The Freedom Bulletin

Some very interesting new developments in the case against former IMF boss Dominique Strauss-Kahn:

Senior prosecutors met with lawyers for Mr. Strauss-Kahn on Thursday and provided details about their findings, and the parties are discussing whether to dismiss the felony charges. Among the discoveries, one of the officials said, are issues involving the asylum application of the 32-year-old housekeeper, who is Guinean, and possible links to criminal activities, including drug dealing and money laundering.

A hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, during which Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers will ask for his bail conditions to be eased, presumably because of the newly discovered weaknesses in the case.

Source: New York Times.

ETA: Strauss-Kahn was released on his own recognizance at today’s hearing. His $5 million in bail was returned to him, and he will no longer have to pay $250,000 a month for guards to watch his every move. And although the state is still holding on to his passport, he can travel anywhere he wants within the country. The charges are still pending, but in my humble opinion, if the D.A.’s office has any sense of justice, they won’t be for long.

Accused leader of the Irish mob, James “Whitey” Bulger, had two hearings in federal court today. The first, in front of Chief Judge Mark Wolf, focused on the prosecution motion to dismiss the first of two indictments against Bulger. The charges contained in this indictment were minor compared to the second indictment, which contains charges related to 19 murders. In court today at the 1:00 hearing and in papers filed yesterday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office argued that the evidence is weaker in the first indictment because of the deaths of two major witnesses, and focusing on the second one is the best use of resources and the most likely to result in a conviction before the 81-year-old Bulger passes away. Bulger’s provisional defense attorney, Peter Krupp, argued that the government was “judge shopping” in an attempt to get the case away from Wolf, who is listed on the first indictment, and assigned to Judge Richard Stearns, who is listed on the second amendment. Krupp moved to have the two cases consolidated.

Wolf ruled in favor of the government, dismissing the first indictment and saying that focusing on the second was in the interests of justice.

I was not able to attend that hearing, but I was able to get into the second hearing at 3:00, in front of Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler. Krupp and Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Kelly argued about whether Bulger should get a court-appointed attorney. Bulger was escorted into the courtroom by a plainclothes U.S. Marshal, wearing an orange jumpsuit and sporting the same glasses and white beard as at his initial appearance last Friday. He looked somberly at the gallery, where his brothers William “Billy” Bulger and John “Jackie” Bulger watched. His handcuffs, which restrained his hands behind his back, were removed when he sat down at the defense table.

“It is, as a matter of law, the defendant’s burden” to establish eligibility for taxpayer-funded counsel, Kelly argued, adding that “he could care less about the truth or falsity” of the financial affidavit he filled out to prove his indigence. The government continued to pursue the argument that Billy Bulger should help pay for his brother’s lawyer, pointing out that Whitey had allegedly told pretrial services when he was arrested in Los Angeles that Billy might be willing to pay. Additionally, his girlfriend, Cathering Greig, had initially claimed to be indigent but has subsequently retained respected Boston attorney Kevin Reddington. At least, Kelly argued, if Bulger is awarded a court-appointed attorney, he should have to reimburse taxpayers if  he ends up having more assets than he initially disclosed.

Krupp, on the other hand, argued against the government’s desire to both seize Bulger’s assets and prevent him from receiving publicly-funded counsel. “I have never seen the government oppose the appointment of counsel for someone from whom they intend to seize every penny,” he said. To make Bulger’s relatives pay is “completely legally and factually unfounded,” he claimed, adding that no family member had offered to do so, “nor would he ask them to do that.”

Judge Bowler then questioned Kelly about case law supporting his claim that Bulger’s family should pay. He could not come up with any but mentioned that the family members should have to file an affidavit stating that they are unwilling to pay.

Judge Bowler made short shrift of that argument. After allowing Bulger and Krupp a moment to confer, she announced, speaking in a formal tone of voice, “the defendant is financially unable to obtain counsel privately” and is therefore eligible for a public defense. The “exceptional circumstances” of the case, she said, justified the appointment of someone other than the duty attorney in the federal public defender system. Who, exactly? Why, J.W. Carney, one of Boston’s most noted defense attorneys, of course.

In a pretty awesome moment, Carney, who was sitting on a bench in the last row in the public gallery, rose and walked past the benches of spectators and into the well of the courtroom. He went to Bulger’s side, leaned down, shook his hand, and said quietly, “nice to meet you.” He then took his seat at the defense table.

The white-bearded, bespectacled lawyer (who bears some physical resemblance to his client!) has represented abortion clinic shooter John Salvi, convicted wife-killers James Keown, James Brescia, and Kenneth Seguin, and countless others.

Judge Bowler mentioned that the case might require a second attorney to be appointed, likely Carney’s partner, Janice Bassil, who was present in the courtroom as well. She thanked Krupp for his “admirable service” and advised him to transfer his files to Carney over the next day. “We thank you for your participation,” she said.

