The Whitey Bulger Trial Starts with a Damnable Outrage

James, "Whitey" Bulger, as many people know, was apprehended recently in California and extradited to Massachusetts for his murderous activities as a mob boss in Boston. He is accused of 19 murders, and the prosecution has (successfully) asked that the associated racketeering charges against him be dismissed, to remove the temptation of compromising on the lesser charge.

That is not the outrage. It actually makes sense. A gullible jury might get bamboozled enough by a sophisticated defense attorney to hesitate charging the defendant with murder. If they had a lesser charge to fall back on, they could go to that and still feel they had done their duty. If their choice was either you convict the guy of murder or he walks, their attention would almost certainly be more focused on the charges.

Let us stop and consider a few things about the murders that Bulger allegedly committed. These were not random victims, killed by an indigent man in the throes of some psychosis. No, they were planned, carefully calculated mob hits, carried out by a member of a crime syndicate, generally for further financial gain. It is important to consider these ideas because Bulger is pleading poverty and demanding the taxpayers provide him with legal counsel.

Yes, the arresting officers in California found $822,000 on the scene, but they confiscated it, thereby depriving Bulger of the use of the funds. Does that mean he is broke? I very much doubt it. Clearly and obviously, he has been careful to funnel his assets to other parties to give his financial records the appearance of penury.

The system is set up this way for the protection of the truly poor. Nobody in this nation should be denied legal counsel for lack of funds, and if a wealthy gangster is able to game the system by hiding his assets, that is the price our society has to pay. So, while it is unfortunate that the court decided to grant Whitey Bulger legal counsel at taxpayer expense, even that is not the outrage.

Here is the truly unconscionable part. In the process of granting Bulger his state-funded legal counsel, Judge Marianne Bowler assigned him, not the stupidest, least-successful lawyer in the public defender's office, which is what this con artist deserves, but, instead, the team of J.W. Carney, Jr. and Janice Bassil, two of the top attorneys in the state and the founding partners in the law firm of Carney & Bassil. What was this judge thinking? If a wealthy suspect, such as Bulger, wants that kind of high-powered representation, he, and not the taxpayers of Massachusetts, should damn-well pay for it himself.

If, hypothetically, a suspected bank robber named Willie Lee Jackson had been brought before Judge Bowler and needed a public defender, would she have assigned him Carney and Bassil? Not a chance.

Some time ago, I wrote an article touching on California Judge Robert Lemkau, who found himself facing a re-election challenge when he arrogantly refused to grant a mother protective custody against her child's father. Later, the father murdered the boy. While that article was more about the desirability of letting the people elect judges, it held Lemkau up as an example of why they should. Well, based on this ludicrous decision by Judge Bowler, Robert Lemkau would seem like a Supreme Court candidate by comparison.

I hope the people of her jurisdiction get as angry at Marianne Bowler for this absurd and unjust decision as the people of California got at their errant jurist.

Sources

http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-whitey-bulger-trial-judges-assign-taxpayer-funded/story?id=13970242

http://carneybassil.com/team/carney/

"The CBS Evening News," 6/30/11 broadcast

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2788926/judge_robert_lemkau_and_the_can_of.html?cat=17