to the stand to testify about her involvement in the hiring process.
O’Neil is slated to return to the witness stand Tuesday.
Much of the testimony Monday focused on the promotion of Glenowicz. Superior Court Judge Bertha Josephson, who served on a hiring panel, had testified that she preferred Sheila Dintaman, a probation officer with whom she had worked, and Dintaman testified that she filed a grievance protesting Glenowicz’s promotion, believing that she was more qualified. Probation supervisors then offered her a different promotion, and Dintaman withdrew the grievance.
Frank Siano, who retired in 2009 as chief probation officer of Franklin Superior Court, testified Monday that he had served on the interview panel with Josephson and Burke. He said he ranked Glenowicz fifth of all the applicants, and he was surprised to learn that Glenowicz was ultimately promoted.
While cross-examining Siano, defense lawyers argued that Burke knew more about all the candidates, and that the interview process could be subjective.
They also pointed out that Siano himself wrote letters of recommendations for his own preferred candidates, which they sought to show is no different than what O’Brien and Burke did.
“It’s an attempt on your part to influence the final selection in favor of the candidate you recommended, is that correct,” attorney John Amabile asked.
“I felt strongly he was the most qualified candidate,” Siano responded.
I know Frankie, and I am so relieved to see he is the fine and honest man I always thought him to be.
Glenowicz told jurors that he began working as a probation officer in 1997, in Springfield juvenile court. He had applied for different promotions after that, to move closer to home, but was unsuccessful.
Then, he said, Burke told him there was going to be a job posting for the assistant chief position in Franklin Superior Court in Greenfield, where Glenowicz lived. His father had been close with Burke’s brother.
He said Burke had told him to get his application “and be prepared to apply for it.”
"Ex-Probation supervisor kept messages directing him to favor candidates" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe staff June 20, 2014
A retired probation supervisor who oversaw hiring panels for the department told a federal jury Thursday that he saved a series of voice mails from 2000 in which he was directed to advance job candidates who were preselected by John J. O’Brien, the department’s former commissioner.
Edward P. Dalton, a regional administrator who retired in 2010, told jurors that he advanced O’Brien’s preferred candidates through the hiring process roughly two dozen times, and he kept the voice mails out of fear that he would be investigated.
“I thought this would be a means to show how I got the names and why I got the names and so I wouldn’t be held responsible,” Dalton told jurors. “I was concerned that at one point in time that I would be held accountable for any actions I took as chair of a committee to allow these things to happen.”
Dalton testified in the public corruption trial of O’Brien and two of his former deputies who are accused of corrupt hiring practices at the Probation Department. Prosecutors sought to use Dalton’s testimony to show that he was working on O’Brien’s behalf and that he knew that advancing the preferred candidates over more qualified applicants was wrong.
“I was told what to do,” Dalton told jurors.
Prosecutors allege that O’Brien, the Probation Department’s commissioner from 1998 to 2010, and top deputies Elizabeth Tavares and William Burke III ran the department like a criminal enterprise by favoring job candidates who were sponsored by legislators.
In exchange, prosecutors say, legislators routinely boosted the department’s budget, helping O’Brien build his political clout. The jobs were considered “political currency.”
The defendants face a maximum of 20 years in prison on charges including racketeering and mail fraud. Prosecutors say the defendants created an organized scheme, making applicants go through a bogus hiring process.
O’Brien then falsely certified to judges that he followed proper policies and procedures in making appointments, prosecutors allege
Defense lawyers argue that O’Brien and his deputies did nothing illegal, saying such patronage hiring was typical of Beacon Hill politics. They plan to show through cross-examination of Dalton that the phone calls he received occurred before O’Brien was given authority over hiring in 2001. Prosecutors allege the calls were made at the beginning of O’Brien’s conspiracy to bribe legislators.
In the voice mails in October 2000, Janet Mucci, then an aide to O’Brien, can be heard telling Dalton that “there are people that have to be finalists.”
Dalton was about to conduct a hiring panel for positions at Dedham District Court, and Mucci told him that some people were there only for courtesy interviews, while some candidates had to be finalists for the positions.
She gave him five names to list as finalists, out of the 16 he was supposed to submit to a judge for final appointment.
One of them “looks good on paper,” she said. “I don’t know what he’s really like.”
