Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court: Judge shouldn't have just dismissed drug charges against woman when even her own lawyer wasn't asking for that
By adamg on Thu, 03/19/2015 - 11:13am
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today a Boston Municipal Court judge erred when he dismissed drug-dealing charges after a prosecutor couldn't say when a backlogged state lab would have results back on the pills allegedly found on her.
The ruling means that Laura Butler will once again have to face charges of dealing prescription drugs in the Haymarket area in 2012.
At a pre-trial conference in the case, Judge Raymond Dougan had ordered the charges dismissed after an assistant Suffolk County District Attorney was unable to give a date for when a state lab in Sudbury would be able to report on the contents of the pills Boston police officers allegedly seized from her. The lab was backlogged due to the shutdown of the main state drug-testing lab in Jamaica Plain in the Annie Dookhan scandal.
At the conference, Butler's lawyer did ask for for dismissal of charges related to drug distribution in a school zone, but because Butler had, he said, been drug free for 8 1/2 months and that he felt he could work out a plea deal with the prosecutor in the case on the remaining charges, according to today's ruling.
The appeals court noted the lawyer did not seek dismissal of all the charges because of the delay in getting the pills tested, but continued that when the assistant DA said he did not have a date for when the results would come back, Dougan simply dismissed all the charges with no explanation.
A bit too hasty, there, the appeals court ruled. Given that even the defendant's own lawyer wasn't asking for anything based on the testing delay, Dougan shouldn't have acted on his own to just dismiss the charges - at least not without some detailed explanation to justify his decision, the court said.
For example, he could have ordered a break in the proceedings and directed that the prosecutor call the Sudbury laboratory to determine the precise status of the certificate and also to set a firm date for its delivery as well as a firm trial date. In short, confined in our review to the spare record here, and though appreciating the concern of the busy judge to move his docket, we are left to conclude that the dismissal, which the defendant did not seek, "falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives ... " and was thus an abuse of discretion.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete ruling, Commonwealth vs. Laura Butler | 66.94 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Too bad the Appeals Court
can't now order the dismissal of Judge Dougan.
The judge's actions are not that unreasonable
You are familiar with the sixth amendment, yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Consti...
Beyond the right to a speedy trial, this sort of action by the judge put a lot of pressure on the idiots who were responsible for the drug lab fiasco.
Of course, you would prefer guilty until proven innocent as a convenient way to dispatch these things, right?
Yep, but it's like the doomsday device in Dr. Strangelove
Doesn't do any good if nobody brings it up. This didn't even rise to a Sixth Amendment issue because even the woman's own lawyer wasn't raising the speedy-trial issue; if anything, he seemed willing to wait for the results of the pill tests to come back, at least according to the ruling.
No. But I would prefer
that judges be required to provide actual explainations for their decisions, instead of the "because I'm a judge" attitude that is all too prevelant these days.
How much would you pay?
That would require more time and resources than our courts have.
If it matters to you, try this: cost it out, and propose it. It requires more off-bench time to write it up (so more judges, ultimately). It also requires a system for collecting, archiving, and disseminating these decisions. That means cost and people.
I believe this is the sort of thing you can ask your state rep to file - like that guy who keeps making his state rep file the "divorced women can't have boyfriends" bills out of Shrewsbury. Only this makes more sense.
While you are at it, you might check and see what records accompany these dismissals and such - they may already write what you want.
Fair point
However, there are two words that trump this. One is transparency, and the other is accountability.
And if judges are already doing this, as you imply with your last sentence, then why aren't they required to state any rationale or justification they base their decision on TO THE PUBLIC as part of making their decision?
It is truly sad that a verdict can be thrown out because "OMG a family member of the defendant couldn't witness the jury selection", but a judge can say "Case dismissed - but I don't have to tell you why I ruled that way"
I Concur
Thank you for your support, SwirlyGrrl. I, too, believe that those in power should not be compelled to explain their actions or answer to the public. Public records requests, sunshine law, and written judicial decisions simply require require more time and resources than our police departments and government agencies have.
where did I say any of this?
I merely pointed out that actions have consequences, demands require resources, and wishing won't make it so - it will cost time and money.
Unless, of course, it is already being done and certain people just expect published notices in that newfangled newspaper thingy to help them out.
Seriously?
You said it right here:
I merely concurred. So did the SJC, for different reasons:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/08/09/mass-high-court-what-judges-...
Thank you for your support.
Judges have law clerks. The
Judges have law clerks. The Superior Court has law clerks especially for the drug lab cases. All decision are archived.
This wasn't superior court, though
It was BMC - the equivalent of a district court in the rest of the state.
All court departments have
All court departments have law clerks. Even the district court. They're all under the auspices of the SJC.
Oh really?
And you know this, how, exactly? Yeah, you have no clue, my friend. A district court judge is lucky if he or she has an intern from the local community college once in a while. Even superior court judges have to share law clerks.
Perhaps you're confusing law clerks with session clerks, or clerks magistrate, who do not work for the judges.
Yeah, really. So what judges
Yeah, really. So what judges have to share law clerks! They still have the use of law clerks. The law clerks are still writing decisions for those judges. Those decisions are still archived. Oh, and session clerks and clerk magistrates, along with assistant clerks ALL work for judges.
But
So the clerk would simply write "Charges dismissed." Yep, that would really set the record straight.
Ahhh that biased judge
Ahhh, that biased judge of the nickname "Judge Let Me Go" who inspired the Suffolk County D.A.'s office to file a 61-page complaint with the judicial conduct commission charging that Dougan habitually rules against prosecutors in criminal cases. Guy really did a great service for the Commonwealth. Fortunately, he retired last year.