If he stays, I hope he just goes for it and enjoys himself.
"Wow Pedroier really stabbed that one!"
"Wow Pedroier really stabbed that one!"
"Sign up for Ameeker Insurance. You may be glad you did..."Foulkey Reese said:If he stays, I hope he just goes for it and enjoys himself.
"Wow Pedroier really stabbed that one!"
http://b.globe.com/1dPuHNcEDITORIAL
State judges bear blame for failing to curb Jared Remy
JARED REMY ricocheted across the criminal justice system for almost two decades before he was arrested for the August murder of Jennifer Martel, his girlfriend and the mother of his 5-year-old daughter. The 35-year-old Remy, son of popular Red Sox broadcaster Jerry Remy, had a lengthy history of threats and assaults against girlfriends dating back to high school. But he was shown extraordinary deference by the courts, up until Martel’s death. Put more simply, state judges repeatedly — and often inexplicably — allowed him to get off the hook. It’s a shameful episode in the history of the state’s judiciary.
There is much speculation, but no hard evidence, that the younger Remy benefited from his father’s fame and popularity in Boston sports circles. A related but more concrete scenario is that Jared Remy remained on the loose all these years through his access to seasoned defense attorneys, but also through the reluctance of some domestic violence victims to testify against their tormentors and, most unfortunately, the desire of judges to “move the list’’ through clogged courtrooms. Often Remy would be granted a “continuance without a finding’’— CWOF (pronounced “quaff”) in legalese — that amounted to a free pass as long as the defendant stayed out of trouble. On more than 10 occasions, Remy was arrested on new charges or otherwise ran afoul of the law while serving on probation or waiting for the resolution of an earlier case. But the judges kept ignoring the record.
The CWOF, in and of itself, is a useful legal remedy for newcomers to the criminal justice system who are given an opportunity to avoid a formal conviction by agreeing that sufficient facts exist to warrant a finding of guilt. Typically, defendants are placed on probation for a year with the stipulation they do not reoffend. Failing that, a judge can impose the finding of guilt along with a prison sentence on the original charge.
That’s not how it worked with Remy, however. He collected CWOFs like some people collect baseball cards. While it may be reasonable for judges to give a continuance to a first- or second-time offender, it’s judicial negligence to ignore a growing pile of continuances. Two should be enough chances for even the most penitent offender; after that, judges should impose serious sentences.
Yet time and again, Middlesex County judges gave Remy the space he needed to hurt women. He received head-spinning treatment from Judge Gregory Flynn in Waltham District Court. Remy was no stranger to the judge who had granted him four CWOFs. In 2000, Flynn found him in violation of his probation for having attacked his former girlfriend, Tiffany Guyette. Yet the judge failed to impose a guilty finding or jail time, opting instead to require Remy to submit to random screening for substance abuse.
That opened the way for an especially egregious case in Lowell District court in 2001, where Remy appeared in front of presiding Justice Neil Walker on a charge of threatening to kill Guyette. It was Remy’s sixth case in 27 months. Guyette steeled herself to testify, which many victims fear doing. It seemed that a judge would finally bring the hammer down on Remy. But inexplicably — and over the objections of prosecutors — Walker accepted the request by Remy’s experienced attorney to continue the case without a formal judgment, an outcome even more lenient than a CWOF.
Similar examples of judicial enabling can be found around the same time in Dedham District court, where Judge Lynda Connolly found Remy in violation of his probation for a failed drug test and a new restraining order based on alleged threats to kill Guyette. Yet Connolly extended Remy’s probation with a warning that the next violation would yield 60 days in jail. Remy appeared before her a month later on a new probation violation, yet he still slid away without jail time.
The years dragged on, and Remy found new girlfriends to assault and terrorize. By 2005, he had racked up 15 cases — six CWOFs, one guilty, and eight dismissals — while still eluding jail.
Remy’s victims were terribly served in these cases. It was well within the discretion of judges on numerous occasions to stop Remy in his tracks. Instead, they extended his probation or even ordered him to move home with his parents as if he were a wayward child. It would be disgusting if these outcomes were in any way a result of Remy’s prominent family or the ability of a high-priced attorney to “shop” for lenient judges. It would be even more terrifying to learn that judges across the Commonwealth are routinely handing out continuances to serial perpetrators of domestic violence.
In 2012, the state Supreme Judicial Court commissioned an independent study when a Globe Spotlight series revealed that judges in some Massachusetts courts acquitted nearly all drunken driving defendants who chose to waive their right to a jury trial. The SJC-ordered study yielded good recommendations, including the curbing of judge shopping. If the Remy cases say anything about the quality of justice in domestic-violence cases, a similar independent investigation is long overdue.
Patriot_Reign said:I'm guessing the rumors about his cash levels being low are pretty much true and he needs to work.
The buenos noches amigos is going to feel a little weird.
Thanks, Ben.nattysez said:
The irony is that he is probably low on money because of the amounts he's paid lawyers to keep his kids out of jail all these years.
