In Memorium: William D. Delahunt

The Camelot Years (1975-1997)

A True Story of A District Attorney Who Transformed the

Criminal Justice System Advanced the Frontiers of Social Change

The criminal justice system where certain members of a sovereignty were responsible for ensuring the criminal laws of the state were enforced had existed without little change since the founding of our country. These individuals, called district attorneys or attorney generals, were responsible for prosecuting criminal acts which took place in their jurisdictions. They reacted to the criminal act after it happened using police officials to conduct the investigations and provide the evidence upon which they could act. They limited their actions to that function which was accepted by the general public as doing their jobs.

During the summer of 1975 the district attorney in Norfolk County resigned. On September 9, 1975 William David Delahunt was sworn in as the Norfolk County District Attorney by then Governor Michael Dukakis. Delahunt had resigned from the Massachusetts legislature to accept the appointment. Having had an active criminal defense practice he was well aware of how the criminal justice system worked throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as well as the changes that were happening in the criminal law area as a result of the Warren Court decisions.

He knew that district attorney offices operated on a part time basis where assistant district attorneys would report to the office for three or four months during the course of a year to handle criminal matters while still practicing their private law practice.. The remaining months they devoted exclusively that private law practices.

Delahunt recognized even before being sworn in that the system created confusion and long delays in prosecuting cases. This meant witnesses’ could not be located. Some had moved out-of-state and others died. Police officers had retired. Many who were contacted had difficulty recalling the past events or were reluctant to again become involved in the matter. Justice was not swift which resulted in dismissals and plea bargains that did not reflect the serious nature of the crime. This system did not “do justice” for victims and did not ensure public safety.

He recognized the scales of justice had been weighed too heavily in favor of the defendants as against the people of the Commonwealth. He knew to even off the scales he had to change the way cases were prosecuted. Delahunt recognized he was presented a tabula rasa upon which he could create a system that would do justice for all citizens. He would begin to write on it the changes he felt were necessary. The steps he would take would change the role of the prosecutors throughout the country.

The first step was to hire prosecutors who had the skill to take on defense attorneys who devoted all their time to criminal defense work. That meant he would need prosecutors who would do the same to their work. His first step was to seek the ability to hire the best and brightest attorneys available and have them work exclusively as prosecutors.

This required him to bring about legislation that would increase the pay of those he hired as assistant district attorneys in exchange for them committing to work full time for the district attorney’s office. His first step was to convince the state legislature to pass a bill that only dealt with his Norfolk County office. It allowed him to increase salaries to reflect the reality of full-time professionals upon his promise to save the Commonwealth money by reducing his budget by 10%. This was unheard of and easily accepted when Delahunt promised he could do more with less money.

Having satisfied himself that he could staff his office with the type of attorneys he knew he needed to even the scales he set about to reexamine the traditional role of a prosecutor. He wondered was there more it could do. Was it able to step beyond the role of being a reactive agent to one that could preempt problems?

One case that always bothered him as a young attorney happened in Norfolk County. A woman murdered her husband. She did it after years of physical and mental abuse. He looked upon it a justifiable homicide but the system thought otherwise.

Thinking of that he figured if there was a way the woman could have reached out for help earlier the tragedy of her husband’s death and her incarceration could have been avoided. He wondered why would that not be a good thing for a district attorneys office to do? Why should he not try to prevent crime? With that thought in mind he set off to reinvent the role of a prosecutor in the United States.

The actions he took and the programs he created were all the first time they were enacted in the Commonwealth of Massachusett or even in the United States. Now many of them are routinely practiced throughout the country. He is quick to point out however that he could not have done these “firsts” without the help and assistance of the staff he assembled and hired including assistant district attorney, advocates and specialists, and the general staff of office assistants and others who gladly pitched in. He has always expressed his gratitude to all of them from those who did the drudgery work of keeping the office clean, of handling relations with the public, dealing with the inner workings of the office or doing the stenography work and typing, especially in the early days prior to the invention of the word processor, recognizing without their cooperation he could not have brought about the changes.

Between the years of 1975 when he was sworn in and 1984 he achieved many firsts. He was asked to reflect on his first ten years in the office. In a speech he said:

The modern prosecutor must go further than the traditional role of the district attorney if the new mission is to impact the community in a more constructive way. He not only should have a social conscience, but a corresponding social program involving the entire community as well. He must train local police, not just support them. He must intervene to prevent civil rights violations, not merely secure convictions. He should work to eradicate discrimination, racism, and hate, not merely decry it.

Those last words: “work to eradicate discrimination, racism, and hate, not merey decry it” had they been listened to an followed would have done much to help our nation as it moved into the 21st century,

The thinking behind the programs that were first conceived and developed by Delahunt is set out in greater detail in the pages that follow. Here is a glimpse of some of these firsts that he brought to a prosecutor’s office in chronological order recognizing some were still developing as others came into existence:

• The Juvenile Diversion Program
• The Sexual Assault Unit
• The Domestic Violence Unit
• The White Collar Crime Unit
• A Specialized Unit to Prosecute Economic Crime
• The Career Criminal Unit
• A Specialized Unit to Prosecute Complex Cases
• A Specialized Unit to Prosecute Arson and Organize Crime using Electronic Surveillance.
• The Victim Witness Unit
• The Civil Rights Unit
• The Homicide Investigative Unit
• The Repeat Offender Unit

All of these were groundbreaking ideas to devote office resources and staff to specialized areas of the law. These units were not just composed of staff members but brought in volunteers and associated with other agencies and people who sought to address the same problems. What attracted the other agencies was the ability to accomplish more when assisted by dedicated professional.

