Speaker 1: It's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: All right, welcome back everyone. It is April thirtieth, and
Speaker 2: we are about to leave a month in Boston that
Speaker 2: generally represents the beginning of the baseball season, and for
Speaker 2: twelve years now has represented the horrible, that horrible day
Speaker 2: back in twenty thirteen when the Boston Marathon was struck
Speaker 2: by the marathon bombers. And we've had a lot of
Speaker 2: conversation on Nightside this week about the concept of due
Speaker 2: process and what it means. And it is a concept
Speaker 2: that is founded, you know, in the in the legal
Speaker 2: documents of this country, and certainly founded in the Constitution,
Speaker 2: but it is a process that sometimes defies definition depending
Speaker 2: upon the circumstances. So, for example, we've been talking about
Speaker 2: a due process for the guy from Maryland who was
Speaker 2: flown out of the country with other members of MS
Speaker 2: thirteen and Toronte Duragua, and there's a big conversation about, well,
Speaker 2: how do we know he was a gang member and
Speaker 2: all of that, and you know, at some point, well,
Speaker 2: we can deal with that. But I thought that just
Speaker 2: by way of explaining how we in this country bend
Speaker 2: over backwards to provide due process for lots of people,
Speaker 2: some of whom come here and become US citizens. And
Speaker 2: in this case, Boston bomber number two, who tonight hopefully
Speaker 2: sits in a jail cell by himself at the Supermax
Speaker 2: Federal Penitentiary in Colorado. And I I'd love it and
Speaker 2: have him a radio so he could listen to this
Speaker 2: show tonight. But I just the question that I have is,
Speaker 2: is here we have a Boston barmber number two, who
Speaker 2: I choose not to mention my name. I hope you
Speaker 2: can understand who I'm talking about, the younger of the
Speaker 2: two bombers, the one that was not run over. Actually
Speaker 2: he was the run that ran over his brother the
Speaker 2: night of the shootout in Watertown. So these guys do
Speaker 2: their dastardly deed, their first dastardly deed. Maybe there were
Speaker 2: other dastardly deeds that we weren't able to prove, like
Speaker 2: the triple murder in Waltham, but we'll say that for
Speaker 2: another night. The dastardly deed of April fifteenth, when they
Speaker 2: left two pressure cooker bombs about a block and a
Speaker 2: half or so apart on Boylston Street near the finished
Speaker 2: line of the Boston Marathon with the intention to kill
Speaker 2: and name as many people as possible. They killed in
Speaker 2: that moment three individuals, and of course we have come
Speaker 2: to know the name of Martin Richard and Crystal Cake
Speaker 2: Campbell and Lindsay lou who was only twenty three, Crystal
Speaker 2: Campbell only twenty nine, and Martin Richard only eight. And
Speaker 2: then on Thursday night of that week they shot and
Speaker 2: killed MIT police officer, executed, let's be honest, MIT Police
Speaker 2: officer Sean Collier on the campus of MIT. And then
Speaker 2: in the shootout in Watertown, there was a Boston police
Speaker 2: officer who died about a year later. He was injured
Speaker 2: in that shootout, Boston Police officer Dennis Simons. So in all,
Speaker 2: there were five deaths attributed to the Boston bombers who
Speaker 2: came here from Augistan, sought all the protections and the
Speaker 2: beneficence of this country, and then did what they did.
Speaker 2: There's no question they did what they did. We have
Speaker 2: the videotapes. We have them. We watched them walking away
Speaker 2: from the scene after they had planted and activated the bombs.
Speaker 2: Boston bomber Number to played guilty. He didn't fight the
Speaker 2: evidence that was against him, the evidence was overwhelming, played
Speaker 2: guilty to what they had done. And of course they
Speaker 2: also maimed more than one hundred well injured, and some
Speaker 2: people named over one hundred and fifty people. Just as
Speaker 2: by way of mentioning, there's the Norton family. Liz Norton,
Speaker 2: who had two sons lost both their legs, both lost
Speaker 2: legs in the bombing. She was quoted on Wednesday in
Speaker 2: the Boston Herald. It's mind bobble boggling. It's taken this long.
Speaker 2: My hope is I'm still alive to see it through. Okay,
Speaker 2: So what I did was I did a little bit
Speaker 2: of a timeline here and there is you're going to
Speaker 2: read about this tomorrow in the Boston Herald, a little
Speaker 2: bit of it's been in the Boston Globe. But I
Speaker 2: want to explain to you what do process can mean.
Speaker 2: It's a very elastic sized concept. Due process can be
Speaker 2: short and direct, or it can be just stretched out.
Speaker 2: And oftentimes the more bizarre your crimes, the more lawyers
Speaker 2: and oftentimes pro bono lawyers are drawn to defend these
Speaker 2: these horrific people. So the bombing takes place on April fifteenth,
Speaker 2: twenty thirteen. That's now twelve years and two weeks ago.