Busy times. I'll check in on this in a couple of days. No opinion yet. Except that you can't "forum shop" for judges - unless I'm very mistaken, usually a brand new case gets a randomly assigned judge. If you have a open case, new cases usually flow to that courtroom/judge. So it's not unusual for a judge to appear in a cluster of cases near in time if probation is involved. There may vbe a weird MA thing, but that's the general rule.Van Everyman said:Globe editors savage the state judges: http://b.globe.com/1dPuHNc
Would be interested to see RR's take on this piece.
I do wonder how well Phoebe is actually doing, especially going over the whole "don't worry I took Jared's keys" thing in her head (if that piece is actually true), and just the general fact that she was with Jared the night before and somehow completely missed the fact that he was in a murderous rage that would carryover into the next day. The negligence required there is hard to comprehend. Is she going to handle it well if/when Jerry is on the road for 10-12 days and she is left to herself to dwell on this?doldmoose34 said:I can't imagine the guilt that he and his wife must be feeling, knowing they enabled that piece of shit Jared for all those years. I'm sure that the prosecutors have pulled Phoebe's phone and text records, if there is evidence that she told Jen that the restraining order would 'ruin Jared's life' then fuck both of them.
Van Everyman said:Globe editors savage the state judges:
http://b.globe.com/1dPuHNc
Would be interested to see RR's take on this piece.
nattysez said:
The irony is that he is probably low on money because of the amounts he's paid lawyers to keep his kids out of jail all these years.
RR I think you said way back that you're not in Mass, both the Globe and Herald have done series of articles over the past few years on how lawyers who specialize in DUI cases will 'judge shop' for either friends or those know to go easy/broom casesRovin Romine said:Busy times. I'll check in on this in a couple of days. No opinion yet. Except that you can't "forum shop" for judges - unless I'm very mistaken, usually a brand new case gets a randomly assigned judge. If you have a open case, new cases usually flow to that courtroom/judge. So it's not unusual for a judge to appear in a cluster of cases near in time if probation is involved. There may vbe a weird MA thing, but that's the general rule.
Theoretically it's possible to bribe a clerk to assign cases.
I think a more useful inquiry of the globe would be to examine if Remy got better treatment than the average defendant in front of the same judge, and/or better treatment than other defendants represented by the same attorney.
Those interested in inequity in sentencing should look around. A number of studies have been done. Generally speaking class, education, and beauty tend to cluster in odd ways vis a vis sentencing. Although a friend of mine (LEO) once told me he pulled over a woman for speeding, but because she was so ugly and looked so miserable, he just couldnt ticket her.
Blacken said:I almost posted something else here but I didn't but you know what it was and now you'll have that in your brain for a while.
RedOctober3829 said:Remy is on WEEI right now. Said they did everything they could for him and that a lot of the Globe article is false.
No he wouldn't go into that.Dummy Hoy said:
did he say what was false?
Dummy Hoy said:
did he say what was false?
They brought up the steroid issues and he said he gave Jared money to live on and what he did with it was up to him. Said he didn't actually see him take roids but "I'm not stupid".Foulkey Reese said:No he wouldn't go into that.
He got a bit fired up at the end when talking about the granddaughter.
Basically he kind of had a "not much more we could have done" attitude and admitted that they paid for Jared to live since he couldn't hold a job.
Since most of the story was court records and, I presume, fact checked, it's reasonable to think that he feels the other women interviewed in the story are lying. He pretty much said that some of what Christina Hill said was not true.Dummy Hoy said:
did he say what was false?
Remy said he always felt there would be more trouble with his son.
"We always felt that it was a disaster waiting to happen, something around the corner and that's why we always tried to get him as much possible help as you can. Sometimes it takes two to tango and a lot of times the tango wasn't there... I can't say if I had to go back and do a certain thing different that I would. It's been awful, absolutely horrible. It's horrible for two families and it's not something that I wish on anybody that has to go through this with children because when you have children, and you guys do, you know how you feel about them and you try to do the right thing. And the right thing doesn't always turn out right."
"What are we guilty of? We're guilty of getting him lawyers when he was in trouble. We were well aware what was going on with Jared and we tried our best to do everything along the way to get him as much help as he possibly could," Remy said. "And then for a stretch it seemed like he had his life in order and then of course everything caved in. ...
"Did we enable him? Yes. We paid for lawyers, we paid for a psychiatrist, we paid for the help that we thought he needed. I think a lot of families would have done the same thing. Others would not have. Others would have thrown him out into the street, but that just wasn't our way. When you look back on it, was it the right thing to do? I don't have an answer to that. I really don't have an answer for that."
Foulkey Reese said:Also, credit to the WEEI hosts who asked legit tough questions.
Myt1 said:5. After their monster of a son murdered the mother of his child, they sought custody despite the fact that they're below the Mendoza line on child rearing.
When Remy was asked if he considered getting Jared a public defender in lieu of paying for an attorney to defend him, Jerry Remy said his financial resources would come into play.