These groups within the office were not the only matters that confronted Delahunt. To be successful in those areas he had to be successful in the normal duties of a district attorney which was to investigate and prosecute cases. He needed skilled trial lawyers who could also handle homicide cases and the prosecution of other major crimes. Not only did these attorneys have to be skilled in the courtroom while on trial they had to have commensurate skill in the investigation of cases within the parameters set down by the ongoing changes in the criminal laws especially those relating to questioning suspects and search and seizure.

Along with that the less public duties of the office that involved specialized lawyers were the enforcement of the open meeting laws to which he appointed a skilled attorney to handle which was also another first. Along with that this attorney was charged with the handling of cases that were before the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court. The skill involved in preparing and presenting appellate arguments often differed from that of trying a case. While the appellate lawyers were also trial lawyers their main skill consisted in having an intricate grasp of the criminal laws that sometimes were not appreciated by other litigators.

Another less appreciated problem Delahunt confronted was the existence of the state’s two major prison facilities in his county. It was his responsibilities to prosecute the criminal activities especially the murders that may be committed behind those walls. He had to let it be known that the message from his office would be that those matters would be handled quickly and severely. He appointed one prosecutor whose main job was to oversee such prosecutions and maintain a close relationship with the prison officials and guards. This approach of working together brought much calm to the prisons unlike in the earlier days that saw prison riots and killings..

Delahunt had to keep all the balls in the air if he was going to be successful. When Delahunt first assumed his role, he often explained that he had few skills of the skills necessary to do what he expected others in his office to do. He did not think that he needed those as long as he possessed the skill that was critical to his ambition to create a new, expansive role for the DA’s office. He had a talent to know, attract and retain “the best and the brightest.”

At first he knew it was essential to be fair and transparent to gain the confidence and support of the public. If people lacked that confidence, it would put our democracy at risk. To do that he created a screening committee that was diverse and composed of well-known law enforcement figures, members of the criminal defense bar and prominent individuals and activists from the community. He personally reached out and recruited talented lawyers to go before the screening committee. He wanted to prevented politics from subverting the hiring process. He was confident that those selected would have the requisite legal skills but his admonition to the committee was he men and women who understood the immense power of the government and would never abuse it. He had in his office a quote of G.K. Chesterton that served as a reminder of what he expected from his assistants. Those who came to see him could look at it and keep in mind what their job was about. It read:

The horrible thing about all legal officials, even the best, about all judges, magistrates, barristers, detectives, and policeman, is not that they are wicked (some of them are good), not that they are stupid (several of them are quite intelligent), it is simply that they have got used to it. Strictly they do not see the prisoner in the dock; all they see is the usual man in the usual place. They do not see the awful court of judgment; they only see their own workshop.

With the new infrastructure and the full-time staff in place, the office was poised to chart a new course. Delahunt was often heard bragging about the “Dream Team.” The next 21 plus years confirmed that it was true.

The early years were not easy. People tend to resist change. The idea of having full time district attorneys and assistant district attorneys ran into immediate opposition. Many enjoyed the perquisites of being both prosecutor and having a private law practice. By taking one small bite, that is by only making his office full time he was able to convince the legislature and other district attorneys of the benefit of having people equally skilled with the opposition.

The main opposition to Delahunt’s plan came from the people whose duties he was replacing, the police officer. Prior to full time assistants the police investigators had great input into the system deciding what cases to investigate and how to conduct the investigation. They also had significant input into the recommendation for sentencing. The goal to put them under the control of the assistants was not going to be easy. They fought tooth and nail to keep what they had historically enjoyed without interference. What defeated them mostly was the recognition that they did not keep up with the Supreme Court changes in the rights of defendants and in the protection of their persons, going from the concept of trespass to privacy. The wiser police recognized that it was better to work as a team.

An early confrontation Delahunt faced was when a State Police Detective lieutenant wanted an assistant district attorney to recommend probation for a defendant with a long-term record of burglary. This defendant had a little scam going. He would set aside some of the material he stole and offer it to the police in exchange for them letting him stay on the street. The police liked it because they could then get publicity for recovering the goods. Meanwhile the defendant was free to continue to burglarize homes. The assistant seeing this defendant had never gone to prison told the lieutenant he was going to recommend heavy prison time. The lieutenant ran down to Delahunt to complain. Delahunt was in a delicate position. Should he go along with this experienced long-term police investigator or the newly appointed prosecutor? It may seem an easy decision now to back the prosecutor but back then it was not. Delahunt incurred the animosity of that state police lieutenant who never missed an opportunity to criticize him.

Multiply that by all the police prosecutors in the district court who were told that the assistants district attorneys would be ultimately responsible for trying the cases and making recommendations on sentences. Then add to that Delahunt’s decision to have his office oversee under the direction of one assistant district attorney along with the state police detective lieutenant assigned to the office all homicide investigations. Again Delahunt was stepping on the toes of town investigators who did not want to be interfered with.

