MIDDLESEX COUNTY PRISON COORDINATING COMMITTEE NEWSLETTER

MCPCC met Feb. 9, 2005, in West Newton, with Mary Ann Donaldson,

Beverly Wilkins, Tom Crowther, Elizabeth Woodbridge, Judy Lustig,

Joanne Glover, Dorothy Weitzman and Marjorie Moerschner present.

Attorney Lee Gartenburg, Director of Inmate Legal Services for the

Middlesex County Sheriff's office, was our guest speaker.

Reintegration

Lee finds that a comprehensive program of reintegration of

ex-inmates into society is the most important trend in criminal

justice right now. Everything indicates that a plan for each

prisoner worked out with the prisoner before he or she leaves the

facility, along with follow-up after leaving, is the most effective

way to prevent recidivism. Programs, resources, community correction centers, all help the ex-inmate to stay away from his bad old ways

and to succeed on the outside. The first few weeks back on the street

are crucial to success or failure.

The Parole Board in conjunction with the Dept of Corrections

has set up a reintegration unit for state prisoners. All prisoners

upon completing their sentences are first taken there and given

information on what health and other services are available to them

and how to reach those services. 10 or 15 years ago few of these

services were available.

Programs during incarceration are also important for successful reentry. Billerica has two very intensive programs, on substance abuse

and alternatives to violence. Men choose to be in these programs and

are housed in the newer modular unit.

Sentencing Reform

Lee is hopeful there'll be some kind of meaningful sentencing

reform. Under Speaker Finneran bills often languished once they were

voted out of committee. Speaker DiMasi may have more respect for the committees, which do the hard work of holding hearings and carefully considering proposed legislation.

An enlightened sentencing guidelines bill was filed in the state legislature years ago- Lee has mentioned it many times- but has never passed. Nevertheless, many judges began to use the guidelines under a

pilot program some years ago. They liked them and continue to use them.

Drunk driving and drug offenses are not included in the proposed guidelines; they carry mandatory sentences without provision for

parole. Last year Senator Creem filed a bill to give judges more

flexibility in regard to these offenses. The bill did not pass, but

it came close.

Recently the U.S. Supreme Court threw out federal sentencing

guidelines, leaving a rather murky situation. In the 1980s, federal guidelines were passed which put very rigid constraints on federal

judges' ability to sentence- giving little room for judicial

discretion and little room for defense lawyers to plea bargain. Some

of the sentences were draconian- 15 or 20 years for relatively minor offenses.

Under these guidelines , after the trial but before sentencing,

the prosecuting U.S. attorney was allowed to present to the judge

so-called "real facts” which had not come out during the trial and

which were aimed at increasing the mandated sentence. There was no

defense and no jury was present. All the prosecutor had to do was

convince the judge. The Supreme Court declared this to be

unconstitutional on the grounds that these "real facts" could not be

proved beyond the shadow of a doubt-and since the federal guidelines

allowed this practice, it found the guidelines themselves to be unconstitutional. Many federal prisoners are now asking for a retrial.

The Supreme Court did say that the guidelines can be regarded as

advisory, not mandatory. Unproven facts, like the "real facts" can no

longer be allowed to influence sentencing.

The sentencing guidelines of all states, including Massachusetts,

must conform to the Supreme Court ruling.

Compensation for wrongful conviction

A bill setting up a system of compensation for the wrongly

convicted, has passed the MA legislature. A wrongly convicted person

may now sue for monetary compensation, tuition abatement and the right

to attend a state university.

Police interrogations and suspect identification

25% of those who were later exonerated by DNA evidence from the crime for which they had been convicted had confessed to the crime during police interrogations.

A recent decision by the MA SJC encourages police to record

interrogations. If an interrogation has not been recorded, the defendant

has the right to instruct the jury to give less weight to evidence

obtained during that interrogation. (Under proposition two and a half,

MA cities and towns cannot be given an "unfunded mandate"; that is, that without funding available for recording interrogations, the court

cannot order them to be made.)

Police procedures for identification of suspects, such as line-ups,

are being scrutinized. Eye-witness identifications are not always

accurate, despite the best efforts of the eye-witness.

Photo identification of suspects is more reliable when a witness is shown photos one at a time, rather than looking at a

whole page of pictures at once.

Lee is very pleased with the appointment of Cathy Denehy as Commissioner

of the Dept. of Corrections, but the whole culture of the DOC needs to change and that won't be easy. Incidentally, county Houses of Correction

are not run by the DOC; they're run by the sheriffs though the DOC does inspect them.

The regional psychiatric unit serving eastern Massachusetts will occupy

a separate space in the new Billerica HOC infirmary. It is not part of

the HOC but will be run by the sheriff. This will be a diagnostic, not

a treatment center. Bridgewater treats prisoners with mental health problems.

Russian justice project

Last October Lee went to Tomsk, Siberia, as part of a small delegation.

Two years ago he was part of a group of MA judges and 1awyers invited

there to set up a judicial trial system along western lines, with the concept of a fair judge, an active defense and an involved jury.

Putin's recent crack-downs have not affected the free court system so

far but Lee got a sense that the reforms of the past few years are not

being accepted culturally by the Russian people. He attended a trial in October which the prosecutor dominated, as would have happened under the

Soviets. There were a number of places where the defense attorney could

and should have objected to the proceedings but he did not. Juries

aren't being used in Tomsk as much as Lee had hoped; defendants often

waive the right to a jury, apparently feeling that a jury is more apt

to convict them.

A group of American lawyers and Social workers went to Russia

recently to work with Russians on the issue of domestic violence. They didn't get far because the Russians deny such a thing exists in their country.

Putin is extremely popular with his people because he has brought

them some stability; it is at the cost of some aspects of democracy but democracy has never really been part of the Russian experience, Ethnic unrest within Russia's borders, as well as anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic expressions are increasingly serious problems. Russians are angry at

America for what they see as interference in the Ukrainian election.

The good thing is that open discussions continue to take place

between American and Russian lawyers and judges.

Many thanks as always to Lee for coming to speak with us!

In March two men from the City Mission Society will come to tell

us about their prison experiences.

NEXT MEETING: MARCH 9 AT 7 PM

SECOND CHURCH IN NEWTON, 60 HIGHLAND STREET, WEST NEWTON