A week later, Mucci called to say she would give Dalton about six names for eight finalist positions for a job in another court. Mucci told Dalton that O’Brien had a meeting at the State House and that “he has no choice.”
A day later she told Dalton, “Jack had a meeting over at the State House yesterday . . . and you know he got everything he wanted this year in the budget moneywise, so they feel like they did that for him, you know, and obviously he needs to do this for them.”
--more--"
Witness speaks of irritation on Probation hiring
According to Janet Mucci, a longtime probation official who retired in 2011, the 41st witness over 26 full days of testimony.
Hope you are not irritated by my lack of analysis at this point.
"Witness says probation hiring at the mercy of legislators; But liaison saw nothing wrong with the practice" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe staff July 01, 2014
A former legislative liaison for the state Probation Department told a federal jury Monday that probation officials were at the mercy of legislators, who named whom they wanted to be hired and promoted.
“They controlled [hiring],” said Edward Ryan, who still works for the Probation Department coordinating an electronic monitoring program. Ryan was testifying in the trial of former probation commissioner John J. O’Brien and two deputies, who are accused of running the department like a criminal enterprise by favoring candidates sponsored by legislators over more qualified candidates.
Ryan testified that O’Brien complained to him he had to hire whomever the legislators wanted and that “he didn’t want them, but he had to take them.”
“I think as a state agency, you have to maintain your relationship with the Legislature; they control your budget,” Ryan told jurors.
Ryan then agreed, under questioning by defense lawyers, that he saw nothing wrong with the arrangement. Ryan himself had listed a former congressman and a judge as job references, and he acknowledged that judges, Attorney General Martha Coakley, and Timothy Murray, the former lieutenant governor, also influenced hiring in the Probation Department.
Given all the names they are throwing around it was nearly everyone in high position of authority in this state. Whatta stink.
Ryan was the 44th witness to take the stand since the trial began with opening statements on May 8, and prosecutors sought his testimony to show the role that legislators played in Probation Department hiring and how O’Brien complied with legislators’ wishes.
“We didn’t want to miss a legislators’ request for a job,” Ryan testified. Prosecutors say that in turn for O’Brien’s cooperation in hiring their candidates, legislators boosted O’Brien’s budget, helping him to build political power.
Defense lawyers say that their clients did nothing illegal, saying the hiring arrangements were patronage typical of Beacon Hill politics. But prosecutors say they committed fraud by creating an organized scheme and making applicants go through a bogus hiring process. O’Brien is also accused of falsely certifying to judges that he followed proper policies and procedures in making appointments.
If convicted, the defendants face up to 20 years in prison on some charges including mail fraud and racketeering.
While on the stand, Ryan described for jurors how, as the Probation Department’s legislative liaison, he kept a list of candidates that legislators wanted hired or promoted. O’Brien would ask him to pass those names to the regional administrators who served on hiring panels, to make sure those candidates advanced in the hiring process.
Probation supervisors would give greater weight to candidates recommended by more powerful legislators, including Senate President Therese Murray, former House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, and Representative Robert DeLeo, who is now speaker.
I'm starting wonder what DeLeo has done wrong. Sal was run out and imprisoned for a two-bit state education contract because he was the sole stop-bloack on casinos.
At that time, DeLeo headed the House Ways and Means Committee that oversaw spending.
Prosecutors sought to show through Ryan’s testimony that O’Brien supported DeLeo’s quest for speaker by allowing him to hand out jobs in the department to fellow legislators, to earn their support.
DeLeo’s opponent, Representative John Rogers, had requested a job for a candidate in Gloucester District Court, but O’Brien instructed Ryan to tell him that all jobs went through DeLeo’s office, according to Ryan’s testimony.
--more--"
Related:
Retired chief judge testifies in probation hiring trial
Ex-judge admits to patronage hiring
"Witnesses display allegiance in probation trial; Some probation testimony hostile" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe Staff July 07, 2014
One of the prosecution witnesses in the ongoing corruption trial of three former probation officials seemed to change his testimony so often that a defense attorney asked him, “Are we making this up as we go along?”
Other witnesses wanted to recant earlier statements, forcing prosecutors to “impeach” them. This was done so many times, a juror had to ask the judge what it meant.
