A federal appeals court ordered the judge presiding over James “Whitey” Bulger’s murder and racketeering case to step aside Thursday because of his ties to the US Justice Department, raising concerns that the gangster’s long anticipated June trial will be delayed.
In a ruling that marked a major victory for Bulger, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that Judge Richard G. Stearns should not preside over the trial because he was a top prosecutor in the US attorney’s office in the 1980s, when Bulger claims that another prosecutor promised him immunity for his alleged crimes, including murder.
Comments
Only Judge Stearns is to blame if there is a delay in the trial. His conflict of interest was clear from the outset--as was his inevitable removal. I guess he had a case of Judgelanceitoitis.
Few things make me feel as proud of my country as when the system affords a truly fair trial to even its most dispicable miscreants.
There is serious doubt that Whitey Bulger will ever go to trial. And Judge Richard Stearns has played a large part in the delay. The next Judge will need time to catch up. If he or she doesn't take what Whitey deems to be an appropriate time, future motions will be filed. Oh, and Catherine Greig's twin sister will write a tell all book about her sister's life story in an end run around The Son of Sam Law. Paraphrasing Charlie Sheen, Whitey - Catherine..."Winning!!!"
Makes me wonder if Stearns refusal to recuse himself was part of a governement plan to delay trial until Whitey dies in prison. Expect the gov to appeal this decision.
I think that the govenment would not like to hear what Whitey has to say about malfeasance of office.
I think that the govenment would not like to hear what Whitey has to say about malfeasance of office.
Justice Souter may have ruled correctly, that Judge Stearns has a definite appearance of conflict of interest. But J.W. Carney is the one driving this case thusfar, regrettably. His nonsensical claims that Whitey had immunity for murder ffrom some federal official (living or dead really doesn't matter), and then whipping out Whitey Bulger's claim that he was never an informant. Come on . . . this case is turning into a continuation of the same scenario that had Whitey and his FBI buddy from Southie doing a jig over various issues, including murder and bribery.
The only thing J.W. Carney can be blamed for is doing his best for his client.
You spend so much time commenting on nearly every story that I keep expecting you to eventually say something worth reading. So far you get an F.
Major win? Really? Bulger stays in jail while the case awaits trial. Different judge. Big deal. It will be a jury that ultimately decides the case.
Don't count on it.
If you follow a lot of trials, as I have a hobby of doing, you understand that a primary defense tactic is to delay the trial. To that end the defense files a number of motions, many of which fail, but the judge has to consider and rule on each one. Occasionally one of the motions sticks and causes a major delay, as this one will. Filing the motions is nothing sinister. It's merely defense attorneys doing their best for their client, as they should.
Other current examples of that tactic are the trials of George Zimmerman and of Rockefeller impersonator Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter.
I have to wonder if it is a penny-wise but pound-foolish approach. Defense wins for now because they don't want Stearns as a judge, but bring in a new judge and they won't be able to appeal a conviction with the claim that somehow the judge was compromised by a conflict of interest. In cases where the defendant (e.g. Zimmerman of diMasi) is not incarcerated pending trial I can see the value in delay. In Bulger's case it keeps him behind bars, as there is no way his team can convince anyone he isn't a flight risk. Perhaps he thinks he is safer where he is. Perhaps he feels he can outlive the evidence.
I'm no lawyer and legal precedents vary between jurisdictions, but it's almost impossible to appeal on grounds known at the time of the original trial if the defense doesn't protest at that time. It might have been better if this motion had been denied so it could be brought up on appeal, but it had to be brought up now, or never.
There are a lot of reasons the defense commonly seeks delays. Often things change if delays are significant. Memories may change, parties may die, or have a stroke. Or the prosecution may become weary and offer an acceptable plea deal. Those don't seem to be good reasons in this case, but I'm not privy to the thinking of Bulger or his defense team. :-)
How appropriate it is that Bulger's attorney's name is Carney. He has turned this trialminto a carnival.
You mispeled the word. You mean carneyville.
This is such a lawyer/judge charade.
Anyone with common sense of how the "justice" system works knows there will be no trial based on the law, the facts and the evidence, which is in plain sight.
Does anyone believe that the FBI beneficiaries and the DOJ beneficiaries want Mr. Bulger to testify?
Does the public know and/or believe that Mr. Bulger received an immunity deal because the plain evidence proves it?
If it's not called "immunity," what is it?
dougkinan@yahoo.com
The value of the delay is that if Whitey dies before trial, some very powerful people will not lose their jobs due to his testimony.
I think it is better the issue is resolved now rather than having him convicted and then he wins an appeal for a new trial......His Lawyer is bound by law to do his best for him so anyone blaming the lawyer has rocks in their head.
The Judge should never have taken the case from the beginning.
I disgree that the case will be delayed. I'm following the blog whiteybulgerontrial that seems to have a great grasp on these matters. I like the comments by people who are interested in the every day occurences and the challenges that go back and forth. It has predicted exactly what has happened in this case as if the guy had a chrystal ball. In a comment today he says there will be no delay. I agree. There's little to catch up with that a good judge won't be able to figure out in a couple of weeks. The blogger suggests in a comment that the court will pick Judge Young.
Sterns should have never been assigned the case in the first place. Once his name came up in the rotation he she should hathere used himself. Which would lead "a reasonable person" to conclude that something was not on the up and up. Bulger has the least to loose if this case goes to trial. It's the integrity of the Justice Department that is on trail here,what's left of it here in Boston.