April 28, 2016

Catherine Greig sentenced to 21 months for contempt

Filed under: law & crime by Victoria Liberty @ 10:51 pm

Catherine Greig, girlfriend of James “Whitey” Bulger, was sentenced to 21 months in prison today for refusing to testify before a grand jury. Greig had pleaded guilty to a criminal contempt of court charge a couple of months ago. She will serve the 21 months in addition to the 8-year sentence that she is currently serving for helping Bulger while the two were on the lam.

Greig, age 65, appeared in court at 3:00, looking pale and thin, with close-cropped white hair and a baggy blue prison jumpsuit. She nodded to her twin sister, Margaret McCusker, who was watching from the gallery. She exchanged some friendly words and smiles with her attorney, Kevin Reddington, before court was called into session.

The only words Greig spoke during the court proceeding were “yes, it is” when Judge Dennis Saylor asked if it was true that she had gone over the pre-sentencing report prepared by the probation department.

Judge Saylor told the court that at least one Bulger victim, Steve Davis, wished to speak at the sentencing hearing. However, he did not allow Davis an opportunity to speak, citing the lack of notice to the defendant and the fact that Davis has already gotten to speak out at other court proceedings related to Greig and Bulger.

As Judge Saylor explained to the court, criminal contempt has no minimum or maximum sentence. He emphasized that Greig’s current offense – refusing to testify before a grand jury from 2014 to 2015 – is separate from the offense of harboring Bulger from 1995 to 2011, to which Greig pleaded guilty in 2012. Greig refused to tell the grand jury about whether she and Bulger received help from anyone else while on the run.

The judge spent many minutes figuring out Greig’s criminal history score and offense level in order to calculate the recommended sentence according to the federal guidelines. This included a lengthy debate with the attorneys for both sides about whether the underlying offense for the contempt charge was Bulger’s crimes of RICO/murder, or the hypothetical crimes of the hypothetical, unknown person(s) who may have aided Bulger and Greig. Reddington called it “Kafka-esque” for the court to be debating sentencing his client for covering up for hypothetical people who might not even exist. Judge Saylor decided that the guidelines sentencing range for Greig would be 30-37 months in prison, along with 2-5 years of probation and a fine of $10,000-$95,000.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Murrane addressed the judge to argue for a sentence of 37 months, to be served consecutively to Greig’s current sentence. As Bulger’s constant companion while on the lam, Greig is in an excellent position to shed light on his daily activities and whether anyone helped him, Murrane said, but she has deliberately refused to do so. “The defendant has been consistent, dogged, and tireless in her determination to obstruct justice,” she said. Murrane pointed out that Greig made her decision after careful consideration, having requested and been granted a week to make up her mind during the grand jury proceedings. Although Greig has accepted responsibility by pleading guilty, “she has not accepted that this choice was a wrong one.” Greig’s “unapologetic defiance” argues in favor of a harsh sentence, Murrane said. She also pointed out the number of journalists and other observers in the courtroom, illustrating the need to send a harsh message to the public about what happens when someone defies the court’s authority.

Greig’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, argued for leniency, saying that at Greig’s age, a 6-month sentence would be adequate. “I’ve come to know Catherine over the years, not only as a client but as a friend,” Reddington said. He called it “repulsive” that there are corrupt FBI agents out there who have not been charged and are still collecting pensions, and that John Martorano, Bulger’s henchman who committed 19 murders, only served 12 years. One of the first things that Greig told Reddington when he was appointed her lawyer was that she was not interested in making money off of her association with Bulger, as Martorano and others have done. “I would not write a book, I would not make a movie, I’m not interested in that,” Greig reportedly told him. “My relationship with James Bulger is one of love.” Reddington called “contempt” a strange word choice, saying “I could not think of a woman with mor respect for the court, more respect for people.”

Judge Saylor asked if Greig would like to address the court. She looked to Reddington, who told the judge that Greig has great respect for the court but declines to make a statement.

Then Judge Saylor explained all of the different considerations that he took into account in determining Greig’s sentence, and finally announced the sentence. He was not, he said, attempting to coerce Greig into testifying, as she has steadfastly refused to do so even when given the opportunity to change course.