And still some witnesses, like former state senator Jack Hart, have testified that they could barely remember anything at all.
Hostile witnesses in white-collar criminal trials are not unusual. But they have been especially plentiful, and vexing, in the trial of former probation commissioner John O’Brien and two of his deputies on charges that they conducted an illegal hiring process within the department, exchanging jobs to politically connected candidates for legislative favor.
Legal analysts say that hostile witnesses are characteristic of the type of white-collar trial that is playing out in the federal courthouse in Boston, in which prosecutors are basing their case on a complex legal theory. Witnesses will either embrace the theory that crimes were committed or reject it.
That doesn't fill me with very much confidence for a guilty verdict.
“This is why we have trials,” said Stephen G. Huggard, a defense attorney with Edwards Wildman and a former federal prosecutor and former head of the US attorney’s public corruption unit in Boston.
“If you’re asking someone to testify in a case, and they don’t think it’s a crime, they’re going to be a difficult witness,” Huggard said.
And difficult witnesses pose challenges for lawyers on both sides of the case.
“How can you use a witness to support your position, if you’re fighting with the witness to get your point across?” said Thomas Drechsler, a trial attorney in Boston.
Martin Weinberg, a Boston defense attorney, said jurors can tell when witnesses aren’t being cooperative, and the goal for the lawyers in the case is to make sure the witness looks aggressive, not the questioner.
“You don’t need the words, the testimony,” Weinberg said. “Juries can be just as impressed by testimony that is evasive, that’s not responsive, that’s inflammatory, and you try to elicit that from the witness.”
He added, “The goal is . . . to get the jury to understand that the witness, because of their bias . . . is not looking the jury in the eye and telling them the honest truth.”
O’Brien, the Probation Department commissioner from 1998 to 2010, and deputies Elizabeth Tavares and William Burke III face up to 20 years if convicted of charges including racketeering and mail fraud. Prosecutors have accused them of running the department like a criminal enterprise by hiring job candidates sponsored by legislators over more qualified applicants, effectively bribing them for legislative favors.
Defense lawyers contend that their clients did nothing illegal, saying the department’s hiring was political patronage typical of Beacon Hill.
Throughout the trial, witnesses have used their testimony to declare their own views on the case. Legislators who have testified, for instance, said they saw nothing wrong with recommending candidates for jobs.
“I got to know Jack, Commissioner O’Brien, during my years on the public safety committee,” state Representative Michael Costello, a Democrat from Newburyport, told jurors early last month. “I think I called the commissioner the day this story broke to wish him luck on what was happening.”
Costello testified under an immunity agreement with prosecutors, though he refused to meet with them to go over his testimony before taking the stand.
Other witnesses more favorable to the prosecution have been challenging for the defense.
Edward Dalton, a former regional administrator who acknowledged he had opposed O’Brien’s appointment and resented that he was passed over for a promotion, was so snarky toward defense lawyers that they asked him at one point, “Do you find these proceedings to be amusing?”
Other witnesses have appeared to not want to be there at all. Hart said he could not recall specific occasions so many times that Assistant US Attorney Fred M. Wyshak Jr. asked if he had a memory problem.
State Representative Anne M. Gobi, a Democrat from Spencer, insisted that she had not known that then-representative Robert A. DeLeo was seeking to become house speaker when he called her randomly in early 2008, asking if she wanted to recommend anyone for a Probation Department job.
The Boston Globe and Statehouse News Service had published multiple articles in the previous months, reporting that DeLeo and others were jockeying to replace House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
“Do you read the newspaper?” Assistant US Attorney Karin M. Bell asked Gobi. Bell was not allowed to press further.
Well.... about 8 pages or so at best, and then.... sigh.
On multiple occasions, prosecutors have had to impeach witnesses who they say have not been forthcoming and have contradicted their previous testimony.
Prosecutors argued, for instance, that Brian Murphy, a regional administrator for the Probation Department, gave conflicting accounts of some candidates’ qualifications. And Kelly Manchester, a Probation officer from New Bedford, allegedly recanted previous testimony that state Senator Mark Montigny lobbied Probation officials for her to be hired in 2007. Manchester was dating Montigny at the time.