"Well, here's the deal with that. If you do that, people say ... supposedly I've got a ton of money and you wouldn't be able to get a public defender because you're supposed to be able to afford his defense, so you're caught between a rock and a hard place so he has representation.
""I can tell you that I didn't go and request the job back for him," Remy said."singaporesoxfan said:Globe site has a transcript of some of what Remy said.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2014/03/jerry_remy_i_have_a_right_to_make_a_living_and_go.html
jcd0805 said:I can't imagine a parent being forced to foot their 30-something year old child's legal bills, I really can't, and he had no job or income coming in so he would have more than qualified for a public defender, I take it more like Jerry was kind of alluding to people assuming he has all this money and should be paying his son's legal bills so the state didn't have to.
Trautwein's Degree said:Remy made a good point about having a public defender. Remy said he supposedly has a lot of money. If he let the Commonwealth pay - he would be seen as a bum. If he paid for the defense than he's seen as an enabler. In this situation, I agree, he's damned no matter what.
Others here can probably speak better than me, but the whole "court-appointed attorneys are bad lawyers" trope is mostly false.jcd0805 said:I think people think any private attorney Remy hires will be SO much better than someone from the PD's office and they're mad money he earns on NESN would be used to help his murderer son, but again if he didn't pay for private counsel then I'm sure others would be outraged the tax payer was footing the bill to defend his murderer son when he has the means to, I guess he couldn't really win in that situation.
My imperfect understanding is that this is essentially correct. Jerry can shut off Jared, and Jared will be appointed an attorney, assuming he has no other assets, but Jerry can't give Jared income or assets and have it "not count" towards Jared's ability to pay.Reverend said:I think the issue is support in general. That is to say, Jerry didn't have to pay for a lawyer, but if he was giving support to Jared, then that money would then be required to go to paying for his own lawyer. So, like, telling Jared that he can't expect to get supported by his parents and then have the state provide for his legal counsel. If that is the case, then no, Jerry would not have had to pay for counsel, but he wouldn't have been able to support Jared financially in other ways as well.
Trautwein's Degree said:Remy made a good point about having a public defender. Remy said he supposedly has a lot of money. If he let the Commonwealth pay - he would be seen as a bum. If he paid for the defense than he's seen as an enabler. In this situation, I agree, he's damned no matter what.
This line of thinking is ridiculous. It presumes that Jerry not only gives weight, but gives primary weight, to "how he will be seen", not to helping his son. That attitude is at odds with both common sense and with his own publicly-declared statements, and disregards a 20+year history of below-the-radar actions by the Remys to help and protect Jared.joe dokes said:
He is, espcially since part of the narrative is that he hired a "high-priced" attorney. No lawyers are cheap, so its all relative, but I dont know if this guy is nearer to the top or bottom of the scale.
So if he hires a lawyer, he's enabling; if he doesn't, he's taking from the taxpayers. The growling public would only approve if he hired Lionel Hutz or Jackie Chiles.
To try and find "PR" reasons to explain why Jerry is doing what he has always done, and what he has publicly stated that he thinks is what he thinks is right, is nonsensical. It's like saying that David Ortiz continues to pull-hit because otherwise he would be "seen" as being afraid of the shift, or something. Jerry himself has, explicitly, copped to "enabling" Jared. He has spoken with remarkable candor, given the circumstances, and made it plain that he knew Jared was on steroids, that there was a constant fear about what he might do, that they hoped the worst was past, etc...
This line of thinking is ridiculous. It presumes that Jerry not only gives weight, but gives primary weight, to "how he will be seen", not to helping his son. That attitude is at odds with both common sense and with his own publicly-declared statements, and disregards a 20+year history of below-the-radar actions by the Remys to help and protect Jared.
To try and add "PR" considerations as a significant motive is both redundant and irrational.
WEEI’s informal polling of callers was running close to 50-50 on whether he should go back to work. After Jennifer Martel’s murder last August, Jerry sensibly took a leave of absence from NESN. He should have extended it at least until his son’s trial, now scheduled for October. Then, he could have enjoyed the support and encouragement of his many friends, fans, and well-wishers, without having to perform in the broadcast booth.
Can Jerry Remy express excitement over baseball, chuckle at partner Don Orsillo’s jokes, and analyze plays on the field without evoking fans’ memories of his son’s offenses? By returning to the broadcast booth at a time when his son’s case is certain to be heavily in the news, he’s asking fans to put all those images aside. It’s a lot to ask.
Can Jerry Remy express excitement over baseball, chuckle at partner Don Orsillo’s jokes, and analyze plays on the field without evoking fans’ memories of his son’s offenses? By returning to the broadcast booth at a time when his son’s case is certain to be heavily in the news, he’s asking fans to put all those images aside. It’s a lot to ask.
I'm wondering if Jerry (or NESN) will ultimately cave to the pressure of the media even if the public is 50-50 on his return to the booth.