“Ms. Greig is unusual, to say the least,” Saylor said. An intelligent, college-educated woman, soft-spoken and kind to animals, Greig grew up in a normal, working-class family. She does not have any learning disabilities or mental health issues and was not under any type of threat or danger when she refused to testify. “She is an intelligent, adult woman making what appears to be a very deliberate choice,” he said. She committed her crime “deliberately and unapologetically.”

As for the argument that Greig is guilty only of being in love with Bulger, Saylor said, “It is hard to imagine a less worthy object of love and affection than Bulger.” It’s possible, even likely, that Greig did not know the extent of Bulger’s crimes while living with him on the lam, Saylor pointed out, but she certainly does now. “History will remember Bulger as a monster,” he said, “and if she chooses to be loyal to such a person, that’s her affair, but I don’t have to respect that loyalty.” Saylor also addressed the possibility that Greig could be standing up not just for Bulger as a person but for the idea of being a “stand up guy” (or gal), an idea that Saylor called a “twisted version of loyalty” and a “dangerous and corrosive principle” that only helps criminals.

“Ms. Greig is not remorseful,” Judge Saylor said. “She is not apologetic, she is not contrite, she has not expressed regret or sorrow for her actions, she has not distanced herself from Mr. Bulger. She is, in her own quiet way, defiant and unapologetic… I suspect that if she were put in the grand jury tomorrow she would do the same thing.”

Judge Saylor announced that he was sentencing Greig to 21 months in prison on top of what she is already serving, right in between what was recommended by the government and what was recommended by the defense. He had her stand for formal imposition of the sentence. Greig listened, stone-faced and emotionless, occasionally nodding slightly in acknowledgement as Judge Saylor read the sentence and the supervised release conditions Greig will be under when she is eventually released from prison. At about 4:15, court was adjourned. After a pat on the back from Reddington, Greig was handcuffed and led away.

June 25, 2015

Tsarnaev and victims speak out

Filed under: law & crime by Victoria Liberty @ 12:08 am

The trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has officially came to a close. At today’s sentencing hearing, the verdict of death that the jury delivered last month became official. Victims, survivors, the government, and the judge shared how they feel about Tsarnaev and his crimes, and Tsarnaev himself spoke his mind at long last.

The hearing began at 9:45 in a packed Courtroom 9 at the Moakley Federal Courthouse. Tsarnaev didn’t look much different more than a month since he’s last been seen in public. He sported a gray button-down shirt, black suit, and his usual wild, curly black hair and beard. At the defense table with him were attorneys Miriam Conrad to his right, and Judy Clarke and David Bruck to his left. As usual, he chatted with his attorneys before proceedings began, clasped his hands on the table before him, and fiddled with his collar and his hair.

Continue reading…

May 16, 2015

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sentenced to death

Filed under: law & crime by Victoria Liberty @ 1:12 am

The Boston Marathon bombing trial came to an end today as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became one of the few people ever to be sentenced to death in a Massachusetts courtroom. I was able to witness the reading of the verdict firsthand, and it was an intense, dramatic, and historic moment.

I got to the Moakley federal courthouse in the morning to put my name on the sign-in sheet. Court was very briefly called into session at 8:30. Tsarnaev, wearing a black suit and gray shirt, was very animated while chatting with defense attorneys Judy Clarke and Miriam Conrad. He even glanced back towards the gallery, something I’ve never seen him do before, perhaps to see how many spectators were in court. After Judge George O’Toole noted that the jurors were all present, they were promptly dismissed to get back to work on deliberations.

Nothing happened until, at 2:37, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced that a verdict had been reached. Journalists, members of the trial teams, victims, law enforcement officials, and spectators raced to Courtroom 9, and court was reconvened at 3:00. The court clerk warned everyone in the packed, silent courtroom that no demonstrations or outbursts would be allowed, and that anyone who does this will be held in contempt of court. Tsarnaev was led into court by U.S. Marshals, looking the same as he usually does, gazing at the floor and betraying no emotion. At the defense table, Clarke placed her hand reassuringly on the back of his chair and said a few words to him. Unlike this morning, when they engaged in lighthearted chatter while waiting for court to begin, Tsarnaev and his defense team seemed subdued.

Everyone stood as the judge and jury entered the room. As the verdict was read, the jury and the defense team – Tsarnaev, Clarke, Conrad, David Bruck, Tim Watkins, and Bill Fick – remained standing. The court clerk collected the verdict slip from the forewoman and gave it to Judge O’Toole, who reviewed and OK’d it.