A juror asked US District Court Judge William G. Young to explain what it meant to impeach a witness, after prosecutors had done so several times. Young explained that it meant pointing out inconsistent prior statements, to question the credibility of the testimony.
Janet Mucci, a longtime probation official who retired in 2011, was one of the few witnesses who conceded testimony for both sides. She acknowledged for prosecutors that regional administrators complained they were being forced to hire O’Brien’s pre-selected candidates, which goes to the heart of the prosecution’s case.
Mucci later acknowledged for defense lawyers, though, that patronage had long been part of hiring in the Probation Department.
“You liked Commissioner O’Brien, right?” she was asked.
“I did,” she said. “I do.”
--more--"
"US alleges Robert DeLeo had deal with probation officials; Prosecutors say there was a quid pro quo agreement" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe staff July 08, 2014
Federal prosecutors said Monday that they will introduce evidence confirming there was a quid pro quo agreement by which probation officials gave jobs to House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo’s favored applicants, and, in return, DeLeo provided legislative favors for probation officials.
Assistant US Attorney Robert A. Fisher said prosecutors plan to call several current and former legislators and aides to testify about conversations they had with DeLeo and the former probation commissioner, John J. O’Brien, that were allegedly part of that agreement.
It was the first time prosecutors have used the phrase quid pro quo to describe DeLeo’s involvement in the alleged hiring scheme that gave preference to politically connected applicants. In the past, prosecutors have alleged that O’Brien and his deputies effectively bribed legislators, and called witnesses who said DeLeo doled out probation jobs to help in his bid to become speaker....
It's political currency.
--more--"
Related:
Ex-judge grilled on probation hiring
DeLeo, deputies silent on probation trial
Not for long:
"Robert DeLeo in glare at Probation hiring trial" by Milton J. Valencia and Michael Levenson | Globe staff July 10, 2014
Federal prosecutors put House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo at the center of the Probation Department corruption trial Wednesday, seeking to show that DeLeo and other legislators provided favors for department officials in exchange for probation jobs for legislators’ friends.
Two state representatives told jurors that in 2008, DeLeo’s office offered to arrange probation jobs for their friends after they had agreed to support DeLeo in his competitive race for House speaker. The testimony was designed to show that DeLeo’s connection to the department included having probation jobs at his disposal.
And a former state representative who chaired the House committee that oversaw spending testified that DeLeo told him in 2009 to spare the Probation Department any budget cuts, even as the state’s economy “had pretty much fallen off the cliff at that point.”
“I pushed back, and he told me not to cut probation,” said Charles Murphy, who chaired the House Ways and Means Committee from 2009 to 2011. “He reiterated his guidance, if you will, that the budget would not be cut.”
So that is why he was forced out.
DeLeo and other Democratic leaders have been mentioned repeatedly during the corruption trial, but the focus on him intensified this week, and DeLeo sought Wednesday to distance himself from the testimony.
The speaker’s office released a statement at about the same time Murphy was testifying Wednesday, denying that the speaker took part in any hiring scheme with Probation Department officials. He later told reporters that he had “no memory” of telling Murphy not to cut the Probation Department budget.
“I ask that the repetition of inaccurate and scurrilous statements cease immediately,” DeLeo, a Democrat from Winthrop, said in his statement. “I never swapped jobs for votes, and there is no one who can truthfully say otherwise. No state representative has testified that they cast a vote for me because of an opportunity to fill a job in the Probation Department, and none can do so truthfully.”
$cum.
Lawyers for the probation officials on trial — including John J. O’Brien, the former commissioner — sought to discredit the testimony of Murphy and the other witnesses Wednesday. William Fick, a lawyer for O’Brien, pointed out that the final budget that the House recommended in spring 2009 included a 12 percent cut in Probation Department funding.
Murphy said he could not recall exact budget figures, only that DeLeo had told him to spare the Probation Department after Murphy proposed a 10 percent cut.
The emphasis on DeLeo’s role in probation hiring comes as the trial is coming to a close — the prosecution could rest by Friday — and prosecutors have come under increasing pressure from US District Court Judge William G. Young to outline the remainder of their case, their theory of the alleged crime, and how that theory should be presented to jurors.