Arraignment for Bulger (which, in the federal system, is different from initial appearance) was scheduled for next Wednesday, July 6, at 2:00. “You need to get a little faster with that digital device, Mr. Carney,” she humorously scolded him while the parties were trying to work out a date.

After brief mentions of a motion that Krupp had filed to stop law enforcement leaks about the case, and another motion to disclose to the defense statements Bulger made around the time of his arrest, court was adjourned. The hearing lasted only about 15 minutes. As Bulger was re-handcuffed, a relative of one of the victims (who filled several benches) clapped, to a stern reproach from a court officer.

As an aside, I will mention that the Bulger case is the most heavily attended legal case I have been to. Every day since last Friday, news trucks have been parked outside the courthouse all day and photographers (sometimes hordes of them) have camped out by the entrance. On the one hand, all this media attention is exciting, but on the other hand, it makes it difficult to get into the courtroom. I was barely able to make it to the initial appearance of Bulger and Greig, and missed the beginning. I was unable to make it to Tuesday’s hearing due to so many people trying to get in (it also didn’t help that the selection process was unclear, arbitrary, and not based on who got there first…but I digress). That was the first time I have ever attempted to attend a court proceeding but not been allowed in.

Neil Entwistle filed a brief today in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts appealing his two first-degree murder convictions. In what was, incidentally, the first legal case I ever attended, Entwistle was convicted in June 2008 of murdering his wife, Rachel, and baby, Lillian.

Not surprisingly, Entwistle’s appellate lawyer, Steven Paul Maidman, focused on the warrantless search of Entwistle’s Hopkinton home, carried out by police officers at the request of worried friends and relatives. He also argues that the trial judge did not adequately question jurors about their exposure to (often sensational and biased) media coverage of the case.

Source: AP/Boston Herald

The legal trials and tribulations of Alexander Pring-Wilson may finally be nearing an end. A one-day bench trial took place yesterday in Boston’s federal courthouse to determine whether Pring-Wilson will have to pay $260,000 in damages to the estate of Michael Colono. In 2003, Pring-Wilson, then a Harvard graduate student, fatally stabbed Colono, a Cambridge resident with a criminal record, during a fight. He has always maintained he acted in self-defense. After two trials, Pring-Wilson pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter in January 2008 and spent just under a year in jail. Colono’s estate won a $260,000 judgment against him in a civil trial in a Massachusetts court. Farmers Insurance Exchange, with whom Pring-Wilson’s mother had a home insurance policy, initially agreed to pay the settlement because the death was considered an accident, but they then changed their minds and decided that the death falls under one of the exclusions to the policy, so Pring-Wilson should have to pay. In yesterday’s trial, the insurance company is the plaintiff and both Pring-Wilson and Colono’s estate are the defendants.

Although the trial was originally scheduled to last a week, the unavailability of some witnesses – including Colono’s cousin and his girlfriend, who witnessed (or participated in) the fight – meant that it ended up lasting less than a day. Pring-Wilson and his mother, Cynthia Pring, were the only witnesses. Judge Patti B. Saris called court into session in Courtroom 19 at 9:30.

The first issue to be decided was Pring-Wilson’s residency, as the insurance policy only covers him if he is a Colorado resident. Pring-Wilson (who is representing himself) took the stand, sporting a gray suit, blue shirt, and dark tie, as well as a beard, which made him look quite different than I remember him from his criminal trials. He currently lives in a house in Colorado Springs, CO, with his wife, Janice Olmstead, whom he married in October of 2009 and who was his girlfriend since 2001, standing by him throughout all of his legal problems. His parents, Cindy Pring and Ross Wilson, got divorced in 1985, he said during direct examination by Elizabeth Mulvey, who represents Colono’s estate, and he and his younger twin sisters, Maggie and Jessica, lived with their mother. He gave this Colorado Springs address as his permanent address throughout his school years and his legal battles. While attending Colorado College, he lived in a dorm for his freshman year, spent some time studying abroad in Russia, and later lived in the college’s “Russian House,” with other students in Russian studies, and then in an apartment with friends. In 2001 he was accepted to a graduate program at Harvard, focusing on Russia and former Soviet socialist republics. His first day of class was September 11 of that year. He lived with a friend and her boyfriend in an apartment in Somerville and brought clothes, his computer, and “basically what I could fit in the back of a pickup truck” to Massachusetts. He left the rest of him belongings in the Colorado home, “depending on who you ask, either scattered all over the house or tidily packed in my room.” He returned there for Thanksgiving, winter break, spring break, and his birthday in February.