Speaker 2: So you do the math on the number of days
Speaker 2: that this guy has lived. But he has lived over
Speaker 2: If I'm doing some quick math, three hundred and sixty
Speaker 2: five days a year, twelve twelve years, we're talking about
Speaker 2: at least three thousand days, probably getting close to thirty
Speaker 2: five hundred. It's convicted, pleads guilty in twenty fifteen, so
Speaker 2: that's fairly quick, and he's sentenced to death. However, the
Speaker 2: First Circuit Court of Appeals, in their infinite wisdom some reason,
Speaker 2: decided to overturn the death penalty. Now I haven't read
Speaker 2: the decision by the First Circle in a while, but
Speaker 2: they may have concluded any of a number of grounds
Speaker 2: cool and unusual punishment. Alough, it's really not that unusual.
Speaker 2: There was a period of time, even last late in
Speaker 2: the Biden administration, when that death penalty could have been
Speaker 2: lifted from his shoulders. But there were three bombers, three
Speaker 2: killers that Biden. Out of forty people on death row,
Speaker 2: thirty seven got commutations from the death penalty. Three did not.
Speaker 2: Dylan Rufe, the racist kid that killed the nine older
Speaker 2: black parishioners in a South Carolina Church after having prayed
Speaker 2: with them, the anti Semite who attacked the synagogue Tree
Speaker 2: of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh or outside of Pittsburgh, and
Speaker 2: the Boston bomber number two. So the Supreme Court two
Speaker 2: years later, now we're seven years out or we're actually
Speaker 2: nine years out from the bombing, they overruled it and
Speaker 2: reinstated the death penalty. So then the lawyers, these are
Speaker 2: these lawyers who I guess we're paying for them. They're
Speaker 2: they're billing the government. These lawyers asked the First Circuit
Speaker 2: to re examine the wadir of the jurors, and specifically
Speaker 2: jurors number one, thirty eight, and eighty six. I mean,
Speaker 2: we're really drilling down here. And the First Circuit, who
Speaker 2: again had overturned the death penalty already, maybe they should
Speaker 2: be recused from reviewing this. They ordered the trial judge,
Speaker 2: Georgie O'Toole, who's someone who I know a little bit.
Speaker 2: He's very competent trial judge. An amazing background on him.
Speaker 2: He had as his bachelor's degree from Boston College, went
Speaker 2: to Harvard Law School. He practiced for about ten years
Speaker 2: from nineteen seventy two to nineteen eighty two. He became
Speaker 2: an associate justice in the Boston Municipal Court from eighty
Speaker 2: two to ninety and then in the Superior Court of
Speaker 2: Massachusetts from ninety to ninety five, and then in ninety
Speaker 2: five he was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the
Speaker 2: Federal Court, and he served in the Federal Court from
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety five until he assumed senior status in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: So this is a very competent, qualified, highly respected jurists.
Speaker 2: By the way, I have no idea what his politics
Speaker 2: are or anything like that. He is a quintessentially a jurist.
Speaker 2: So the lawyers now for the bombers have gone one
Speaker 2: more step further. They have asked that Judge O'Toole be
Speaker 2: taken off the case because Judge o'tool needs to needs
Speaker 2: to recuse himself. Well, Judge O'Toole is not going to
Speaker 2: recuse himself from the case, nor should he. He will
Speaker 2: stay on this case, thankfully, because we do have an
Speaker 2: adult in the house. When Judge O'Toole, and he has
Speaker 2: written recently, he's denied the Marathon bomber's allegation that another
Speaker 2: judge should re examine the judge o'tools procedure at sentencing
Speaker 2: Barmber number two to death, he wrote, He wrote this
Speaker 2: in that decision. He said, it is a parent that
Speaker 2: the Court of Appeals intended that this court investigate the
Speaker 2: potential bias of two jurors an issue. As I mentioned,
Speaker 2: those are jurors one thirty eight and two eighty six.