Slowly, sometimes very slowly, the police problem solved itself. The older officers retired and newer police officers were willing to work in cooperation with the district attorneys office especially as they became incorporated into specialized units withinit. Early on some state police officers would say, “why should I work with you since you are only going to leave and become a defense lawyer in a couple of years?” It took time but eventually they recognized the full-time assistants were here to stay.

Task forces of police were established to go after organized crime and illegal drug networks putting together police officers from towns, the city of Quincy, the State Police, the Metropolitan police, and he Registry of Motor Vehicles into them. The relationships between differing departments became better and the police officers learned from each other the best way of investigating cases. With the help of assistant district attorneys they also learned the intricacies of the law of search and seizure. They participated in those searches under the command of skilled higher-ranking police officers to learn the proper way to do them. They returned to their departments better skilled and knowledgeable.

A monthly meeting of all the police chiefs in Norfolk County was held. It was a good place to receive the input from the chiefs so they too knew they had a say in the operation of the office. It was also where suggestions were offered to get their reaction to some innovated ideas. These most often fell upon unreceptive ears.

Eventually there became the recognition among the police that it was best to work together with the skilled prosecutors rather than against them. Police officers recognized that by doing it the right way as taught by Delahunt’s assistants they would always have their protection and backing. But it took a while to reach that happy state and along the road there were many rocky spots.

The many of the attorneys who worked in the office went on to a be appointed judges; others into successful legal practices; and a few stayed on throughout the whole time Delahunt was district attorney. Most when asked have said it was the best time of the legal career working for him. They were told from the day they came aboard that they were going to be treated as attorneys; they were expected to act as such; the cases they were given to handle were ones appropriate to their experience and they were to make the decisions on them; if they had questions they could come to any other assistant or to the person in charge of the office to which they were assigned; they could put as little or as much time into a case as they wanted, and that this was a time; and the effort they put in while working for us to increase their skills in trying cases and dealing with the public would be to their benefit in the long run throughout their legal careers.

Two final reminders were that they were in charge and not the police officer; and, if the matter they were handling was newsworthy it was best they refer it to a more experienced assistant. We did not want to learn by hearing in the media that a young assistant in Delahunt’s office had approved charging the governor, a mayor, or a chief of police with a crime.

Following is a list of first and other unique problems introduced by Delahunt.

JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAM:

The juvenile division program. There was a huge backlog of cases in the juvenile courts of the county as well as in the adult criminal courts. Services for juvenile offenders were also overwhelmed. Thus, there was little to encourage juveniles to improve their behavior. At the same time the burden on the system was not only expensive but also ensured a “revolving door” that eroded respect for the law as the time between charge and disposition was many months if not years.

The purpose of the program was to reduce the backlog and improve the delivery of services to juvenile offenders. And also to provide them the opportunity to avoid any court record. The program was aimed at non-violent youngsters who, for example, may have been involved in a property crime or had alcohol or drug issues. Its goal was to head off those youths before they became repeat offenders or committed more serious crimes. If the juvenile chose the program, he would sign a contract with particular, individualized requirements. A social worker from the DA’s office would provide the necessary services and ensure compliance with the criteria outlined in the contract. If the youth was in compliance, at the end of the term stipulated in the contract, court would be avoided and the juvenile would not incur a record.

This initiative was an unqualified success and would be replicated in other district attorneys’ offices over time. It was often referred to as “DA Probation.” It dramatically reduced the caseload in the juvenile courts, saved taxpayer dollars (just the cost of police officers waiting in courtrooms only to have their cases continued time after time was wasteful), and most importantly, provided services to juveniles in a timely manner. For example, in many cases, it connected the DA’s office to the local school departments, the local juvenile police officer and parents, and allowed for coordination among stakeholders that heretofore had been lacking. This collaboration worked and was very effective.

Its success is underscored by the fact that 80% of those that successfully completed the program stayed out of trouble thereafter. Compare that with the traditional approach where juveniles who were adjudicated delinquent were sent to the Shirley Industrial School or Lyman School where the recidivism rate was around 80%. Hopefully, this “second chance” opportunity came at the right time and those who participated realized a productive future.

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT UNIT:

Although the scope of the program was designed to include all sex offenses, initially it was intended to focus primarily on forcible rape of adults. To the surprise of the staff, almost half of their caseload involved the sexual assault of children under the age of 16.

ADA Hanlon emphasized the successful prosecution of a sexual assault was dependent on the timely and thorough investigations of the facts. It was also imperative for the victim not to be re-victimized and support services to be available. The unit recognized that to secure a fair and just outcome it was necessary to conduct in service seminars not just for police department but also for nurses and emergency room staff at every hospital and health care facility in the country. These seminars included procedures for the development of physical evidence. In addition, mock trials were conducted to comfort victims and prepare witnesses such as nurses, etc. for cross examination. All members of the unit participated in these sessions including lawyers, counsellors and investigators. Local police were also included in these efforts.

The implementation of “vertical prosecution” was also essential in these cases. A victim was immediately assigned a prosecutor and a counselor and the victim dealt with them through the entire judicial process until disposition. If victim services were needed post-deposition the unit would assist the victim in securing them.