Prosecutors responded in court filings earlier this week that they will show that O’Brien had a quid pro quo agreement with DeLeo to provide jobs in exchange for legislative favors, the most direct suggestion to date that DeLeo was a knowing and willing participant in the scheme.
Defense lawyers for O’Brien and his two deputies insist that there was no such agreement. They say their clients took part in nothing but routine political patronage, which they say is not illegal.
DeLeo forcefully denied to reporters that he engaged in a quid pro quo and said, “Quite frankly, I’m calling upon the federal prosecutors or anyone else who would make such a statement to cease to make those types of statements, because they’re untrue.”
US Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz’s office would not comment on DeLeo’s statement Wednesday and would not say why the speaker has not been charged with a crime if prosecutors believe he took part in a bribery arrangement.
O’Brien, the commissioner from 1998 to 2010, and top deputies Elizabeth Tavares and William Burke III were first charged in 2012 on charges that they ran their department like a criminal enterprise, by directing jobs to the friends and family members of state legislators over more qualified candidates and accepting legislative favors in return.
Prosecutors say that O’Brien committed fraud by creating an organized scheme that included having applicants go through a bogus hiring process.
O’Brien then falsely certified to judges that he followed proper policies and procedures in making appointments, prosecutors allege.
If convicted, the defendants face up to 20 years in prison on some charges, including mail fraud and racketeering.
Wednesday was the 32d full day of testimony, and 51 witnesses have taken the stand. The case began with opening statements May 8.
Prosecutors have alleged throughout the trial that legislators, at O’Brien’s request, passed a law in 2001 giving him control over hiring and that he in turn appointed their friends. Legislators also supported O’Brien around 2005, when the state judge who oversaw the Trial Court budget used some of the Probation Department’s funding to balance the Trial Court’s spending, effectively cutting the department’s budget.
Legislators passed budget amendments in response, protecting the Probation Department budget from the rest of the Trial Court system.
On Wednesday, Representative Garrett Bradley, a Democrat from Hingham, told jurors that he attempted to restore Chief Justice Robert A. Mulligan’s authority to dip into Probation Department funding, at Mulligan’s request, but that the legislation failed.
He said Representative Eugene O’Flaherty, a member of the House leadership, told him it would be “a tough road.”
Defense lawyers argued that Bradley was seeking to curry favor with Mulligan, who was contemplating closing a courthouse in Bradley’s district.
The lawyers also argued that the Legislature was trying to better control what was being spent within the Trial Court, without giving Mulligan a blank check to transfer money at will.
The two state representatives who took the stand Wednesday also told jurors that a top aide to DeLeo asked if they knew anyone interested in probation jobs in early 2008. The offer came about four months after the representatives promised DeLeo their support in the race for House speaker, which had started to become competitive.
The legislators said DeLeo’s office had never made such an offer before. The legislators’ friends were offered jobs without being interviewed.
At least four other current or former state representatives have testified earlier in the trial about similar offers from DeLeo’s office, at around the same time, while the representatives were contemplating endorsing DeLeo or had already endorsed his candidacy.
The legislators told jurors, however, that the jobs for their friends never influenced their votes.
“I was committed to Bob DeLeo in December 2007, so I was already with him,” said Representative Kevin Honan of Brighton.
Representative Michael Moran of Brighton said he always helped constituents and called himself the “Suffolk employment agency.”
“People are always looking for work,” he said.
And not finding much of it, either! Must not have the connections.
--more--"
Also see: Grimy politics on display at probation trial
"Jury hears of power play in probation case" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe staff July 11, 2014
The emphasis on DeLeo’s role in probation hiring comes as the trial is coming to a close — the prosecution could rest Friday — and after prosecutors were pressed by US District Court Judge William G. Young to outline the remainder of their case, their theory of the alleged crime, and how that theory should be presented to jurors.
On Thursday, Representative David Linsky, a Democrat from Natick, told jurors that one of DeLeo’s top aides, Lenny Mirasolo, called him in 2008 asking if he knew anyone who would be interested in a probation job. Linsky recommended a former campaign manager, who was hired.
DeLeo had been in a competitive race for House speaker at the time. Six other representatives who had either endorsed DeLeo or were contemplating doing so have testified that they received similar offers from Mirasolo for jobs, which they accepted.
Linsky testified that he would have voted for DeLeo anyway.
