House expels Henriquez

Henriquez makes his case

Henriquez makes his case to the House.

The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly today to expel convicted state Rep. Carlos Henriquez of Dorchester.

In a speech to his now former colleagues, Henriquez insisted he was innocent and never attacked the woman who claimed he did in a Zipcar.

In speeches before the vote, members of the House Ethics Committee alternated between saying a jury begged to differ but that even if they believed him, he would be unable to fulfill his duties as a representative while in his six-month sentence.

One of Henriquez's supporters, state Rep. Russell Holmes of Mattapan said he expected Henriquez to run for his seat once he is done behind bars.



Free tagging: 


Carlos the jackass

In the immortal paraphrased words of Groucho Marx, you Carlos should not care to belong to any club that would have you as a member. That includes the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

Domestic Violence Charge

Honestly think about this one. For someone to get "jailed" for six-month for a first offense DV charge...he had to do some serious damage. These liberal judges we have at the Boston Municipal Court: District Levels( Dorchester, South Boston, Roxbury, West Roxbury, Brighton, Charlestown, Boston Municipal Court (Downtown) release people all day long for major felonies. Just have tp pick up paper to observe.

About his "all-white" jury the bullshit. Grasping at straws if dropping the way overused and worn race card. Not to original there C/H...he ass is launched from Beacon Hill at this point.......albeit I am sure the sucker voters in his district will probably re-elect him any way. Is a shame really......


What serious damage was there to warrant 6 months in jail? Was the victim hospitalized? Any broken bones? Lost limbs? Paralysis?

Not guilty plea......

If he pled out,, he probably would have gotten some anger management treatment and would have paid into some victim/witness protection programs.

By not admitting fault or remorse, and having a jury find him at fault, he goes to prison.

So really punished for going to trial

By on

In a he said/she said case with no other evidence, it's possible he is innocent.

Why he did not testify is a mystery. I doubt he has prior convictions he could be impeached with. Looks like his lawyer was inexperienced and incompetent. Without his denial under oath, the jury was free to believe the complainant and they did.

Maxing him out on one count is way beyond the usual trial penalty, though. Judge Hogan is a sanctimonious grandstanding hack.

There was other evidence.

She had marks and bruises, there was a phone, and he decided not to tell his side of the story that night as well.

He didn't get the max penalty either. He could have gotten 5 years in prison for the 2 assaults, 10 years for the kidnapping, and 5 years for larceny from a person.

He probably didn't testify because he was guilty and couldn't explain his story. He was better off letting a jury hope there was some doubt in her story, rather than see a DA question him on the stand on issues like her bruises, why he had her cell phone, etc, etc.


By on

You don't get a penalty for going to trial. You get a benefit for accepting responsibility prior to trial. Every court to address this issue has approved it, including the SJC, which is one of the most defendant-friendly in the country.

It's no mystery why he didn't testify. He didn't want to be cross-examined, or have to explain why a girl from Arlington would run from his car in Roxbury in the middle of the night. His lawyer isn't inexperienced, either:

Young black men play poorly to white jurors

Perhaps Henriquez lawyer checked the stats to find testimony from young black men isn't as credible to all-white juries as young, attractive Latino women. So, its not just the cross-examination.

From what I've heard, the pair was texting each other during the day and evening. He rented a Zip car and drove from Roxbury to Arlington at a booty-call hour, for surprise, a booty call, only to learn when he got there that she wanted a committed relationship booty call, which may have not been discussed prior to him renting a car and driving over there late at night. If testifying, the prosecution could have asked Henriquez if he was upset or displeased by this.

DV Charges

Unsure of the details...BPD keeps those reports confidential for obvious reasons. By the means of you comments, am assuming that the woman who gave you birth, and any close females know have never been a victim of any type of violence. Assuming in 02474 (Arlington MA) the APD does not have to address these situations?

Really, Mark


If you say you were robbed, should we say "but I don't see any bruises".

This is goddamn 2014, not 1980. No means no. Ignoring no means jail time. Period.

That simple. Grow up. Please.

Good riddance

By on

What a piece of shit. Here's hoping he gets a taste of his own medicine in prison.

Confused about the "all white

By on

Confused about the "all white jury"..... I mean doesnt the defense have a part in jury selection. I am assuming that the jury pool in A district court in the city of Boston wasn't "all white".

"All White" Jury

The Defense counsel has the right to object or challenge certain people being allowed on to jury.....and highly doubt the entire jury pool was 100% Caucasian.