I will not go over all of the answers that the jurors gave on the 20-page verdict slip, as this information has been reported elsewhere countless times. The clerk began with the finding that Tsarnaev was at least 18 years old at the time of the crime and that the four gateway factors applied. With respect to the statutory and non-statutory aggravating factors alleged by the government, the jurors unanimously found that all of these but one applied. For example, the jurors found that the crimes were committed in an “especially heinous, cruel, and depraved manner,” that he demonstrated a lack of remorse, and that he participated in additional, uncharged crimes of violence during the Watertown shootout. The one aggravating factor that they did not find unanimously was that Tsarnaev suggested that others would be justified in committing similar acts of terrorism. With respect to the mitigating factors, the jurors overall did not seem impressed with the defense team’s case. Only three jurors agreed that Dzhokhar acted under the influence of his brother Tamerlan, that he was “particularly susceptible” to Tamerlan’s influence, that Tamerlan “planned, led, and directed” the bombing, and that Dzhokhar would not have committed the bombing if it weren’t for Tamerlan. Only two jurors found that Tamerlan was the person who shot Officer Sean Collier, only two found that he has “expressed sorrow and remorse,” and only one juror found that Tsarnaev was “highly unlikely” to commit or incite acts of violence in the future.

The full Verdict Slip can be found here.

As the verdict was read, Tsarnaev exhibited much the same demeanor that he has every day in court. He shifted from side to side, occasionally touched his face, adjusted his suit, and fixed his hair. He looked downwards for most of the time, but seemed to look towards the jury and to grow more still as the reading of the verdict went on.

The clerk asked the foreperson if the verdict was correct, and she replied, “Yes, it is.” He then asked the jurors as a whole, and they replied, “yes.” As Judge O’Toole began to thank the jurors, defense attorney Bruck interrupted to ask that the jurors be polled individually. The judge obliged, and each of the jurors responded in the affirmative.

Then Judge O’Toole thanked the jurors on behalf of the court and their fellow citizens. He praised them for their “careful, rational, and solemn judgments” in the face of the emotional subject matter, and for bearing the inconvenience of jury service with “grace and understanding.” He told them that they should be proud of their service. He warned them that their names, towns, and juror questionnaires will eventually be made public, and he spoke of the dangers of publicly discussing their deliberations, although he cannot prohibit them from doing so. Judge O’Toole praised the lawyers as well, saying that they have behaved civilly and that “their advocacy has been both zealous and skillful.” He even praised Tsarnaev, saying that the defendant “comported himself with composure and propriety” throughout the trial. Finally, he praised the members of the public for their “respectful presence,” whether they have attended for themselves, for someone else, or to share information with the world.

At about 3:40, Tsarnaev was led from the courtroom. His five lawyers drifted towards the door that he was led through, possibly to meet with him after court. The defense team members sitting in the three benches in front of me in the gallery appeared noticeably upset. Finally, everyone stood for the jury one last time and somberly filed out of the courtroom.

With this verdict, Tsarnaev joins Gary Sampson as one of the only two people from Massachusetts currently under a sentence of death. The death penalty is not an option in Massachusetts state court. Tsarnaev will officially be sentenced at a sentencing hearing at a date to be determined.

May 13, 2015

Tsarnaev trial: Closing arguments wrap up and deliberations begin

Filed under: law & crime by Victoria Liberty @ 11:51 pm

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s fate is now in the hands of the jury. It was an intense day in court with dramatic closing arguments and lengthy instructions from the judge before jurors began their deliberations over whether to sentence the convicted Boston Marathon bomber to life in prison or the death penalty.

The atmosphere was tense in Courtroom 9 before the day began. All the benches in the gallery were packed with victims, lawyers, law enforcement officials, spectators, and journalists with laptops and notepads at the ready. As usual, Tsarnaev was led into the courtroom, looking towards the floor, and took his seat at the defense table, where he chatted with lawyers Judy Clarke and Miriam Conrad. He sported his usual longish curly hair, beard, and black suit, this time with a light blue shirt.