Again, with this coordinated approach the results were startling. In the first several years the caseload doubled!! This was not expected but it revealed that half of such assaults were perpetrated by family members or individuals known to the victims. Hanlon observed “that a child rape victim who has been molested over a long period needs years of counseling and patient treatment to get him or her on the right track.”

With this new data, the unit staff recognized the need to educate the public. Public education was critical to encourage victims to come forward. They saw the need to address the public to dispel myths about rape and to provide information about the prevention of sexual assaults, and discuss attitudes that victimize and stigmatize people who have been assaulted and hopefully encourage reporting of the crimes.

All of this public education challenged a culture that to a significant degree ignored the reality of abuse and violence against women. In this DA’s office, it would no longer be tolerated.

THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE UNIT:

The term domestic violence became part of the parlance of this moment in our social history. The domestic violence initiative sparked a revolution that led to a cultural change. Historically, cultural and societal traditions allowed men to beat their wives. For example, in Blackstone’s codification of English Common Law limited the husband to hitting his wife with a stick no bigger than the circumference of his thumb. In 1984, the U.S. Surgeon General wrote that there existed widespread cultural acceptance of violence as a means of responding to or resolving interpersonal and marital problems. District Attorney Delahunt was told to get out of peoples’ bedrooms or suffer political consequences. It was a “private matter” and none of his business.

Domestic violence knew no financial, ethnic, geographical or religious boundaries. It was a devastating social phenomenon that placed an alarming number of women, children and elderly in unusual danger from members of their own family. As the statistics powerfully support, the sheer number of domestic violence incidents pointed to the distressing regularity and pervasive nature of this social disgrace.

Battery is the single largest cause of injury to women in the nation and a woman was then killed every 22 days by her husband, boyfriend or “ex” in Massachusetts.

As the data came from the Sexual Assault Unit revealing that almost of those cases involved assaults by family members it became clear that there was a serious problem with family dynamics generating violent behavior. Child sexual abuse prompted a response that shocked the public. The death of a young girl named Dianne DeVanna in Braintree, Mass. at the hands of her parents coincided with the creation of a Child Abuse Unit in the office that eventually morphed into the Domestic Violence Program in 1978 dealing with the broader issues of the violent family and violence against women in particular.

The need was tragically underscored by the murder of a 42 year old housewife who had been shot in the face in the affluent community of Cohasset, Massachusetts by her husband, a respected oil tanker captain. He committed suicide after wounding his three young children and killing the family dog. The tragedy was compounded by the fact she had contacted the police department and pleaded for help only to be told there was nothing they could do and she could take out a court complaint the next day. The Abuse Protection Act was enacted into law a month later. And the DA’s office took on the issue of domestic violence with a passion. They realized they could potentially save many lives.

Additionally, beyond this immediate goal they realized that there was even a broader purpose. Delahunt believed that there was a clear nexus between family violence and violence in the community. He was convinced that violence was learned in the home. The office was responsible for the investigation and prosecution of crimes within the walls of the maximum security prison in Massachusetts. The office, as a result, was very familiar with the social histories of those incarcerated in the institution. Invariably, those inmates were the byproducts of the violent family. They were either abused themselves or were witnesses to family violence. Violence was a learned behavior. This reality was confirmed by a study done at San Quentin Prison in California by Professor Richard Gelles of the University of Rhode Island. It concluded that from a sample of inmates incarcerated for armed robbery 100 percent were the victims of or witnesses to domestic violence. Family violence is the breeding ground for criminal behavior of every type — particularly if it involved violence.

If domestic violence could be addressed the benefits could be two-fold. The lives and well-being of women and their children could be protected. And over time if domestic violence was comprehensively dealt with then violence in the community at large could be reduced.

The response had to be a top priority, coordinated, and multi-disciplinary. The Domestic Violence Unit was created in 1978 to be the driving force in this response to the serious and increasing rate of domestic violence in the communities of Norfolk County. Working with local police departments, a reporting and data collectivization was designed, implemented, tested and refined. The purpose was to record the incident of domestic violence, the repeat rate, the dispositions and the follow up assistance needed. Before the existence of this Unit there was no systemization or reporting of DV incidents, The success of this system is illustrated by the fact that rate of recording DV incidents by police officers rose dramatically from 30% to 92% in one year!! Based on a rough estimate, 45% of DV calls were repeat ones. This coordinated and comprehensive system was a crucial mechanism in improving the quality and effectiveness of law enforcement’s response to DV. This was the initial step. Contemporaneously, it was critical to establish a shelter in the area. If one had existed at the time, Joan Quirk may have been alive today.

