|
Guest
|
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/
03/wilkerson_attorney_calls_for_case_dismissal/
Citing “inflammatory’’ media coverage of her arrest on
corruption charges, “outrageous’’ behavior of federal
prosecutors, and potential under-representation of minorities on
a jury, the attorney for former state senator Dianne Wilkerson
called yesterday for either a dismissal of charges or a change
of venue for her impending trial.
In a motion and 10-page accompanying memorandum filed in the US
District Court of Massachusetts, attorney Max Stern castigated
the US attorney’s office and reporters and charged them with
branding Wilkerson, a Roxbury Democrat, as guilty before a grand
jury had indicted her on Nov. 18, 2008, on bribery charges in
connection with the use of her office.
Wilkerson was arrested three weeks before the indictment.
“Under these circumstances, the indictment must be dismissed,’’
Stern wrote. “In the alternative, because Ms. Wilkerson cannot
possibly receive a fair trial in Massachusetts in the wake of
such unprecedented prejudicial pretrial publicity, a change of
venue must be granted.’’
Stern also filed a separate motion to sever Wilkerson’s case
from that of Councilor Chuck Turner’s because “they are not
alleged to have participated in the same series of acts or
transactions which constitute an offense or offenses.’’
Both Wilkerson and Turner, who has been charged with accepting a
$1,000 bribe and making false statements to the FBI, have
pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Stern could not be reached for comment yesterday evening. In an
e-mail, a spokeswoman for the US Attorney’s office declined to
comment “as it is an ongoing investigation.’’
The trial is scheduled to start in early spring 2010.
In arguing for moving the trial, Stern said statistics show that
African-Americans are underrepresented in jury panels in the
Eastern District of Massachusetts.
“Given that a black defendant is already at a distinct
disadvantage in this district when it comes to the make-up of
her jury, heaping additional prejudicial factors on her nearly
guarantees that she will not be able to get a fair trial,’’ he
wrote.
Stern also slammed the FBI affidavit that the US attorney’s
office immediately released after Wilkerson’s “dramatic and
unnecessary’’ arrest on Oct. 28, 2008, which came a week before
voters in the Second Suffolk District headed to the polls for a
face-off between Wilkerson and Sonia Chang-Diaz, who won the
seat.
Stern pointed to the case of former Providence mayor Vincent
“Buddy’’ Cianci, who was convicted on racketeering charges. In
that case, the court ruled that the release of a detailed
affidavit could risk “prejudicing the defendants’ rights to a
fair trial,’’ he wrote.
“That is, of course, precisely what has already occurred here,
and it has occurred because of the outrageous, calculated,
manipulative actions of the government, actions that violated
Ms. Wilkerson’s due process rights. For this reason, the
indictment should be dismissed.’’
The release of the affidavit and photographs of Wilkerson
allegedly accepting the bribes “compounded the taint created by
the arrest’’ and “set forth in excruciating detail the contents
of the audio and videotaped meetings between Ms. Wilkerson and
the government’s confidential source, providing the public with
a sensational, blow-by-blow description of the alleged crimes,’’
he wrote.
The affidavit also unnecessarily included Wilkerson’s record of
campaign finance violations, prior federal conviction for
failing to file tax returns, and a probation violation, he said. |
|
|