Speaker 2: Everybody knew about the case. Okay. It was impossible, I think,
Speaker 2: to find jurors who didn't know about the case. I mean,
Speaker 2: I guess you could find twelve people out of an
Speaker 2: insane asylum who never heard about the case, maybe twelve
Speaker 2: people who lived under a bridge. But amongst people who
Speaker 2: would intellectually qualify to be able to sit in a jury,
Speaker 2: they all had known about this case. The instruction, according
Speaker 2: to Judge O'Toole, was plainly directed to this Dusk District judge,
Speaker 2: meaning himself. Recusal would be at odds with the direction
Speaker 2: of the Court of Appeals. He also adds, quote, doubting
Speaker 2: my ability to follow my old to faithfully apply the
Speaker 2: law unquote is dead wrong. The reason I'm going through
Speaker 2: this tonight, and going through it at a pace that
Speaker 2: hopefully all of you can follow, is that this is
Speaker 2: all part kitten kaboodle, if you will, of what we
Speaker 2: would call due process for Boston bomber number two. Now
Speaker 2: under the standard that I have recommended, when there is
Speaker 2: no scintilla of doubt about the guilt of an individual,
Speaker 2: and there is no scintilla of doubt in this case,
Speaker 2: as a matter of fact, this guy has pled guilty
Speaker 2: to the crime. And there's no suggestion that he was
Speaker 2: pleading guilty for because he was being pressured or anything
Speaker 2: like that. He's guilty, he understands it. And are the
Speaker 2: aggravating circumstances, Yeah, A couple of pipe bombs, a pressure
Speaker 2: cook of bombs near a crowded marathon finished line the
Speaker 2: day of the Boston Marathon on Boylston Street, where there
Speaker 2: are hundreds or not thousands of people who could have
Speaker 2: been impacted by the explosions. Yeah, I think those are
Speaker 2: aggravating circumstances. So the consequence is that as we fight
Speaker 2: and argue about the guy from Maryland, the Maryland dad
Speaker 2: who now is in El Salvador, I guess he's in
Speaker 2: a better prison than the sea caught prison. Good for
Speaker 2: him or someone else who is deported the Trump administration
Speaker 2: how much? How much due process. Do we need to
Speaker 2: give the Boston Marathon bomber. I think we need to
Speaker 2: give him one more bit of due process, and it
Speaker 2: should be applied in Terre Haute, Indiana, where he would
Speaker 2: go to be executed. I want to open this line
Speaker 2: up because most of you out there understand in your
Speaker 2: in your gut, in your heart what should be done
Speaker 2: and how quickly it should be done. I certainly understand
Speaker 2: what should be done. And I know that there are
Speaker 2: people who were posted in aulterably opposed to death penalty.
Speaker 2: That's fine. Kind of argue with people who have a
Speaker 2: either a philosophical or religious opposition of that, that's fine.
Speaker 2: But we have a death penalty in this country. It
Speaker 2: has been found by our Supreme Court to be to
Speaker 2: be constitutional. And it is now time for Boston bomber
Speaker 2: number two to get the Jews as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 2: which he so richly deserves. We don't need to allow
Speaker 2: him to live a long and comfortable life in supermacs
Speaker 2: in my opinion. But the reason I mentioned this tonight
Speaker 2: is in the last few days, the whole concept of
Speaker 2: due process is sort of an elastic process. What due
Speaker 2: process might mean for one person is a little bit different.
Speaker 2: There are some fundamentals of due process. Now, this guy
Speaker 2: actually was a citizen. He became a citizen. I think
Speaker 2: it was just about seven months before he did this
Speaker 2: dastardly act. He knew what he got himself into. Okay,
Speaker 2: we're told, well, he was the younger brother and he
Speaker 2: was influenced. All of that has been out there. We're
Speaker 2: done with this. Let's get it over with. I'd love
Speaker 2: to hear from you. This is my little bit of
Speaker 2: a treatise, a due process. Okay. I believe in due process,
Speaker 2: I truly do. But due process is different for an
Speaker 2: American citizen who is charged with a crime for which
Speaker 2: that you enjoy the presumption of innocence than this guy
Speaker 2: who has surrendered his presumption of innocence. At this point,
Speaker 2: it is time to put to get the show on
Speaker 2: the road. Six one, seven, two, five, four to ten
Speaker 2: thirty six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty. Feel
Speaker 2: free to join the conversation. I'll be right back.
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w B Boston's
Speaker 1: news radio.
Speaker 2: So my question essentially is how much due process does
Speaker 2: the Boston bomber deserve and has he has he has
Speaker 2: he exhausted his his his good, his good, his due process?
Speaker 2: Pretty simple question. I think it was exhausted a long
Speaker 2: time ago. Six one, seven, two, five, four to ten
Speaker 2: thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty. Gonna
Speaker 2: go to Larry in Boston. Larry, welcome your first this
Speaker 2: hour night side. Larry, go right ahead.
Speaker 3: Thanks Dan, thanks for taking my call. I agree with
Speaker 3: you wholeheartedly. I think I think this this individual, let's
Speaker 3: give him the benefit of that at least, has has
Speaker 3: lived thirty five hundred days too too long. Given the
Speaker 3: rough math, I think, you know, the the you know,
Speaker 3: the abhorrent situation that he and his brother caused, and
Speaker 3: the and the you know, irreparable harm that he's done
Speaker 3: to the city of Boston, and the plague that he's
Speaker 3: kind of placed upon us. One more bullet by the
Speaker 3: Watertown police would have solved that problem, right yeah, And
Speaker 3: and I and I think you know, he's he's lived
Speaker 3: too long, and he's not due any due process, so,
Speaker 3: you know, and I think due process is something that
Speaker 3: you know, we as citizens deserve if if there are
Speaker 3: situations and situations that require that due process to be invoked. However,
Speaker 3: not something you know, again, you come here illegally and
Speaker 3: not here as a legal citizen. Due process unfortunately does
Speaker 3: not apply, right, And I know your question is specifically
Speaker 3: about this individual on I don't think he's deserved any
Speaker 3: and I think I agree with you. I think he's
Speaker 3: he's he's kind of taken up residents in a federal
Speaker 3: institution far longer than he deserves.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's you know, that's my feeling on it.