Continue reading…

May 7, 2015

Tsarnaev trial: An abbreviated day in court

Filed under: law & crime by Victoria Liberty @ 11:57 pm

For the past two weeks, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s defense team has called a variety of witnesses to the stand in an attempt to spare him from the death penalty. These have included acquaintances who witnessed elder brother Tamerlan’s angry and overbearing personality, relatives who recalled how kind and sensitive Dzhokhar was as a child, teachers and fellow students who described Dzhokhar’s charming and easygoing nature as a child and teen, paramedics who treated Dzhokhar and Tamerlan after the Watertown shootout, experts in Chechen culture and brain development, and even a U.S. Marshal who saw Dzhokhar flip the bird at a holding cell surveillance camera before his arraignment.

Today was a disappointing day in court, as we only got to hear from one witness before the day devolved into seemingly endless closed-door conferences and court was eventually dismissed early. However, I will give a recap of the brief testimony that I was able to hear.

Continue reading…

May 6, 2015

Robert Fitzpatrick indictment is bullying, not justice

Filed under: law & crime by Victoria Liberty @ 10:29 pm

Last Thursday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Robert Fitzpatrick, retired FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge, was indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The charges stem from Fitzpatrick’s testimony in the Whitey Bulger trial two years ago. Fitzpatrick testified for the defense, claiming that he had been sent from the FBI’s Washington, DC headquarters to help clean up corruption in the agency’s Boston office, that he had met with Bulger and Bulger had told him he was not an informant, and that he had therefore advocated for Bulger to be officially “closed out” (not considered an informant anymore). The government now alleges that these things weren’t true, and that Fitzpatrick exaggerated about his background, including claiming that he found the gun used to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. and that he personally arrested mafia boss Gerry Angiulo.

Bulger’s defense attorney, Hank Brennan, gave an eloquent and brave speech after Fitzpatrick’s arraignment:

“What was it about Robert Fitzpatrick that led the federal government to want to use their resources to charge him with perjury? Was it because somehow they didn’t like his story? That somehow he was adverse to the government, that he stood up to the mountain of strength of the federal government and defied them? It doesn’t matter if the witness lies, steals, or murders, if you’re a soldier of the federal government, they’ll wrap their arms around you and embrace you. You’ll be their friend, they’ll protect you and reward you. If you defy them, they’ll crush you. What it does is it sends a resounding message to law enforcement who want to come forward… it chills their opportunity to come forward.”


It’s hard to say it any better than Brennan did. Regardless of whether all the details of Fitzpatrick’s testimony were true, the decision to indict him on federal charges is a perfect example of piling on and bullying. Why would the government go through the effort and expense of indicting someone for testifying on behalf of a defense team that was simply doing the best it could to defend one of Boston’s most notorious criminals? Bulger was found guilty of 11 murders and sentenced to two consecutive life terms in prison, so it’s not as if Fitzpatrick’s alleged lies resulted in him being wrongfully set free. The decision to indict Fitzpatrick seems even more ridiculous when one considers the deals that the government made with Bulger’s former gang comrades who agreed to testify against him, including Stephen Flemmi, Kevin Weeks, and John Martorano, who served only 12 years in prison despite committing 20 murders. Out of all the witnesses who have ever lied on the stand in the history of federal court, the U.S. Attorney’s Office chose to indict Fitzpatrick. This is a perfect example of selective prosecution. In an age in which the average person, according to attorney Harvey Silverglate, commits three felonies a day, the government cannot possibly prosecute everyone who breaks the law, so it has the responsibility to make prosecution decisions fairly. The indictment of Fitzpatrick is less about justice and more about silencing those who dare to voice unpopular views.

April 28, 2015

Tsarnaev trial: the defense case begins

Filed under: law & crime by Victoria Liberty @ 1:20 am

Today, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s defense team began their effort to save the convicted Boston Marathon bomber from the death penalty. It was the first day of the defense’s case in the penalty phase of the trial, beginning with the opening statement and continuing with testimony from several witnesses who attempted to shift blame for the bombings to Dzhokhar’s older brother, Tamerlan.

As usual, the day began with an hour-long closed door meeting between the lawyers and judge. A group of Tsarnaev’s relatives have arrived in the country over the weekend, possibly to testify on his behalf, but none appeared to be in the courtroom today. When Tsarnaev was brought into the courtroom, there was no noticeable change in his demeanor for this new phase in the trial. He nodded and whispered with attorneys Miriam Conrad and Judy Clarke, adjusted his collar, stroked his chin, and fiddled with notebooks on the table. As attorney David Bruck gave his opening statement, Tsarnaev sat still, not looking at him and not appearing to pay attention.

Continue reading…

Next Page