The following appeared on the Pacer site relative to Whitey Bulger’s petition for mandamus.
“ORDER entered by Sandra L. Lynch, Chief Appellate Judge: The government is directed to file a response to the petition for a writ of mandamus so that an electronic version (through CM/ECF) and four paper copies are received by the Clerk’s Office on or before 4 p.m. on Thursday, December 27, 2012. The trial court judge is invited to submit a response to the petition by that date if he so wishes, but need not do so. See Fed. R. App. P. 21(b)(4). Any reply from petitioner should be filed so that an electronic version (through CM/ECF) and four paper copies are received by the Clerk’s Office on or before 4 p.m. on Thursday, January 3, 2013. No extensions should be expected. Oral argument is scheduled for January 8, 2013. Petitioner’s motion to waive filing fee associated with his petition is denied. [12-2488]”
Sandra Lynch was counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Education which was one of the several parties on the other side of me when I represented the Boston School Committee during the days of busing. Her client and the others urged Judge J. Arthur Garrity to impose the busing order which shuffled the poor city kids from one neighborhood to another under the guise of equal educational opportunity. It was mostly aimed at bringing a recalcitrant South Boston into line and did little to improve the education in the Boston Schools.
Billy Bulger was an outspoken opponent of busing. He and others from South Boston were much out of favor with the Boston Globe and most of the people unaffected by the busing issue. It is interesting to see that she is back again dealing with an issue relating to South Boston and another Bulger.
It can be considered a little bit of good news for J.W. Carney that the Appeals Court is going to hear the case on January 8, 2013. I’m not sure how excited the prosecutors are to have this thrown in their lap just before Christmas with a deadline two days after Christmas. Merry Christmas?
Would it have made a great deal of difference if the Appeals Court recognized that Christmas is a special time for many people and acting accordingly. As I suggested yesterday, “I’ve got this feeling that the judiciary has become so isolated that no one is seeing the forest for the trees.” What could be a better example of this when we see it imposing such a schedule during this time of the year? Giving the prosecutors time off over the holidays by extending the dates for two weeks apparently was too much for the Appeals Court to consider.
Anyway it’s a break for J.W. Carney, he will at least have a chance to be heard. He’ll also be able to brush up on his arguments in his reply to the prosecutors. That reply will have to address the matters I’ve been discussing over the past week. By all means avoid arguing anything about what will happen if the case is tried, Whitey convicted, the case is reversed on appeal, and it has to be tried over again. That won’t happen so Carney should not deal with it.
Carney’s must emphasize to the court that it not let itself to get dragged down into the mud like everyone else that’s been associated with Whitey’s case; he’s got to show the extensive publicity it has received and how the eyes of the country if not the world are watching how the case will be handled; he’s has to suggest that like Caesar’s wife, the way in which this case should be handled must be to ensure that the federal court is seen to be above reproach; that Judge Stearns should be taken at his word that he knew nothing about any investigations into the world of Whitey Bulger when he was in the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston; but the issue is not what Sterns thinks but how the case is perceived by the public who will know that others who worked with Stearns in both a higher and lower position were aware Whitey was under investigation and give some examples of this as I have done; that Stearns is about to make a decision which will relate to himself and his friends in the U.S. attorney’s office involving whether Whitey can go to a jury with the issue of immunity which shows the problem with him sitting on the case; that if he takes the issue away from the jury his decision will be second guessed; that because of the past chicanery involving the federal government and Whitey Bulger the last thing that is needed is a suspicion of more; and that it is easy to get another judge to sit and do away with this unnecessary issue and keep the trial on schedule.
The prosecutors after all their hard work on this case and knowing that there is little to no chance Whitey won’t be convicted on some, and perhaps all, of the murder offenses should not have their Christmas break interrupted. They should suggest in a one page reply that this is a side issue, that they have no objection to Judge Stearns sitting, but to move the case on perhaps Judge Stearns should step aside so there will be no question of the fairness of Whitey’s trial.
I expect the Appeals Court will act with alacrity. We should know by the middle of January the decision.