Speaker 4: That's my point, and that that we as a society, Okay,
Speaker 4: we're very generous. And the more publicity that a case gets, Uh,
Speaker 4: there are plenty of you know, young poor Americans, young people,
Speaker 4: teenagers who do something stupid, rob a bank or whatever,
Speaker 4: and they get moved through the process pretty quickly. But
Speaker 4: on the high profile cases, if you have enough money
Speaker 4: to purchase lawyers, or if you have enough money because
Speaker 4: of the the case, you can attract lawyers who will
Speaker 4: be willing to offer their services for the publicity that
Speaker 4: you get.
Speaker 2: In the background, this guy could live another four or
Speaker 2: five years here, I mean, you know, he What will
Speaker 2: happen is that Georgia O'Toole is not going to refuse himself.
Speaker 2: They're going to probably appeal that back up to the
Speaker 2: first Circuit Court of Appeals. It's like a yo yo
Speaker 2: going up and down. His due process is endless, endless. Uh.
Speaker 2: And you think about what what the people who lost
Speaker 2: loved ones, or the people whose loved ones were badly injured,
Speaker 2: or the individuals who were badly injured, what is their
Speaker 2: due process?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 2: I mean, same way with this guy down in down
Speaker 2: down in Maryland. Whiz whiz, where's the due process?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 2: For him? He's they want to bring him back now.
Speaker 2: He apparently, you know, was told to leave the country,
Speaker 2: didn't leave the country. It's uh, it's almost the more
Speaker 2: bizarre your crime, the more due process that you're allowed.
Speaker 2: And I think President Trump said it yesterday talking with
Speaker 2: the guy from ABC for ABC Terry Terry what the
Speaker 2: heck was his last name? The reporter who I have,
Speaker 2: Terry Moran. He's basically saying to him, hey, uh, let's
Speaker 2: you know, let's you know, let's let's get this over with.
Speaker 2: There's no question of this guy's guilt or innocence. We
Speaker 2: we know that they are aggravating circumstances because there was
Speaker 2: one or two yours who might have been a little
Speaker 2: less than forthcoming. I think it's it's a complete waste
Speaker 2: of time, and it it gives me something to talk about,
Speaker 2: but it also it shows how the system can be
Speaker 2: In my opinion, a great system of justice can be abused.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna let you go. I appreciate your calling and
Speaker 2: getting us going.
Speaker 5: Okay, Thanks Dan, Thank you much.
Speaker 2: I'd love to hear from you. Six one, six, one tenth.
Speaker 2: The whole concept of due process difficult to explain, but
Speaker 2: when you look at it in the context of what
Speaker 2: we're talking about, Boston bomber number two, how long does
Speaker 2: it go on? You've You've seen that there are killers.
Speaker 2: I'm not familiar with all of their cases, but some
Speaker 2: of these very bizarre killers are on death row for
Speaker 2: twenty years. And I know that there are good people
Speaker 2: out there who are posted the death betal. We may
Speaker 2: hear from one in a few moments. I'd love to
Speaker 2: hear from you. Six one, seven, two, five, four ten
Speaker 2: thirty six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty Coming
Speaker 2: right back after the news break here at the bottom
Speaker 2: of the hour on Nightside.
Speaker 1: Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2: All right, let's get right back to the phones. You're
Speaker 2: going to be talking with Harvey Silverglad in just a moment.
Speaker 2: But Jean's been waiting a little longer. So I want
Speaker 2: to get to Gene. Jeane. You are next up on
Speaker 2: Nightside Gene from Brookline.
Speaker 3: Welcome, Hi, how are you?
Speaker 2: I'm doing just great, Gene. We're talkingalking about due process.
Speaker 7: It is, Uh, he had a not due process. He
Speaker 7: should have been executed within a year of getting found guilty.
Speaker 7: I give a year versus he's young. He could be
Speaker 7: on death row for sixty years, working in his twenties
Speaker 7: or something.
Speaker 2: It's only thirty one right now. He's already been there
Speaker 2: for twelve for twelve years. Yeah, well he's been there.
Speaker 2: He's been there a long time.
Speaker 7: He's Yeah, I think he should not be there any longer.
Speaker 5: I mean, where was where.
