Three federal
trials end in acquittals for clients
In December 2005, Nardizzi & Associates completed the defense investigation in the last of a trilogy of federal trials involving clients since mid-2003. In each case, our client was acquitted after the investigation exposed major factual flaws in the testimony of government witnesses.
Two cases were some of the largest RICO cases brought in Boston, with defendants and lawyers forced to sit in impromptu desk arrangements in the crowded courtroom. The federal cases generated considerable controversy in the community. In the end, juries agreed with the defense, acquitting 3 out of 6 defendants of almost all charges in one case, and acquitting the 3 other defendants of various charges as well. [USA v. Monteiro, Campbell et al.] Two other cases resulted in either acquittals, or charges being dropped. [USA. v. Green, Washington, et al.] The defense investigation exposed serious flaws in the prosecution's case. The defense investigators discovered inconsistent prior statements by cooperating witnesses, and damaging background information on the government's own witnesses.
The cases had their backdrop in a series of shootings in the Cape Verdean community. Chief Judge Lynch of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit summarized:
“In the early 1990s, Augusto "Gus" Lopes, his younger brother Nardo Lopes, and Bobby Mendes belonged to a group whose activities centered around Wendover Street in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston. In 1995, Nardo Lopes was charged with the murder of Mendes and fled Boston. Gus Lopes, who was in prison at the time of the killing, vowed to eliminate any potential witnesses to his brother's crime and to exact revenge on members of the Wendover group who remained sympathetic to Mendes and who harassed Lopes's relatives.”
The Boston Phoenix covered the decision to use federal resources to combat local crime:
[Federal tactics] also produce bad information, critics charge. "They’re creating a whole generation of desperate people who will say desperate things," says Stephanie Page, an attorney with the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the Massachusetts public-defender office. Desperate people also make for less-than-believable witnesses, as US attorneys have learned in the case of Brima Wurie, one of the death-eligible defendants currently under prosecution in the state. A key witnesses against Wurie is Augusto Lopes, who is cooperating with the US attorneys in exchange for a potentially reduced sentence. As part of that deal, Lopes also testified against Wurie on a separate federal charge last month. In that case, after defense attorney Norman Zalkind had Lopes recount the many shootings for which he has been granted immunity, the jury took an hour and a half to acquit Wurie.
In addition to its sometimes questionable legal merits, federalization involves real dollar costs. Federal trials tend to be longer and considerably more expensive — a recent federal case that would have been a one-week trial in state court lasted 90 days, says Boston defense attorney Robert Sheketoff. Longer prison sentences also come at high cost to taxpayers.
Furthermore, many believe that the pursuit of street crime distracts US attorneys from prosecuting high-level crimes more appropriate for federal court. In February, Judge Wolf took the unusual move of publicly complaining about the number of street-crime cases clogging up the federal court, and suggested that Sullivan concentrate on more serious cases. Sullivan blasted back at Wolf in the press, at which point two of Wolf’s benchmates, Young and Rya W. Zobel, jumped to his defense. (Wolf declined to comment for this story.) "The mix of cases with which we work has been, since Donald Stern and continuing with Michael Sullivan, moving to these kinds of drug and gun cases," Young says. "The judges expect to see sophisticated prosecutions," says Sheketoff. "They see Mickey Mouse nonsense that could be handled in state court. It must be frustrating." (Young, it seems, has had enough of these cases. This week, considering decades-long prison terms for five drug dealers, the judge issued a 174-page declamation against the federal sentencing guidelines. In it, he describes prosecutorial methods that "exceed all constitutional bounds," involve "repeated instances of illegal fact bargaining," evince "a moral code more suited to the alleys of Baghdad than the streets of Boston," and reveal "such callous indifference to innocent human life as would gag any fair-minded observer.")
Perhaps more important is a concern raised last fall by Suffolk County district attorney Dan Conley. Conley spoke publicly against the decision to prosecute Green and Morris in federal court, especially in light of the decision to seek the death penalty. He warned that it could damage partnerships between law enforcement and community groups, making it harder to prevent and prosecute crime.
