J.W. Carney is Whitey Bulger’s new lawyer
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.