Speaker 7: Were the rights of people that just want to go
Speaker 7: watch a marathon not get killed or made you think
Speaker 7: about them? So how can we think about him?
Speaker 2: I understand, I understand, but uh, it's it's a real
Speaker 2: it's a problem. It's a problem, and it is a problem.
Speaker 2: It's a it's it's it's a problem that people understand
Speaker 2: due process. But uh, it's it's it's sort of a
Speaker 2: it's a concept that is uh, it's it's it's a
Speaker 2: concept that is somewhat flexible. It's it's not specifically laid
Speaker 2: out that due processes A, B, C, and D. There
Speaker 2: there are a number of ways in which due process
Speaker 2: has been incorporated on a on a case by case
Speaker 2: basis into the rights that all Americans and everyone in
Speaker 2: this country to some degree is provided. Absolutely well, Gene,
Speaker 2: I appreciate your your.
Speaker 7: Supporting oh, because I believe what you're saying with the
Speaker 7: tail and that's the right way to pronounce it, doubt
Speaker 7: without with the world until Yeah.
Speaker 2: Again, that's a standard that I have created, which is
Speaker 2: without a sintela means that there is no doubt. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's it means like the smallest possible pardon. Okay, you know.
Speaker 2: The whole The word due process comes from the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 2: It says no States shall make or enforce any law
Speaker 2: which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
Speaker 2: the United States. So, nor shall state deprived of any
Speaker 2: person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Speaker 2: That's that's what we're what we're referring to. But it's
Speaker 2: not defined with any specificity. It's become defined over years,
Speaker 2: depending upon you know, various you know, various court decisions,
Speaker 2: nor deny any person within his jurisdiction the equal protection
Speaker 2: of the law fourteenth Amendment. Thank you so much, very much, Gene.
Speaker 2: I thank you for taking the time to call, and
Speaker 2: thank you for agreeing with me.
Speaker 7: Okay, okay, always.
Speaker 2: Probably going to disagree with me.
Speaker 5: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Yea.
Speaker 2: This is my friend, Harvey Silverglade. Harvey is a pre
Speaker 2: eminent defense attorney. UH, one of the best, if not
Speaker 2: the best, that I've ever watched in court. Harvey, welcome
Speaker 2: to Night's side. You've heard me talk about due process.
Speaker 2: It has been applied and applied very very well. Uh
Speaker 2: to the benefit of Boston bomber number two.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 2: At what point do we say, Okay, this guy's had
Speaker 2: enough due process. He has had due process.
Speaker 5: Let me the last time I dealt with this on
Speaker 5: your program, I pointed out that institutionally I was opposed
Speaker 5: to the death penalty because of the possibility that the
Speaker 5: line would be of what is certain would be moved
Speaker 5: and moved and moved, and eventually an innocent person would
Speaker 5: be executed, with which the innocent spasure has shown has happened,
Speaker 5: and my.
Speaker 2: And my my audience respects and I respect your philosophical
Speaker 2: concern absolutely.
Speaker 5: Now, now let me take another approach. You're an orthodox Catholic.
Speaker 2: I'm a Colby that I'm a Catholic.
Speaker 5: I'm you're you're you're believing Catholic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm a strugg like everyone else who's a Catholic,
Speaker 2: they will tell you they're they're an imperfect, struggling Catholic.
Speaker 5: If you know what I'm saying, Hey, I I do.
Speaker 5: I do. I have the same problem with Well, okay,
Speaker 5: go ahead. My question is this, how do you square
Speaker 5: your support for the death penalty with the Ten Commandments?
Speaker 2: Well, I I do see a little bit of separation,
Speaker 2: separation of church, church and state. Let me just finish,
Speaker 2: let me sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 5: The Tank Commandment says say murder it is our start kill,
Speaker 5: which is different than murder you kill. Yeah, okay, now
Speaker 5: let's let's go just by your opposition.
Speaker 2: Well, what I'm what I would be, what I would
Speaker 2: argue is that the state is not murdering him. He is,
Speaker 2: you know, he's living just as if in a state
Speaker 2: of war. If someone goes to war and happens to
Speaker 2: kill an enemy combatant, they haven't murdered them. They generally,
Speaker 2: you know, they get they get a medal for having
Speaker 2: taken out one of the enemy. I think that a
Speaker 2: society has a right to defend itself, and I do
Speaker 2: believe that the death penalty does have a deterrent effect
Speaker 2: and it will make some people think about it. And
Speaker 2: I feel that, you know, it is up it is
Speaker 2: up to God Almighty whether and I think the same
Speaker 2: God runs Judaism, Catholicism, Islam and all of that. There's
Speaker 2: not multiple gods up there. There's one person. In my belief.
Speaker 2: I can't prove any of that, Howie that it's that
Speaker 2: it's up to him and I but I think that
Speaker 2: we as a society have a right to defend ourselves. Uh.
