True Vermont

Rutland man John Gray provided information to law enforcement that a Vermont Assistant U.S. Attorney had ties to organized crime.  A short time later, Gray was sent to federal prison on marijuana conspiracy charges.  Due to a serious heart condition, he was designated to the Federal Medical Center in Carville, Louisiana.  There he was stabbed by another inmate, and subsequently died of a heart attack at an outside hospital.  A Freedom of Information Act request to the Federal Bureau of Prisons produced the answer that no investigation had been conducted and no criminal referrals had been made.  It seemed that Gray had been assassinated, and that prison authorities had covered up the crime.

However, a subsequent FOIA request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that there had been an investigation, criminal referral and successful prosecution of Gray’s assailant.   According to a doctor unaffiliated with the Bureau of Prisons, Gray’s heart attack was not caused by the stabbing.  Furthermore, the facts indicated that Gray’s stabbing arose from a dispute in the prison television room and, since the assailant was wheelchair-bound, an assassination was unlikely.  A letter to Harley Lappin, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons demanding an explanation is here.  Lappin’s response will be posted when it arrives.

A recent check of the U.S. District Court records shows no activity on this case since January 7^th, the date on which proceedings were stayed pending the resolution of the criminal cases.  Unfortunately, the United States government now has custody of the property, although “reform” legislation prevents it from evicting the residents.  Actually, according to the law, title passed to the government when the alleged drug offenses were committed.  So the property remains in limbo.

Unhappy with the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision vacating Michael Brillon’s conviction for excessive pretrial delays, the Bennington County State’s Attorney is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The essence of the matter, presented in previous posts, is that the government blames Mr. Brillion for the delays, in part for firing attorneys that confessed they were unprepared for trial.  

Particularly disturbing here is that a friend of the court brief is being filed by Vermont Law School on behalf of victims’ rights groups.  Clearly what’s intended is to keep Mr. Brillon in jail, even if it means forcing defendants to accept admittedly incompetent counsel.  As discussed in an earlier post, these appeals essentially wish to impose a character test on whether basic rights apply to criminal defendants.  If the defendant is unpopular, the Constitution need not apply.  

Serious problems with the Public Defender’s office were, or should have been, known to all the players here who failed to squawk loudly until the Vermont Supreme Court said enough was enough.  Where were they when they were needed?

Considering the public outcry over the drug-related murder of Carlos Vasquez this spring, complete with a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee meeting in Rutland, it is curious that a similar incident involving local men provoked no such outcry.  In November of 2005 four Fair Haven men took a gun to Burlington with the intent to rob a marijuana dealer.  Things went awry, and one of the robbers was shot with his own gun. If one is to believe the politicians, this is exactly the type of activity that they want to deal with harshly – but that’s not what happened.

U.S. District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha explained that he couldn’t be more lenient to Michael Manovill and Aaron Ruby because of the mandatory minimum sentence and gave each man five years in prison for the use of a gun in a drug crime.  Somehow Judge Murtha was able to disconnect robbery participants Michael and Peter Charron from the mandatory minimum, with Michael receiving a year and a day and Peter two years probation.  Meanwhile, Michael Connarn of Northfield is finishing up a 24-year sentence for three relatively minor drug crimes with no guns or violence involved. 

So what message did the defendants get?  Since his release from prison Michael Charron has repeatedly violated the conditions of his supervised release including missing 11 appointments for urine tests and testing positive for marijuana and cocaine.  Judge Murtha could have sentenced Charron to 9 months imprisonment, but instead chose 5.  The message seems to be that violent criminals receive better treatment than non-violent ones. 

Following drug related violence in Rutland, much of it associated with out of state drug dealers, the knee-jerk reaction by Governor Douglas and Sen. Kevin Mullin was a call to increase criminal penalties, but no one is apparently looking at what’s happening with the penalties already on the books.  A case in point is the interstate drug operation of Gregory LaRose of Brattleboro which was prosecuted in Vermont federal court.   With a drug quantity of 500 grams to 2 kilograms Mr. LaRose was looking at a five-year minimum jail sentence, but instead received four days.  The alleged ringleader, Alex Barrows, got 18 months.  Other co-conspirators and their sentences:   John Houle, 18 months;  John Parker, 4 months;  Jason Houle, 3 months; Robert Phelps, probation.  All apparently “cooperated” in some undisclosed capacity with the government.  So what’s the real message here?           