The DA’s office had been working with the Quincy Mayor’s Commission on the Status of Women to address the topic of domestic violence. Discussion groups on family violence started in the local library and an informal network evolved which led to a group called DOVE (Domestic Violence Ended). Both the DA’s office and DOVE benefitted from an early cooperative relationship. Both were heading in uncharted waters of DV advocacy. Little was known at the moment about the proper clinical response as well as unprecedented legal concerns. They were pioneers out of necessity. Through financial assistance from the DA’s office, DOVE set up a DV hotline on Aug. 11, 1978. The DV unit of the DA’s offices developed the group’s orientation manual and trained the hotline volunteers in crisis intervention. With the support of Quincy Mayor Arthur Tobin, the DOVE shelter opened in the former dormitory for student nurses on the grounds of Quincy Hospital on Labor Day 1978. Three families stayed in this shelter that first weekend. Two counselors from the DA’s staff were assigned to the shelter on a full time basis until enough volunteers could be trained. DOVE’s hotline, trained staff of volunteers and the shelter were now in place as valuable resources that the DA could rely on her assistance and emergency referrals. 11 of 32

The pieces were coming together. Training of all the stakeholders was the key ingredient as outlined by ADA Marianne Hinkle which is attached. ADA Hinkle was the perfect leader on the issue. Her reputation was unparalleled for her legal skills, her commitment, her empathy and her humanity. After leaving the DA’s office, she continued to advocate for the issue and continued to be praised for her work. She is currently the presiding judge in the Woburn District Court and continues to save lives through her efforts on behalf of victims of DV. Appendix A is a detailed draft by Judge Hinkle of the Domestic Violence Program.

THE WHITE COLLAR CRIME UNIT:

Another “first” in the Commonwealth was the establishment on June 1, 1977 of a White Collar crime unit (WCCU). The Unit as created was given several goals: 1. to prosecute serious cases fully within 120 days. 2. to discourage plea bargaining as a means whereby serious repeat offenders escape jail or prison sentences. 3. to improve coordination between police and prosecuters. 4. to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system by providing assistance to victims of serious crime. The Unit’s purpose in prosecuting these cases was speedy and effective justice with the emphasis on justice.

Speed was not an end in itself. Defendants were afforded every reasonable opportunity to prepare an adequate defense. But while the defendant was entitled to a speedy trial, the office insisted that justice was not to be delayed as it often advantaged the defendant.

Assistant DA Peter Casey was the director of the unit. Prior to joining the office, Casey worked both as a defender and prosecutor. Although he was not originally hired for the specific purpose of organizing a white-collar crime unit, his background as a graduate of Babson College made him the perfect one to oversee such a unit. Casey was instrumental in developing and institutionalizing the WCCU as a separate and distinct program in the DA’s office and was personally responsible for attracting top investigators for the Unit including former IRS officials and former FBI agents.

Aside from Casey three other assistant were assigned to the unit. Casey’s first priority was to assign each of the assistants a specific function within the ambit of the WCCU’s responsibilities. He assigned to himself the Specialized Unit to Prosecute Economic and Financial Crimes using his business background to oversee the investigation and prosecution of those cases.

He assigned the Career Criminal Unit to Richard K. Stearns who suggested the idea and applied for a received a federal grant to run it. Stearns would later go on to become a judge in the state court and the federal court.

The Specialized Unit to Investigate and Prosecute Complex Cases he assigned to John P. Kivlan a skilled trial attorney who had come to Norfolk County from Middlesex County. These cases were the type of cases few wanted to take on because of the extreme complexity, the multiple pieces of evidence involving financial records and a significant number of witnesses and lengthy trials that would follow the indictment of the defendants.

He assigned Matthew T. Connolly to the Specialized Unit to Prosecute Arson and Organize Crime using Electronic Surveillance. He came from a background as a defense attorney and had participated in the defense in Suffolk County of the first wiretap case brought by the Commonwealth.

Prior to establishment of the WCCU, local police departments had assumed primary responsibility for the investigation of white collar crimes. The major problems faced by the local police in investigating white collar crime included: 1. There was no mechanism for exchanging information on a coordinated, comprehensive basis. 2. Local police viewed their primary responsibility as responding to violent crime and handling routine police work. Consequently, the local police seldom had the time or inclination to pursue complex, lengthy investigations. 3. Local police did not have access to specialized expertise in accounting procedures, business practices, bank and insurance procedures and practices, computer operation, arson investigation, and electronic surveillance, nor the ability and time to research, analyze and apply complex law. 4. Local police were unable to get business records from third party companies or individuals concerned about law suits relative to privacy. By establishing the WCCU, the office sought to provide: 1. A focal point for the investigation of white collar crime; 2. A full time staff capable of long term, in depth investigations into continuing organized criminal activity; 3. Specialized expertise in accounting, business, banking, insurance, computer science, arson, electronic surveillance and legal research; and 4. The convening of grand juries with the power to subpoena in extensive records and documents from third parties with the additional power to immunize witnesses.

In the first year of operation, the WCCU concentrated on six area of criminal activities: arson, gaming, narcotic conspiracies, car theft rings, corruption and general organized crime. The WCCU began its operations cautiously, spending the first two or three months of its existence “ reaching out to the state and local police departments in order to bring together as much intelligence as it could relative to this type of criminal activity within the County.

A key tool of the WCCU was electronic surveillance or “wire tapping.” As described by a staff member of the WCCU, “This area is a complex field filled with numerous pitfalls for the unwary.” Although a DA clearly had authority to request permission from the judiciary to conduct electronic surveillance, the statutorily prescribed procedures were lengthy and were strictly enforced by the courts.