Speaker 2: And you know what do you do? I'm with with someone.
Speaker 2: Let us say who is on who kills? Uh? And
Speaker 2: you don't give him or her the death penalty? And
Speaker 2: then they kill a corrections officer? You know how many
Speaker 2: how many people would they would they kill? I mean,
Speaker 2: I have no problem morally or or religiously with doing
Speaker 2: away with this guy based upon what he did. And
Speaker 2: I know that there, by the way, are members of
Speaker 2: the families of the victims who are opposed to the
Speaker 2: death penalty. I don't think that the Richard family is
Speaker 2: advocating for his death penalty. They're probably just better, better
Speaker 2: people than I am.
Speaker 5: Well, I don't think it's got to do. It's better people,
Speaker 5: but I do think that well, I guess in the end,
Speaker 5: you and I just disagree, and there's no way of
Speaker 5: reconciling our precisions. But I well, let me ask you that,
Speaker 5: let me ask you us.
Speaker 2: I know that you're If there ever was a case
Speaker 2: that my friend Harvey Silverglate, the great defense lawyer, could
Speaker 2: see them, could see as a possibility, this would be it.
Speaker 2: My feeling is that from a moral point of view,
Speaker 2: I have no doubt about his guilt or innocence. He's
Speaker 2: fled out, and he needed right, right, right, and and
Speaker 2: we certainly have the aggravating circumstances that no sentilla of doubt,
Speaker 2: So it fits my my standard. I also believe that
Speaker 2: the amount of money that we're gonna utilize to feed
Speaker 2: and house him and give him a lot of the
Speaker 2: comforts that he will have for the balance of his
Speaker 2: life could be better used to help people in this
Speaker 2: country who have anyone.
Speaker 5: I wouldn't call being in a supermax prison comfortable.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I mean, here's the thing, Harvey, You
Speaker 2: and I know that he can. He can meet religious
Speaker 2: whatever religious leaders he wants. He can be visited by
Speaker 2: family and friends. He can as time goes on, he
Speaker 2: will get some of the privileges of time. I'm sure
Speaker 2: that he gets to watch some level of television. They
Speaker 2: don't put him in a cell twenty four you know,
Speaker 2: three sixty five twenty four seven, because that would be
Speaker 2: violation of the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment. And
Speaker 2: if he behaves himself, if he behaves himself over time,
Speaker 2: he will he will be treated better.
Speaker 5: It will never get out though.
Speaker 2: They would never get out, there's no question never get out.
Speaker 2: And the only the only UH person who faced the
Speaker 2: death penalty who told his lawyers to drop all appeals
Speaker 2: that I know of, and you probably know more than
Speaker 2: I do, was Timothy McVeigh. You know everyone has said
Speaker 2: to me, oh, the death penalty is the easy way out.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's the easy way out in the
Speaker 2: minds of most killers. Harvey's from a you know, from
Speaker 2: a from an argumentative point of view, most people who
Speaker 2: are facing the death penalty fight it till the end legally,
Speaker 2: in everything that's available to them. None of them say, oh,
Speaker 2: you know, I want the easy way out. They say, no,
Speaker 2: I'm going to fight this to the end. And yet
Speaker 2: my friends will always tell me, oh, it's it's the
Speaker 2: death penalty is the easy way out. I don't know
Speaker 2: too many mass killers, and in this case, this guy
Speaker 2: would be a mass killer who sees the death penalty
Speaker 2: as an easy way out. How let me ask you this.
Speaker 2: You know the system as well as anybody. He's been
Speaker 2: on death row now since twenty fifteen, convicted in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 2: How long How much longer do you think he will
Speaker 2: be able to come up with his lawyers will come
Speaker 2: up with appellet ideas that will string it out. How
Speaker 2: many more years do you think he'll have before he
Speaker 2: will face that moment in time, assuming the death penalty
Speaker 2: is not eliminated in our country.
Speaker 5: Well, I think I think this is the end of
Speaker 5: the road. But of course creative lawyer can usually flame something.
Speaker 5: But I think this is the end of the road.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean O'Toole has refused to recuse himself. I
Speaker 2: have premendous respect for Georgie O'Toole. I think I know
Speaker 2: you well enough to know that you respect O'Toole as well.
Speaker 2: He's a good judge and uh and not you know,
Speaker 2: not that that most judges aren't good judges, but he is,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, a particularly experienced judge. I don't know
Speaker 2: how much, how much time you've been in how often
Speaker 2: you've been in front of him, but he's got a
Speaker 2: great reputation. Uh. And I assume that they're going to
Speaker 2: take his his his refusal to accuse himself up and
Speaker 2: appeal that. So there's another set of appeals.
Speaker 5: Right, They'll they'll lose that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it will take Tod. It will take Tod, Harvey.
Speaker 2: I so respect your your intellect and your your moral compass.