Toby Morelli, DeLeo’s deputy chief of staff, told jurors that he received a budget request from O’Brien’s office in 2005 to prevent the head of the Trial Court system from dipping into the Probation Department’s funding....
--more--"
Related:
Robert DeLeo’s misplaced indignation at probation trial
O’Brien declines to testify as prosecution rests in probation case
Time for me to rest, too.
"Probation case focus on lawmakers may backfire; Some wonder why legislators not indicted" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe Staff July 14, 2014
During the opening of the Probation Department corruption trial in May, lawyers for the three defendants stood before jurors and pointed out who was absent — the legislators who allegedly accepted bribes.
Over the next 10 weeks of the trial, prosecutors accused legislative leaders such as Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo of influencing hiring in the Probation Department.
Last week, prosecutors focused on DeLeo, accusing him of quid pro quo bribery by doling out legislative favors in exchange for probation jobs for friends, including those of legislators whose vote DeLeo was seeking in his bid for House speaker.
The focus on DeLeo has renewed questions about why — if legislators accepted jobs for their friends in exchange for votes — no legislators were sitting at the defense table.
“If this is a bribery case, how come this person isn’t charged?” Stephen G. Huggard, a defense attorney with Edwards Wildman and a former federal prosecutor and former head of the US attorney’s public corruption unit in Boston, asked of DeLeo. Huggard questioned the fairness of accusing DeLeo of quid quo pro bribery if US Attorney Carmen Ortiz chose not to indict him.
Ortiz’s office would not comment on why no legislators were charged. DeLeo has forcefully denied any quid pro quo agreement involving probation hiring, and on Wednesday he called on prosecutors to retract their statements.
The strategy of alleging that the probation officials’ scheme went as far as bribing legislators could backfire for prosecutors if jurors don’t see anyone being held accountable on the other end of the alleged bribe, analysts said.
“It’s a wider, overarching theory of a crime, and if the prosecutors are dependent on a quid pro quo theory, the defendants will drill home that there’s no proof that any public official participated,” said Martin Weinberg, a prominent defense attorney from Boston. “The government has to prove what it charges.”
You know my axiom: If the government is shit you must acquit!
--more--"
"Judge lets probation case point to Robert DeLeo; Prosecution can cite speaker in trying to prove conspiracy over probation jobs" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe Staff July 15, 2014
A federal judge’s ruling on Monday makes House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo a key figure in jury deliberations on whether former probation commissioner John J. O’Brien’s alleged trading of jobs for legislative favors was a crime.
US District Court Judge William G. Young said he would allow prosecutors to argue that DeLeo and a top aide joined O’Brien’s conspiracy when they allegedly bribed legislators with Probation Department jobs, in exchange for the legislators’ support in DeLeo’s competitive race for speaker. DeLeo, who denies any wrongdoing, is not charged in the case.
“The larger, overall theme is racketeering conspiracy,” the judge said, rejecting defense lawyers’ request to dismiss charges against O’Brien and two codefendants. Young said he will explain to jurors that prosecutors allege “there was a concerted effort of O’Brien and DeLeo to bribe the reps.”
In response, DeLeo issued a two-page statement blasting prosecutors and reiterating his innocence.
“The United States attorney has chosen to try me in the press because they lack the evidence to do so in a court of law,” DeLeo said. “That is simply unconscionable and unfair.”
He added, “I believe my indignation has been well-placed and to remain silent, in the face of false accusations, would damage the office of the speaker and the entire Legislature.”
Defense lawyer William Fick also questioned whether the judge was letting prosecutors go too far in alleging “that everyday political horse-trading is a bribe.”
At the heart of the case is whether what transpired between the speaker’s office and the Probation Department was illegal, or simply part of Beacon Hill’s political culture....
I will be surprised to see convictions in this case. Looting taxpayers is just politics in Ma$$achu$hitts.
--more--"
NEXT DAY UPDATES:
All the time and effort I put into getting this post together land only 16 lousy hits?
Bribery, patronage debated at trial’s end
Probation trial displays favoritism to the extreme
Colleagues say speaker, system branded unfairly
Defending the indefensible. How di$gu$ting!
Lawmakers reach deal on parole for juvenile killers
Going to put them on probation instead.