At the time of the fatal fight, Pring-Wilson had been accepted to a JD program at the University of Colorado and was planning to return to his home state. His mother’s Colorado home was listed as his residence on his school records, driver’s license, tax returns, voter registration, car registration, and passport. His only bank account was with Wells Fargo in Colorado.

While awaiting trial, he initially lived in the Somerville apartment with his two friends, but before his second trial began he moved to Marlboro with Olmstead, who had moved to Massachusetts. His bail conditions required him to live in Middlesex County, MA, but because his girlfriend got a teaching job in Worcester, he wanted to live as far west as possible. When released from prison on either New Year’s Eve 2008 or New Year’s Day 2009, he returned to the Colorado house. He and Olmstead currently have their own house, also  in Colorado Springs.

Next Pring-Wilson’s mother, Cindy Pring, took the stand and was questioned by Michael Harris, another lawyer for Colono’s estate (which is actually on the same side as Pring-Wilson in this trial). Alexander was 3 years, 3 months, and 3 days older than his twin sisters, she said. When Harris tried to ask what Alex was like growing up, Judge Saris said, “no.” She often interjected to ask questions and cut off lines of discussion during today’s proceedings. Mrs. Pring said that Alex “has always been working” but that unlike his sisters, who moved out to start their own households, he kept his possessions at the house and considered it his permanent residence. Pring-Wilson got to ask his mother a question – where did Ms. Olmstead live at the time? She lived with her grandparents in Colorad, Mrs. Pring answered, until she moved to Massachusetts to be with her boyfriend in 2005.

In a victory for Pring-Wilson, Judge Saris ruled, “I find he’s a resident. It’s an overwhelming case that he’s a resident.”

During the next portion of the trial, Farmers Insurance Exchange and Fire Insurance Exchange had to prove that Pring-Wilson’s conduct at the time of Colono’s death fell within an exception to the home insurance policy, namely that Pring-Wilson intended to hurt Colono. Pring-Wilson took the stand again, and under direct examination by one of the insurance company’s lawyers (whose name I forget), he described the events of April 12, 2003. On Friday night (April 11) he went out with two friends, Jennifer Hanson and Mary Kate McCartney. He drank a total of 7 to 10 drinks at various places, including the Rosebud diner, the Burren, and the Western Front, but felt “pretty normal” and was able to think straight, talk, and walk normally. After the girls left in a cab, he walked home. At about 2 a.m., while trying to call his girlfriend on his cell phone, he heard someone yell to him from a parked car. Not hearing what was said, he replied, “Excuse me, were you talking to me?” They replied “very rudely” and he also responded rudely, he said. Then, he said, “the person knocks me back into the alley, driveway area, and at some point I get my bell rung.” When he regained consciousness, he was on his knees with one person kicking him from the front (Colono) and another punching the back of his head (Samuel Rodriguez, Colono’s cousin). “I feel like they’re not going to stop,” he testified. “I took the knife from my back pocket, I used it to clear some space in front of me. I have this distinct impression of space in front of me.” He called 911 on his cell phone and the two men left.

When Judge Saris questioned him about why he carried the knife, he replied, “I carry the knife all the time. It wouldn’t have occurred to me not to carry it.” Later he explained, “Generally I find having a pocket knife extremely useful…I’ve always carried a pocket knife. My sisters carry pocket knives. We all have them.” He has used his knife to sharpen pencils, open beers, and on the day of the fight, to help install shelves. He chose the particular model, made by Spyderco, because of its size, its flat and cerrated edges, and because it was manufactured in Colorado. He had never been in any kind of physical fight before or had any criminal record.

He did not run away, he said, because “It’s awfully hard to run away when somebody is punching you in the face.” He didn’t hit back because “it didn’t even occur to me.” He didn’t scream or call for help because there was no time to think: “All of a sudden there was this extremely violent, extremely angry person punching me in the face…I had my hands over my head, just trying to keep the blows from hitting…The person behind me just kept slamming his fist into the back of my head.” He said he was “very much afraid that these people wouldn’t stop until I was dead” and consistently maintained, “I used my knife to clear a path in front of me…It wasn’t so much a matter of striking but just getting them away from me.” He even knelt to the floor in front of the witness stand to demonstrate what he did during the fight, causing Judge Saris to exclaim, “I feel like I’m back in state court; I’m loving it!” She also scolded the insurance company lawyer for his repetitive questions.

When he called 911, Pring-Wilson told law enforcement that he had merely witnessed a fight. “The whole thing was just made up…It was just a really, really bad idea and I made a mistake…I have no better way to explain my mindset,” he said yesterday. The day after the fight, he was brought to the Cambridge police station, informed that Colono had died (which he found “extremely shocking”), and arrested. “I had a very bad headache,” he said. “I felt like I had the worst concussion I’ve ever had in my life.” When asked by Judge Saris, he said that he had had several concussions before, two from accidents and the rest from football and rugby.