Speaker 2: And I wish I could agree with you on this one,
Speaker 2: but I don't. And I really appreciate you. You challenge
Speaker 2: me on this every time, and it makes me think.
Speaker 2: And I really do appreciate your friendship and your challenge here.
Speaker 2: Thank you much, my friend. Right, Oh, by Howie Silverglate,
Speaker 2: there there there's no if I haven't had a serious
Speaker 2: criminal case, a criminal charge, Harvey would be my gut
Speaker 2: to go do. I would advise any of you in
Speaker 2: similar fashion. We got to take a break. I got
Speaker 2: salin Ohio coming up. I got Mark and Cambridge. I
Speaker 2: got a little bit of room for you. Six months
Speaker 2: seven two four thirty, six months, seven nine thirty. Be
Speaker 2: right back here on night's side. And by the way,
Speaker 2: tomorrow night, the BSY car guys will be with us
Speaker 2: from ten until twelve. I know that's a favorite guest
Speaker 2: of many of you. It's time the spring driving season
Speaker 2: come on, and the Bzy Car guys are going to
Speaker 2: be here tomorrow night from ten to twelve. And we
Speaker 2: will also have former state Representative Dave Nagel, who spent
Speaker 2: time in federal prison. He ran into a problem with gambling,
Speaker 2: gambling debts and then did some things which for which
Speaker 2: he admitted used money that he should not have used
Speaker 2: campaign money, not public money, but campaign money. And he
Speaker 2: spent seven months in prison. It was sentenced to a
Speaker 2: year and a half. And we're going to talk to
Speaker 2: him tomorrow night about life and is it and what
Speaker 2: he regrets, uh, and now how he will be able
Speaker 2: and I think he will be able to build his
Speaker 2: life back up. So it's a uh, it's a story
Speaker 2: of reclamation tomorrow night, as as well as your crime
Speaker 2: and punishment as well. We'll be back right after this
Speaker 2: on Nightside.
Speaker 1: You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: Okay, back to the phones. We're going to get both
Speaker 2: the sale in market. Let's start off with Sal in Ohio. Sal.
Speaker 2: You were next on Nightside.
Speaker 8: Welcome, Hi Dan, nice talking to you. Can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Okay, I can hear you, find sir, go right ahead, okay,
Speaker 5: all right.
Speaker 8: As far as due process, you know, I followed, I followed,
Speaker 8: I followed the bombing and such. But how does the
Speaker 8: families heal if if this keeps coming up, if there
Speaker 8: is anything about healing after you lose someone like at
Speaker 8: least someone does something tragic like that, But how do
Speaker 8: people get on with get on with their lives if
Speaker 8: to me? For me, I've tried to follow his sister
Speaker 8: Helen Praijan movement. I don't believe that. I think we
Speaker 8: should just have have a cut and dry your lifer.
Speaker 8: You've been sound guilty, and don't tie up the legal
Speaker 8: system and all the everybody. You know, somebody's gonna some
Speaker 8: attorneys some days are going to make a book or
Speaker 8: something about what they how they defended somebody.
Speaker 5: Again, Yeah, I just understand that.
Speaker 2: By the way, I understand, I know, I know who
Speaker 2: Helen Prejean is. I understand that, and I respect her opinion.
Speaker 2: I don't agree with it. I just think that in
Speaker 2: my opinion, sal and it's only my opinion that there
Speaker 2: are certain levels of crime. And if someone you know.
Speaker 5: Breaks into a store masterardly.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, Yeah. What I'm saying is if someone
Speaker 2: breaks into a store and they've done it repeatedly, or
Speaker 2: they get caught stealing something out of a store, that's
Speaker 2: one level of crime. If someone goes in the street
Speaker 2: and they have a gun and they threaten someone, well
Speaker 2: that that raises the stakes a little bit. And but
Speaker 2: in terms of what these guys did, I think everyone
Speaker 2: and you use the word dastardly, I agree with you.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's just no way to defend it. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's as simple. It is as simple.
Speaker 8: As I don't think that you know, you know, as
Speaker 8: as as if we want to be true Christians, we're
Speaker 8: supposed to forgive everything. We're supposed to not we're not
Speaker 8: supposed to keep punishing. Really, Jesus probably wouldn't have prisons.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know about that. Well, say, here's a
Speaker 2: different thing. If here, if you're my neighbor and all
Speaker 2: of a sudden you come over and you steal something
Speaker 2: out of my house, uh, and I see you stealing
Speaker 2: it and running away, and I will go over to
Speaker 2: you and I will say, look, you stole that. I
Speaker 2: want it back. And if you give it to me back,
Speaker 2: I might say, look, don't do that again. So, but
Speaker 2: society has an interest above and beyond my forgiving heart
Speaker 2: to prosecute you for doing something.