The WCCU first used electronic surveillance in April 1977, breaking up a gaming operation where ten bookmakers were indicted, eight of whom were convicted. In a matter of months, the WCCU conducted a total of 14 court approved wiretaps. The office developed a national reputation for its expertise in the area of electronic surveillance. Each year working in cooperation with the state, city and local police the office conducted more court authorized wiretaps than all the other prosecution agencies in the state including the federal prosecutors.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS UNIT:

Civil rights enforcement and proactively addressing racism and racial violence was a top priority of the office. In fact, it was a collective passion of the staff and dramatically expanded the role of the office beyond the courtroom and the criminal justice system into the community at large. It was another “first” — nationally.

We embraced a multifaceted approach. Civil rights included a range of issues from prosecuting racial attacks and hate crimes to discrimination against minority citizens in employment and housing.

In January 1984, we convened a meeting comprised of citizens from every community in Norfolk County to establish a Norfolk County Human Rights Council. Its mission was simple — to aid the communities to foster an open and welcoming climate in which citizens of any racial, cultural, ethnic or religious background could feel safe and secure.

We also established the first civil rights unit in a district attorney’s office in the early 1980s. It was led at different times by skilled, passionate lawyers, Charles Hely and Peter Agnes who eventually became well-respected judges. In addition, the unit benefitted from highly motivated advocates who supported not only individual victims but minorities who resided in Norfolk County. They helped change attitudes and they nudged history forward.

Furthermore, we requested each police department in the county to designate a civil rights officer to deal with these issues and conduct investigations when civil rights violations were alleged. They responded affirmatively. Together we aggressively identified and prosecuted hate crimes and civil rights violations with great success. It made a difference and sent a loud and clear message that hate crimes would not be tolerated. The most prominent example of this new approach was the office’s response to reports of racism and incidents of prejudice among young people.

In response to these reports of racism among young people the Civil Rights Unit created an initiative they called the Student Alliance Against Racism and Violence . They reached out to schools and community leaders to fight bigotry and intolerance in schools and communities. Every high school had a chapter of the Alliance. In some cases, they augmented efforts to maintain racial harmony in schools which were steadily becoming more racially diverse. In others it was an attempt — that meetings with chapters in others schools to broaden the perspective of students whose schools are nearly all white. The alliance was universally praised and the consensus was that it mitigated violence and reduced racial tensions. It received praise and awards nationally as well as locally. A Quincy high school teacher was quoted in the Patriot Ledger in 1990:

All decent human beings are frightened today about the the incredible outbreak of violence in many area of our society. Because pf this, many of us are attempting to incorporate programs within our schools to fight this cancer. Last year I needed help. I needed support. I needed encouragement. I got all of this and more form District Attorney Delahunt and from members of his staff. They gave me a feeling of optimism that I have not had since the day JFK was inaugurated. The alliance is doing so much to help all of us to finally face up to these problems.

The chairman of the Randolph School Committee has this observation in reference to the work of the District Attorney’s office:

You are doing a great job. Listening to you speak about the work being done is very poignant and powerful. We’ve heard from parents, kids and other students …

But the students were the real stars. They inspired each other and everyone else. There was a creative writing contest at a Students Alliance Against Racism (SAAR) conference. Three young poets’ words are still relevant and powerful today.

No One Is Beside Me

I do not talk

there is no one who will listen.

I do not look,

there is no one to see

No one talks to me

because in their eyes

I do not exist.

Because I am a freak.

Since I am black

No one walks beside me.

Krista Olson North Quincy High School

Why Mother?

Why mother? Why don’t the guys want me around?

And when I smile at them they turn around

Mother, is it because I’m different?

I just don’t understand…

Mother, in school no ones shakes my hand.

In the halls no one walks or talks with me,

Is it because I’m different, that they think I’m not fun?

Sometimes, I just want to scream, I want to run

I want to be like everyone.

Really, I’m not ashamed of being different

everyone’s different in their own way.

But if it’s not wrong, why is there a price to pay?

But you know mother, maybe if they were in my place,

they would understand all the hurt I feel

from this cruelty I face

Nayrobi Tejada Norwood High School

Superior Awakenings

How can you be superior

when we are all created equal

How can you exclude

when we should live as one

How can you strike so violently

when our hands were made to comfort

How can you speak so violently

when words should be so beautiful

How can you hate so senselessly

when all we need is love

Marybeth Malloy Norwood High School

Pause for one second after reading those beautiful poems, just three as an example from many expressing the same feelings. Think of what we do to ourselves as people when we act against others in hateful ways. Think especially of the hurt caused to our young children. Is this what we want to do as a society?

Furthermore, the civil rights unit promoted the fair housing policies in Norfolk County. It worked with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. The manual, with its model policy that emerged, was another piece of a continuing effort to prohibit discrimination and to promote fair housing for all residents of Norfolk County.

The office also recognized that police training on racial issues was critical to ensure the civil rights of all citizens. This led to a creation of a Civil Rights Institute at Northeastern University. Its mission was threefold: 1) Educational programs designed to increase tolerance and cultural awareness for police, public officials and educators; 2) Conduct applied research in this area and rights to identify root causes of discrimination and evaluate strategies to address intolerance and discrimination; and 3) Serve as a resource library and coordination point for existing tolerance and cultural awareness material and programs.

