BlackCommentator.com: Reflections from Behind the Wall - Anatomy of a Frame Up - Chapter 8 - I Warned You - A Luta Continua By Chuck Turner, BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board
Note:BlackCommentator.comEditorial Board member Chuck Turner is writing this column
from the U.S. Federal Prison in Hazelton, West Virginia
where he is serving a three year term for a bribery conviction. BCis in contact with Mr. Turner by email and telephone.
Clickhereto send an email message thatBCcan pass on to Chuck.
A)
Introduction:
I
am a political prisoner. I am in prison not because I committed
a crime but because Michael Sullivan, a former Massachusetts
U.S. Attorney, decided to target me for entrapment because
of my political views and actions as an elected official.
I have admitted that a major share of the responsibility
for being convicted is mine. If I had followed Terri's instructions
and given whatever Wilburn handed me on the afternoon of
August 3, 2007 to her, it would have been difficult for
Sullivan to make it look like I was extorting money from
Wilburn.� If� Terri had been able to record it as a contribution,
it is very unlikely that the FBI agents would have even
visited me on the morning of the Senator's arrest. As I
said in Chapter 3, in life and especially in politics, its
the details that count.
Also,
I acknowledge what many believe regarding my trial. If I
had not testified, it is very possible that I would not
have been found guilty of extortion. While I am not as certain
of the jury's verdict regarding the three counts of lying
to FBI agents, I will admit that it's possible that I would
have been found not guilty on all four counts. Nevertheless,
I still say that I am a political prisoner. US Attorney
Michael Sullivan would not have targeted me if I had not
been known for challenging the political system for its
injustice toward blacks, people of color, and people in
general.
Sullivan
needed a high profile public corruption case to give him
some good publicity after all his bad press regarding his
prosecutorial negligence on the Big Dig. So he targeted
the Senator who not only had a visible history as a legal
and political activist but also had alienated police departments
throughout the state when she used her political skills
to get the Senate to support a "driving while black
law". Under this law the police throughout the state
had to document their ticketing of drivers.
As
was admitted at the trial, the Senator was the key target
but US Attorney Sullivan and the FBI decided to see if they
could entrap me. By adding me to the mix, there was probably
a hope on Sullivan's part that he would be able to get me
to testify against the Senator. Even if I wouldn't, taking
out two black politicians known as trouble makers was better
for his image than just getting one.
While
the FBI said that Wilburn gave them evidence of previous
illegal contributions accepted from him by the Senator,
I have doubts. However, in my case, I know that they had
no basis for attempting to entrap me. The law regarding
entrapment requires that there be at least circumstantial
evidence of prior criminal behavior that gives the government
an excuse to try to entice the elected official into "committing
a crime". In my case, there was no evidence of prior
criminal activity, financial or otherwise, with the exception
of civil rights arrests.
Wilburn
gave the grand jury the name of a person he said had told
him that I had received money to write a reference letter
for a person with a prison record for a job at CVS. If Barry
had been allowed by Judge Woodlock to bring the entrapment
issue into the trial, the person identified by Wilburn would
have given us an affidavit, saying that he had been in New
York for ten years and did not know what Wilburn was talking
about. So Sullivan had no legal reason to attempt to entrap
me but what did that matter to him. He needed a black political
activist to entrap and I became the target.
All
of the above is strong circumstantial evidence that I was
targeted by Sullivan because of my political beliefs and
actions. However, the most compelling evidence came after
my conviction in the Government Sentencing Memorandum written
by McNeil and in the determination by Judge Woodlock that
I had perjured myself and should be sentenced to three years
in jail despite over 700 letters from supporters requesting
probation; despite the fact that it was my first offense;
despite the fact the alleged amount of the extortion was
$1000; and despite the fact that the case grew out of the
government's decision to attempt to entrap me with no legal
justification.
Since
the sentencing memorandum presented by Asst US Attorney
McNeil so eloquently states his political perspective, I
am presenting it in its entirety as the narrative. I will
intersperse my commentary throughout the narrative as my
analysis. Also, in the section (D) The Sentencing Hearting,
I will share an exchange between my lawyer, John Pavlos,
and Judge Woodlock. I believe an assessment of this exchange
supports my theory that Judge Woodlock's thinking was driven
by his anger toward me because of my fight against the frame
up, rather than a rational assessment of my lawyer's argument.
Not
once, did Judge Woodlock even comment on my lawyer's argument
that my view of principled politics compelled me to testify.