The voluntary manslaughter conviction in Pring-Wilson’s first trial was overturned because of a later decision that allowed defendants to introduce evidence of the criminal history of the alleged victim. The second trial ended in a hung jury. Instead of facing a third trial, Pring-Wilson pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter. Although he had to agree to the prosecution’s statement of facts, he explained yesterday that this was not because he felt he was guilty. “I felt that our defense was the best it could get,” he explained. “My wife having basically supported both of us on her teacher’s salary, it became financially difficult for us to stay in Massachusetts.” He preferred to get everything over with and be able to return home after spending a year in prison than to incur the expenses and risk that a third trial would entail.

After the lunch break, the lawyers gave closing arguments, Mulvey arguing that Pring-Wilson had no intent to cause harm to Colono (and therefore the death was accidental) and lawyers for Fire Insurance Exchange arguing that something as slight as intending to swat someone’s arm away counts as an intent to harm, and therefore Pring-Wilson did intend to harm Colono. Pring-Wilson asked Judge Saris to “please consider the issue in light of self-defense…If you’re acting in a reasonable manner to defend yourself against somebody else…the policy applies…there’s no exclusion that applies.”

Judge Saris emphasized, “It’s a tragedy all around that this guy died…It’s a tragedy that this man’s career is derailed…It’s a little hard to blame someone.”

I’ll blog back with Judge Saris’s decision. I’m not sure how long that will take.

It looks like people in the Republican Party who are not as supportive of liberty as they should be are starting to get worried that Ron Paul might have a good chance of winning the presidential nomination. Paul won the straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference last weekend with 612 votes, compared to 382 for his nearest rival, Jon Huntsman.

Last week, showing that privatization of marriage is becoming a mainstream idea, Ann Coulter attacked Paul for supporting it…and attacked libertarians in general because they ”lure you in with talk of small government and then immediately start babbling about drug legalization or gay marriage.” Those seem like issues that supporters of small government should be talking about.

Paul is picking up support from some unlikely allies. Newt Gingrich, perhaps considered a more “mainstream” Republican candidate, now agrees with Paul’s plan to audit the Federal Reserve, even saying that the Fed “violate(s) the rule of law.” In Congress, Paul is joining forces with Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, to propose a bill ending the federal prohibition on marijuana and turning control over marijuana laws to the states. And Doug Wead, former Special Assistant to George H. W. Bush and instrumental strategist in George W. Bush’s presidential bid, has joined Paul’s campaign!

Jack Hunter writes, “The entire GOP moves closer to Paul’s politics and and away from Bush.” And as Brent Budowsky at The Hill writes, “Ron Paul has won.” I couldn’t agree more.

In one of the biggest days in Boston crime history, alleged mobster James “Whitey” Bulger and his girlfriend Catherine Greig made their initial appearances in Boston’s federal courthouse yesterday.

After a tumultuous hour which I will not go into in detail, I miraculously managed to make it into Courtroom 10 on the fifth floor just in time for the court proceedings, which began at about 4:15. Standing in the doorway, I watched Whitey, and later Catherine, as they answered questions from magistrate judges and their lawyers briefly argued.

Whitey, wearing a white sweatshirt and jeans, looked like a typical 81-year-old man. He had white, balding hair, glasses, and a beard, and he answered Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler’s questions softly and matter-of-factly. He replied, “Yes, your honor,” when asked if he understood his right against self-incrimination and responded similarly when advised of his other rights. Although he did not ask for bail, prosecutors briefly explained why they believe he is a flight risk. Represented by attorney Peter Krupp for today’s proceedings, Bulger was asked whether he would be able to afford his own lawyer. “I could if you give me my money back,” he replied.

Court recessed and Magistrate Judge Jennifer Boal replaced Bowler for Catherine Greig’s arraignment. Like Bulger, Greig entered through a door in the back of the courtroom, handcuffed and wearing a very light pink sweatshirt and black pants. Sixty years old, she had short white hair and spoke in a barely audible voice. She was advised of the same rights as Bulger, and then also asked if she wanted to waive a probable cause hearing, which she is entitled to because she was arrested on a complaint (of harboring a fugitive) instead of indicted by a grand jury. She agreed to waive it.

At 4:45 court was adjourned. Whitey and Catherine will enter pleas at their arraignments this week, which are separate from today’s initial appearances.

Outside the courthouse were more reporters, photographers, cameras, and news trucks than I have ever seen in one place before. They formed a mob outside the courthouse doors, waiting for anyone notable to some out, and set up white tents in the rain.

I am taking a break from politics and liberty tonight to give a shout out to the Stanley Cup winners, the Boston Bruins! Congratulations to all of them, especially MVP Tim Thomas. The Boston cops are making it look like a police state, but hopefully everyone will be able to truly celebrate in the streets of our great city!