In another first, in 1985, the District Attorney’s office and the Massachusetts Commission Again Discrimination (MCAD) signed a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies for a joint campaign against discrimination. MCAD would promptly refer to the the DA’s office office any evidence or complaints that it receives concerning criminal violations of a person’s civil rights. Furthermore, the agreement authorized the agencies to join together to bring civil rights to remedy housing and employment discrimination. These were areas that had been targeted for special emphasis by Delahunt.

To sum up, these initiatives had a cumulative impact that resulted in attitudes that portended well for Massachusetts as the demographics changed. As this slogan states, there was no place for hate in Norfolk County.

THE HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIVE UNIT:

The grant money for the Career Criminal Unit was about to expire and coincidental with that Richard K. Stearns was planning to leave the office to work in the office of the United States Attorney in Boston. Delahunt decided that the cases being handled by Stearns could be distributed among other superior court district attorneys with instructions they be handled as expeditiously as those handled by Stearns.

With that change Delahunt also removed John Kivlan from the Specialized Unit to Investigate and Prosecute Complex Cases to the main office to put him in charge of all the homicides in the office. He was expected to handled the most difficult of them but he was to parcel out the other to the skilled superior court assistant district attorneys who wanted to handle these cases.

His duty involved overseeing the other homicide prosecutions as well as working in conjunction with State Police Detective Lieutenant James Sharkey and the State Police assigned to work with him. In this position Kivlan would handle the difficult prosecution of John Salvey who murdered two persons when he attacked Boston clinics providing abortion service. He brought about his conviction.

The streamlining of the homicide prosecutions under Kivlan enabled the office to have great success in their prosecution. The State Police and local police found the new streamlined system effective in assisting them in investigating these cases.

Having removed two attorneys from the WCCU Delahunt decided to bring Peter Casey and the other remaining attorney who had been with that unit since its inception back to the main office. They were assigned different roles. The WCCU in its lesser role had three attorneys assigned to it and continued to operate although without the similar responsibilities.

THE REPEAT OFFENDER UNIT:

Two factors came into play in developing this program in the late 1980s. The office structure traditionally involved attorneys at the superior court who handled the major felonies, appeal cases and oversaw the units and investigations sand attorneys at the district court who handled the lesser felonies. A certain number of those latter attorneys who had been working in the district court sought to have the chance to work at the superior court level to broaden their experience and increase their skills. It was thought by Delahunt that given the right circumstances he would give them this opportunity even though they were not at the skill level to handle the most serious felony cases which was the bailiwick of the superior court.

Always interested in seeing where he could better the lives of people living in his county and beyond, he recognized that there was an underserved, so to speak, criminal population that seemed to slip through the cracks. He would read and hear about criminals who seemed to be committing felonies but those of the less serious type like burglaries, larcenies, assaults, and auto thefts involving police chases. An examination of these individuals showed their cases were not sent to superior court because they were not considered serious felonies and were routinely handled in the district courts. These courts could not send persons to prison but only to houses of corrections for no more than two and a half years. They could add to those years by making sentences “from and afters” but it was not often done.

Examining the records of these criminals Delahunt saw that they were in and out of the house of corrections year after year, 6 months, then a year, then 6 months again, and then another 6 months. It was obvious these repeated incarcerations had no deterrent effect on these people. But he also knew the people whose homea were broken into, or had their auto stolen, or who were assaulted and had their wallet or purse stolen from them had their lives severely interrupted.

Delahunt recognized that he had the solution to these two problems. He established a program that would allow the attorneys who wanted to try cases at superior court level whose skill level would not normally have placed them there to handle these cases of less serious felonies. The idea was to break the circle of crime by impressing on these criminals the merry-go-round of committing a lesser felony, going to the house of corrections, being released and again committing a lesser felony, going back to the house of corrections was going to stop. If they did not stop committing crimes they were going to graduate from the house of corrections and move on to prison.

The requirements to get enrolled in the program were set out. Basically, if a person had been in and out of the house of corrections for three times and again committed a low level felony he or she earned the promotion. Delahunt always kept in mind what he had heard the brilliant and Elijah Adlow long-serving justice of the Boston Municipal Court say:

The whole point of culture [is] to give everyone peace, quiet, and the right to enjoy life.

With that thought in mind, he brought to the superior court defendants who continually disrupt neighborhoods who had been given chance after chance. They had committed themselves to lives of crime. The longer they were kept off the street would add to the peace of mind of those people who would not become future victims. He would see as the cases began to be accepted into the program that it had its desired effect. These defendants did not want to go to prison. Facing that fate, many opted to give up their lives of crime.

Public Policy and Legislative Advocacy

To bring about these changes much of Delahunt’s time was spent in attempting to convince people of the benefits of the programs by allying himself with others to bring them about the train of change. His influence in the public policy realm was not limited to structural changes and program initiatives within the office which would not have happened without the good will and assistance of others outside the office.