Instead, he focused on unsubstantiated accusations that
I was lying. It is impossible to determine his motivation
for avoiding John's argument. However, I believe that he
too was enraged at my attack on the government�s attempt
to frame me and wanted to justify giving me a sentence that
would be both punish me and a deter others who in the future
might choose to fight back.
B)
Narrative:�
United
States District Court
District
of Massachusetts
United
States of America�����������������������������������������������������������������������������
v.������������������������
Criminal
No. 08-10345-DPW
Charles
"Chuck" Turner����������
Government's
Sentencing Memorandum
"You
achieve progress by standing up for the truth..."
Chuck
Turner at a rally outside Boston City Hall, November 24,
2008
Note
1: Boston Globe, November 25, 2008
"I
have a strong moral sense but it is not formed by American
laws. I am willing to pay the consequences of the choices
I make."
Chuck
Turner in an interview with the Boston Herald July 26, 2002
Narrative:
The
United States of America, by and through Assistant United
States Attorneys John T. McNeil and James P. Dowden respectfully
summits this sentencing memorandum to assist the Court in
sentencing Defendant Turner. The government currently intends
to recommend a sentence consistent with the applicable guideline
range without either an upward or downward departure. Including
the enhancement for testifying falsely at trial, the guideline
range in� this case is 33-41 months incarceration to be
followed by not more than 36 months of supervised release.
2�
Note
2: Without legal citations: A two level enhancement is applicable
to defendants who engage in perjury at trial. The enhancement
is applicable even if the perjury is unsuccessful; the perjury
is no more than "a self-serving cock and bull story";
or the perjury is a "hopelessly transparent, naive
and misguided effort to mislead...which stood no chance
of 0success."�
C)
Analysis:
Barry's
sentencing memorandum argues my perspective well when it
says, "In this case, Mr. Turner never denies meeting
with Wilburn, or taking some amount of money. Mr. Turner
simply stated that he had no memory of the meeting. That
explanation, in and of itself, does not amount to perjury,
and is not inconsistent with a jury verdict. The jury could
have merely determined that his explanation was insufficient
to overcome the evidence presented by the Government. Indeed,
had the Defendant intended to commit perjury, or obstruct
justice, one would think he would have come up with a better
explanation than what was testified at trial."
The
fact that I was given three years probation is another indication
that I was targeted because of my politics. Since it is
unlikely that I am going to seek elective office after my
release at age 73, probation makes no sense. My alleged
crime is public corruption. If I am not an elected official,
why should I be on probation. The reason is that it gives
the Justice Department an opportunity to monitor my action,
prevent me from leaving the state if they so choose, and
act as a political watchdog snapping at my heels.
Narrative:
Neither
this defendant nor his criminal conduct warrant a downward
departure or deviation from the guideline range. Likewise,
neither an upward departure nor an upward deviation is necessary
to achieve the purposes outlined in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).
As
the Government will argue at the hearing scheduled for January
25, 2011, the sentence to be imposed in this case must speak
as much to the defendant's perjury at trial as the conduct
charged in the indictment. Turner's false testimony was
the product of a profound contempt for the Court as an institution.
Turner's sentence must not only be an adequate deterrent
to elected officials who engage in extortion under color
of official right, it must also reflect the gravity of perjury
in a federal criminal case. The sentence must condemn Turner's
effort to undermine the judicial process.
Analysis:
The
obvious question is why would I testify and lie. As I noted
in Chapter 7, many people including Judge Woodlock urged
me to not testify. So what reason was there for me to testify
except my belief in the principle that elected officials
must be accountable despite the potential risks and dangers.
Yet, McNeil puts himself in the position of a mind reader
and asserts that because he does not believe my testimony
the range on my sentence should be enhanced from 27-33 month
to 33-41 months.
The
other reality is that while the jury had convicted me, McNeil
knew that I was not guilty. Since, I assume, he was part
of the process of planning the entrapment, he knew that
there was no telephone call from me to Wilburn on August
3rd. He knew that there was no $1000. He knew that when
i accepted the money, whatever the amount, there was no
criminal intent on my part. So the reality is that the assertion
of perjury was calculated to enhance in the mind of the
public my "corruption" to justify the case and
putting an elected official with no prior history of criminal
behavior in jail for 33-41 months.
Narrative:
The
government anticipates that the defendant will move for
a downward departure or deviation from the applicable guideline
range. While the government will address any such motion
orally at the sentencing hearing, there are two features
of this case which are not adequately addressed in the Pre-sentence
Report. Each should play a significant role in the Court's
rejection of Turner's request for a sentence below the guideline
range. Each reflect that Turner is particularly undeserving
of a sentence below that range.��
Turner's
conduct has been the antithesis of acceptance of responsibility.