Speaker 8: You know, I understand that, And I mean, look at
Speaker 8: the volumes and volumes of law that there is. But
Speaker 8: I understand that. But I think I really think that
Speaker 8: we need to look at other countries. I don't think
Speaker 8: great Great Britain has I don't think that they have
Speaker 8: death penalty.
Speaker 2: I think you're right. I think you're right. And again
Speaker 2: we're a different country where the United States of America we're.
Speaker 8: We have three hundred and fifty million people too.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I mean again, look, here's the thing. If
Speaker 2: if you do, if you truly in your heart believe
Speaker 2: that this guy should not get the death penalty, I
Speaker 2: understand that Okay, I respect you. I don't agree with you,
Speaker 2: but I respect you.
Speaker 8: I'm on the bench. I'm kind of on the fence
Speaker 8: because if some if something happened directly into my family,
Speaker 8: you know, with something I probably I might be inclined
Speaker 8: to change my opinion.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 5: I don't know what I'm.
Speaker 2: Saying is morally your opinion should be if you're based
Speaker 2: it on a true moral foundation, it should be the
Speaker 2: same whether it's your family or your neighbor's family. Well, anyway, hey, Sal,
Speaker 2: I got one more I got to get in here.
Speaker 2: Really interesting phone call. I don't know how often. I
Speaker 2: don't know if you've called before, but i'd invite you
Speaker 2: to continue to call my program Always welcome.
Speaker 8: One other time, and we disagreed on Donald Trump a
Speaker 8: long time ago, It's like twenty fifteen.
Speaker 5: But I listened to you, and people are listening to you.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 8: You have a good night.
Speaker 2: Thanks Sale. Where about to Ohio you call it from?
Speaker 2: I love to know what.
Speaker 8: How many people from Ohio?
Speaker 5: Pittsburgh I've heard of?
Speaker 2: Stupid Ville? Yeah, absolutely great, Sam, Thanks thanks much. Sal.
Speaker 2: Let me go next to Mark and Cambridge. Mark, you're
Speaker 2: gonna wrap the hour for us here nightside. What's your
Speaker 2: thought on due process for the Boston boment number two?
Speaker 6: My call again, You're welcome. The Celtics one anyway.
Speaker 2: The one last night, that one last night.
Speaker 6: Yep, yeah, anyway, let's get so. Anyway, in my opinion,
Speaker 6: due process and justice should have been served that day
Speaker 6: when they call him on that boat and he was
Speaker 6: in that boat. Due profice and justice should i've been
Speaker 6: served that day.
Speaker 2: No, I understand your opinion. I disagree with that because
Speaker 2: that's not what this society is about, and I think
Speaker 2: that's a yeah, we could disagree and that. So therefore,
Speaker 2: I assume you agree with me that it is time
Speaker 2: as long since passed for this guy to be breathing,
Speaker 2: you know, the fresh air that all of us are
Speaker 2: breathing or whatever there is being pumped into the Supermax
Speaker 2: in Colorado.
Speaker 6: But to make it to the bop it up real quick.
Speaker 6: Due process, in my opinion again, should only be for
Speaker 6: naturally born American citizens. If you here on is here visiting,
Speaker 6: and you commit a crime, due process should not apply. Again,
Speaker 6: that's my opinion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, the courts have held otherwise. The courts have
Speaker 2: held otherwise. However, However, the thing that to me is
Speaker 2: most interesting in my opinion, is that there is no
Speaker 2: clear definition of due process that says to get full
Speaker 2: due process, you've got to go through steps one through ten.
Speaker 2: So you can have a different level of due process
Speaker 2: for different circumstances. Okay, this guy is getting much more
Speaker 2: due process than he deserves because of the crime that
Speaker 2: he committed. In terms off, you're a US citizen, you
Speaker 2: have full due process rights. If you're someone who here
Speaker 2: is here illegally and it was committed a crime while
Speaker 2: you while you're here, you get what I would call
Speaker 2: expedited due process. If you get my drift, okay, a
Speaker 2: different form. It's like you go to a restaurant. You
Speaker 2: can order the whole meal. You can order the everything
Speaker 2: from soup to nuts, or you get a sandwich. You
Speaker 2: still had a meal, it was just a little different. Hey, look,
Speaker 2: I always appreciate you call Mark. You and I pretty
Speaker 2: much here on the same page. Thanks, buddy, You have
Speaker 2: a great night. We get back right after the not
Speaker 2: the ten o'clock news. Here on nightside. I want to
Speaker 2: talk about the Trump administration's decision to arrest judges. We
Speaker 2: have a case here, which is one that you might
Speaker 2: be familiar with, but there's a case down in Wisconsin,
Speaker 2: in New Mexico where judges are facing some very serious
Speaker 2: federal charges, and I suspect we'll get some good different
Speaker 2: points of view on this in the next hour back
Speaker 2: on night Side right after this