The recent roundup of alleged drug dealers in Central Vermont was the supposed pushback to drug related violence – particularly the fatal shooting of Carlos Vasquez in an apartment near the Rutland Middle School.  According to one account Ramel Ramos and Vasquez intended to put rival drug dealer Javon Shelton out of business.  Shelton was wounded in the incident.  

As a reaction, the legislature passed new laws lowering the amount of drugs to qualify for trafficking, the Governor touted the potential 30-year sentences, and U.S. Sen. Leahy convened a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Rutland.  As to Shelton and Ramos, Shelton was treated for his wound at the Rutland Hospital and skipped town.  Rutland County State’s Attorney James Mongeon couldn’t figure out what to charge Ramos with, so he was released after serving a couple of months for marijuana possession.  He’s now left the state.  The plan seems to be to hope that the feds will pick up the case and find the missing defendants, but Vermont’s U.S. Attorney Tom Anderson is making no promises.  With this kind of prosecutorial incompetence, Gov. Douglas is going to have to wait a long time to see those 30-year sentences.  “Stay tuned,” says Rutland Det. Raymond LaMoria.  Yeah, right. 

A couple of weeks ago law enforcement responded to recent drug-related violence by rounding up over three dozen people in the Rutland region. Newspaper accounts have some prosecuted by state or local authorities, and others by the federal government, but no explanation has been given as to why all were not prosecuted by the same entity.  Simple possession of a regulated drug is sufficient for a federal prosecution without the need to prove any nexus to interstate commerce.

Conventional wisdom had it that federal prosecutions were used in cases where the evidence was weak, in that a criminal defendant has far fewer rights in federal than in most state courts, or in cases where the longer federal sentences could be used to either make an example or coerce “cooperation”.  However, the distinctions are blurring.  Gov. Douglas was crowing about Vermont’s recently-enacted drug law providing for 30-year sentences for drug trafficking; and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that even though an arrest is illegal under state law, a search pursuant to that arrest is legal, and the fruits of the search can be used in a criminal prosecution. 

Due to strict firearms laws, few Japanese possess them.  However, the lack of guns hasn’t prevented either murder or mayhem; it’s just changed the weapons of choice.  Tomohiro Kato recently ran down a crowd of shoppers with a two-ton rented truck, and then began stabbing the victims and people in the crowd of onlookers, leaving seven dead and ten injured.  The government’s reaction:  a proposal for more regulation of large knives and more security in public places.  More truck regulation might help, too. 

Roger Bean, 61, of West Palm Beach was a retired denture maker from Texas who tried to help his neighbors by supplying inexpensive dentures.  Following an anonymous tip, police raided Bean’s garage and confiscated his equipment.  Although he had been licensed in Texas, Florida had no similar program and dentures had to be obtained through a dentist.  Bean was sentenced to two years probation and thirty hours community service.  More importantly, his equipment was confiscated. Bean’s lawyer said, “He’s a great guy who never hurt anybody in his life. He found he could help individuals in dire circumstances financially and healthwise because of particular knowledge he has.”  The original story is here. 

The Vermont Supreme Court vacated the convictions of Michael Brillon due the nearly three years it took to bring him to trial.  In that time, Brillon went through six attorneys for various reasons.  Now, Vermont’s most notorious murder suspects, Christopher Williams and Brian Rooney are asking for new lawyers, prompting expressions of grave concern from the governor to the State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs Association.  However, the defendants had already expressed dissatisfaction with counsel before the Brillon decision. 

There’s no reason for alarm.  The responsibility for the failure in the Brillon case lies squarely at the feet of the trial court, but in the most recent cases the judges are on top of the situation.  If assigned counsel is not prepared, or otherwise not performing to a minimum standard, the court has a duty to replace him or her.  There’s a reason lawyers are held in lower esteem than used car salesmen, and it’s not because they perform admirably in every case.  If counsel’s performance is found to be adequate, the defendant can either keep the assigned attorney or go it alone.  It’s just that simple.