Delahunt became deeply involved in the legislative process which he was famililar with from his time serving in the legislature. He testified frequently before the state legislature and the U.S. Congress. He even expounded and advocated his ideas beyond our shores. Delahunt and Maryann Hinkle were invited to Bermuda where they a made a presentation of the office’s development of the nationally acclaimed domestic violence program. Members of the staff gave multiple speeches and led seminars both locally and nationally. The office was an active force in the shaping of public policy on a wide range of issues. Some examples:

1. The Death Penalty: Delahunt had been an opponent of the death penalty during his time as an elected representative in the Massachusetts legislature. That opposition continued as District Attorney. He served as a board member on the nonprofit Mass Committee Against the Death Penalty (MCAD). He was convinced that it did not serve as a deterrent and as a prosecutor fully understood the fallibility of the criminal justice system. He was always concerned about charging and possibly convicting an innocent person. This concern weighed heavy on him. On one occasion he called a press conference to publicly apologize to four young four African American men who were wrongfully charged with the rape of a college student. He brought this perspective to the U.S. Congress when he was elected in 1996 and became a leading voice on the issue. In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the not for profit organization, The Innocence Project, revealed that hundreds of inmates had been exonerated by an analysis of DNA and had been wrongfully convicted. Delahunt and the Republican chair of the committee authored the Justice for All Act which was described by the New York Times as a landmark criminal justice reform. The legislation provided for the reopening of cases where DNA evidence could exclude the inmate on death row from culpability and probably provide evidence to law enforcement to actually charge the perpetrator.

2. Mandatory Sentences: Delahunt and his political mentor and close friend Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti were ardent opponents of mandatory sentences. They were convinced that mandatory sentences had no deterrent effect but rather compounded the existing dysfunction in the criminal justice system which had a serious deleterious effect on public safety. This inflexibility simply served to delay the disposition of these cases and as the adage states “justice delayed is justice denied.” Defendants were beneficiaries of this delay. They both recognized that frustration was the motivating force driving support for mandatory sentences. And they served as a simple panacea to allay the concerns of the public. They argued that a more in-depth review of the criminal justice system would yield a more satisfactory response to address public safety. Delahunt and Bellotti’s influence undoubtedly curtailed the increasing trend toward mandatory sentences.

3. Grand Jury Reform: Delahunt and Attorney General Bellotti worked together on grand jury reform. They sponsored legislation that would also allow witnesses before a grand jury to have legal counsel present to advise them. This bill provoked stiff opposition and protestations that it would be calamitous. However, Delahunt and Bellotti were convinced that it would produce a more fair and equitable process and reduce the potential for miscarriages of justice. It would also generate more guilty pleas as the defense counsel would observe the problems firsthand that were confronting their clients and advise them accordingly. The legislation passed and became law. Time has confirmed that this legislation in no way diminished public safety but rather had a positive impact and strengthened the public confidence and the integrity of the criminal justice system.

4. Cameras in the Courtroom: Delahunt’s office entered into a pilot program with the state courts that would allow the televising of criminal cases. The position of the office was that this would not prejudice a case but rather would be a valuable tool to educate the public about the criminal justice system — again, with the goal of enhancing public confidence and the integrity of the criminal justice system. The favorable response to this pilot program resulted in a permanent court rule allowing cases to be televised. It is generally agreed that cameras in the courtroom has increased the transparency of the system and enhanced public confidence in the system.

The first case to be televised in Massachusetts was the case of the Commonwealth vs. Prendergast which was a homicide case. Then first assistant Robert Banks was the prosecutor in that case and a well respected defense counsel Joseph Ballero represented the defendant. The case received widespread attention and thereafter it became commonplace for high profile criminal proceedings to be televised.

It is interesting to note that Delahunt, working with a Republican colleague in Congress, filed legislation which would permit the televising of proceedings in the federal courts to be similarly televised. The federal judiciary objected to the legislation and the bill failed to pass despite the positive response to the Massachusetts precedent. It is important to note that the Prendergast case was televised some 40 years ago and hundreds of high-profile criminal cases have been televised as well without any unfavorable consequences and yet the federal court remains steadfastly opposed even though it accepts that televising court proceedings has not deleterious effect. During trials where there is great public interest it will televise trials beyond the courtroom to other rooms within the courthouse to the media and spectators. That one is required to trek to the court to see what is happening in the public courtrooms is another example of the difficulty inherent in changing the way things are done in the legal system.

5. Protection of the Elderly: The work of the Family Services Unit in dealing with domestic violence issues revealed a serious problem of abuse of elderly persons. This prompted the office to file legislation to provide protective services to elderly persons who were unable to perform or obtain services necessary to maintain physical and mental health. Protective services are those provided which are necessary to prevent abuse, neglect, abandonment or exploitation. The office secured support from multiple non profit groups and key legislators including George Kevarian, speaker of the house. The legislation passed swiftly and has been frequently utilized. Undoubtedly, it saved the lives of many unfortunate elderly. The Department of Elder Affairs has the responsibility for enforcement. A member of the Family Services Unit, Sheila Martin, who was the first victim witness advocate hired in the Commonwealth by Delahunt eventually became an undersecretary within the department.

6. Homicide Investigations Legislation: Delahunt worked with Major John Regan of the State Police to clarify responsibility for homicide investigations. There had been all too frequent jurisdictional issues among investigative agencies when homicides had occurred. Confusion on jurisdictions could very well impede and possibly jeopardize the successful prosecution of homicide cases. This amendment to the existing legislation that created the office of the chief medical examiner conferred exclusive jurisdiction to the office of the District Attorney or his designee. This posited the investigation of homicides with the district attorney and reduced potential for confusion. As noted above Delahunt within his office was able to create a specialized homicide unit.