I don't think the defense attorney

By on

has the right to challenge a prospective juror soley on the basis of their race. Equality under the law and all that.

no. just no.

By on

dude. bro. no.

I know you're a troll and I shouldn't feed you, but....

Just because Obama is black doesn't mean he will stand up for all black accused criminals. Making that assumption makes you look like a ignorant bigoted nut job. I very highly doubt he would stand on Henriquez's side on this matter. you're referring to Obama's reaction to Trayvon Martin's murder. The sad fact is that we *do* live in a racist society where young black men and boys in hoodies are assumed to be dangerous and up to something bad, and they are sometimes gunned down innocently by police and vigilante asshats with serious anger management issues (at much higher rates than young white men in hoodies). Obama actually would need to worry about his son thanks to loose cannons like Zimmerman. this case is about a woman accusing a man of domestic violence, not about an unnarmed black man being accosted and killed. see the difference?

And to Vercendek and anyone else who is going to comment about being sick of people "using the race card.": no. seriously, just stop and check your privilege at the door. Fish's little comment here is a perfect example of how racism lives in our society and how a white dude will make a judgement about a black dude being criminal or supporting criminals simply based on his race. I haven't been following this case closely. I don't know much about what's going on. I highly suspect that Henriquez is guilty here. But whether or not he is guilty, we need to take a step back and recognize that an all white jury can be problematic and can lead to the punishment of innocent people. It actually happens quite frequently all over this country. It's not a race card. The problem is about the historic and current systematic oppression and demonization of people of color, particularly black men, in this country. There's a lack of understanding of racism because so many people believe it to be about hate, but it's not. It's about subtle and engrained prejudices that most people aren't even aware of. Here's some light reading on the topic of race and all-white juries for your enlightenment:

Agreed Zimmerman is a bad bad

By on

Agreed Zimmerman is a bad bad man. Also feel carlos is a bad bad man. In some fantasy land he may be innocent and I hope none of his democratic liberal followers try claiming the victim was a liar and a fraud. I wish he was white so no one had an excuse to play race card. White wanna be politicians are crooks and felons too.

Well, that makes sense

> makes you look like a ignorant bigoted nut job

Since virtually his entire posting history points towards the same characterization...

Good to know that being PC on

By on

Good to know that being PC on race trumps being PC on misogyny. Beat all the women you like and then blame it on whitey.


By on

seriously? that's what you took from my post? do you know how to put words together to create thoughts and larger ideas? no, clearly not. or are you just a fan of off-topic hyperbole?

I didn't say it's ok to beat women if you're a certain race. I didn't say it's ok to beat women at all. and I actually said that I think he's guilty.

what I said is this: people who are guilty or committing crimes should be punished. people who are innocent and falsely accused of committing crimes should not be unfairly punished. Racism should not be allowed to play a part in the fair trial of an accused person, but, unfortunately, it frequently is, and it's a problem the justice system needs to solve. that is all.

I find nothing in the

By on

I find nothing in the language or history of the House ethics rules to support the legislature's judgment. The legislature simply fashions and announces a new power to expel a member, and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that power with sufficient substance to override existing House rules. As an exercise of raw power, the legislature perhaps has authority to do what it did today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power that the ethics rules extend to this legislature.

Didn't you read

what Carlos said. He is the victim. Many DVA "victims' are the men who are preyed upon by women who thrust their faces into the victims fists and force the victims to perform the Heimlich maneuver on their necks.

Victim of aspiring ADAs

Both parties in a DVA case are victims of those seeking career advancement: the assistant district attorneys wanting bigger and more convictions, police departments wanting more and bigger convictions (and forgiveness for failing in the Jared Remy case), and all those in the business of counseling victims and abusers. They will bully victims into getting criminal charges filed in order to expand their programs and further careers. Its a great business to be in when nobody in politics wants a reputation of favoring wife beaters. Justice and civil rights too become victims.

This is Nuts

By on

Do you have any idea how hard it is to prosecute a DV case? How many reasons there are for a victim to recant, to not take police/prosecutor calls, to accept some humiliation and give up rather than face the total upheaval of their lives by testifying? Especially when the abuser is a politician with a large, vocal, team of hypocrite supporters to make excuses for him and demonize her? Do you think there is any money "in the business of counseling victims"? Most DAs would be grateful for the chance to plead this one out.