In December 2005, Nardizzi & Associates completed the defense investigation in the last of a trilogy of federal trials involving clients since mid-2003. In each case, our client was acquitted after the investigation exposed major factual flaws in the testimony of government witnesses.
Two cases were some of the largest RICO cases brought in Boston, with defendants and lawyers forced to sit in impromptu desk arrangements in the crowded courtroom. The federal cases generated considerable controversy in the community. In the end, juries agreed with the defense, acquitting 3 out of 6 defendants of almost all charges in one case, and acquitting the 3 other defendants of various charges as well. [USA v. Monteiro, Campbell et al.] Two other cases resulted in either acquittals, or charges being dropped. [USA. v. Green, Washington, et al.] The defense investigation exposed serious flaws in the prosecution's case. The defense investigators discovered inconsistent prior statements by cooperating witnesses, and damaging background information on the government's own witnesses.
The cases had their backdrop in a series of shootings in the Cape Verdean community. Chief Judge Lynch of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit summarized:
“In the early 1990s, Augusto "Gus" Lopes, his younger brother Nardo Lopes, and Bobby Mendes belonged to a group whose activities centered around Wendover Street in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston. In 1995, Nardo Lopes was charged with the murder of Mendes and fled Boston. Gus Lopes, who was in prison at the time of the killing, vowed to eliminate any potential witnesses to his brother's crime and to exact revenge on members of the Wendover group who remained sympathetic to Mendes and who harassed Lopes's relatives.”
The Boston Phoenix covered the decision to use federal resources to combat local crime:
[Federal tactics] also produce bad information, critics charge. "They’re creating a whole generation of desperate people who will say desperate things," says Stephanie Page, an attorney with the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the Massachusetts public-defender office. Desperate people also make for less-than-believable witnesses, as US attorneys have learned in the case of Brima Wurie, one of the death-eligible defendants currently under prosecution in the state. A key witnesses against Wurie is Augusto Lopes, who is cooperating with the US attorneys in exchange for a potentially reduced sentence. As part of that deal, Lopes also testified against Wurie on a separate federal charge last month. In that case, after defense attorney Norman Zalkind had Lopes recount the many shootings for which he has been granted immunity, the jury took an hour and a half to acquit Wurie.
In addition to its sometimes questionable legal merits, federalization involves real dollar costs. Federal trials tend to be longer and considerably more expensive — a recent federal case that would have been a one-week trial in state court lasted 90 days, says Boston defense attorney Robert Sheketoff. Longer prison sentences also come at high cost to taxpayers.
Furthermore, many believe that the pursuit of street crime distracts US attorneys from prosecuting high-level crimes more appropriate for federal court. In February, Judge Wolf took the unusual move of publicly complaining about the number of street-crime cases clogging up the federal court, and suggested that Sullivan concentrate on more serious cases. Sullivan blasted back at Wolf in the press, at which point two of Wolf’s benchmates, Young and Rya W. Zobel, jumped to his defense. (Wolf declined to comment for this story.) "The mix of cases with which we work has been, since Donald Stern and continuing with Michael Sullivan, moving to these kinds of drug and gun cases," Young says. "The judges expect to see sophisticated prosecutions," says Sheketoff. "They see Mickey Mouse nonsense that could be handled in state court. It must be frustrating." (Young, it seems, has had enough of these cases. This week, considering decades-long prison terms for five drug dealers, the judge issued a 174-page declamation against the federal sentencing guidelines. In it, he describes prosecutorial methods that "exceed all constitutional bounds," involve "repeated instances of illegal fact bargaining," evince "a moral code more suited to the alleys of Baghdad than the streets of Boston," and reveal "such callous indifference to innocent human life as would gag any fair-minded observer.")
Perhaps more important is a concern raised last fall by Suffolk County district attorney Dan Conley. Conley spoke publicly against the decision to prosecute Green and Morris in federal court, especially in light of the decision to seek the death penalty. He warned that it could damage partnerships between law enforcement and community groups, making it harder to prevent and prosecute crime.
* * *