Instead his conduct has affirmatively promoted disrespect
for the law, has demeaned the seriousness of his offense,
has debased his public office and has eroded the public's
trust in law enforcement and the criminal justice system.
Turner's calculated and persistent attacks on local and
federal law enforcement agencies, designed to deflect attention
from his own corrupt conduct have been corrosive to respect
for important public institutions and the rule of law. From
the day he was confronted with his crime, Turner has engaged
in an incendiary campaign of misinformation, obfuscation
and blame. 3
Note
3: See Boston Globe, November 22, 2008 (Turner. "The
FBI is, from my perspective an evil institution.:);Boston
Globe, December 11, 2008 (I've seen some grainy photographs.
I don't know if that's me. They doctor photographs...");
Boston Herald, December 13, 2008 (Turner characterizing
his prosecution as a "witch hunt"); Boston Herald,
September 24, 2009 (Turner disparaging charges as "a
trumped up case"); Boston Herald, October 7, 2010 (Turner
claiming that his attorney's would "expose the corruption
that is at the foundation of (the government's) charges
against me...").
-0-
Analysis:
Now
we are at the heart of the issue. It was fine for Sullivan
and McNeil to attempt to frame me for a crime conceived
and executed by them, However, I did not cooperate with
their plan. I used my first amendment rights to argue my
innocence in the court of public opinion. People began to
hear and understand what i was saying about the government's
plot. Now McNeil sees it as pay back time. What he doesn't
realize is that people can see through his rhetoric and
understand that what he is actually saying is that I don't
have a right to defend myself if Sullivan and he say I'm
guilty.� Their arrogance and denial of my first amendment
rights seems� amazing even in this age of prosecutorial
terrorism.
Narrative:
His
campaign has been divisive in its intent and in its effect.
4
Note
4: Shortly after the verdict, Turner claimed, "I'm
not the first innocent person who's going to be sent to
jail". Boston Globe, October 30, 2010. The following
day, during a rally at which Turner described the U.S. Constitution
as an "illegal document" he railed, "Let's
understand that this is the attempt of the government to
destabilize a community of color that's on the move."
See Dorchester Reporter, October 20,2010. In an attempt
to retain his City Council seat, he argued that, "The
purpose of the government was to take us down because they
saw the power of communities of color rising up..."
Boston Globe, December 2, 2010.
Analysis:
Obviously,
he can't stand the truth being told and sees that it is
having an effect. Since the government's campaign to clear
up the corruption in the issuance of liquor licenses in
Boston resulted in two black officials being indicted, no
one including McNeil should be surprised that people in
the black community see the indictments and subsequent convictions
of two of their more vocal elected officials as an attack
on them. The government allowing Licensing Commissioner
Pokaski to resign without prosecution as I pointed out in
Chapter 3 can only be viewed as racism, disparate treatment
based on race. Even Sullivan's paid agent, Wilburn, stated
his concern in the Boston Globe a few months after my arrest
that the Senator and I were the only ones being indicted.
Since he was operating the sting, he had to know others
who should have been indicted. Yet, McNeil has the nerve
to call me divisive, when I was giving voice to what many
in the community could see for themselves. At least he acknowledged
that people were listening and looking.
Narrative:
It
has falsely promoted distrust not only of federal and local
law enforcement, but of the criminal process, this Court
and the jury which found him guilty. As the trial revealed,
Turner's vitriolic campaign was ultimately an act of profound
narcissism, in which he sacrificed the best interests of
his community in a fraudulent attempt to claim the mantle
of an honest public servant.
Analysis:
What
you can see he is saying is that I don't have the right
to express my opinion. His perspective seems to be that
I should accept being framed for a crime I did not commit,
shut up, and go to jail quietly like everybody else. Unfortunately,
this mentality, I believe, is typical of prosecutors. They
believe that they have the right to sit in judgment and
that we the citizens have to give up our right to speak
what we believe is the truth. They sentenced me to spend
three years in jail because they were tired of me speaking
the truth in the court of public opinion and figured that
putting me in jail for three years could silence me. SURPRISE!
Narrative:
While
downward departures or deviations are occasionally warranted
for first-time federal felons, at a minimum such deviations
should be reserved for those who acknowledge the seriousness
of their crime, who admit their guilt and truly accept the
wrongfulness of their conduct, and who put their public
office before their self-interest. Turner has done none
of this. In fact, he has done just the opposite. While his
public campaign has pandered to a few faithful supporters,
he could hardly have done more to promote the public's cynicism
about elected officials and to erode trust in the rule of
law. His post-indictment conduct has amplified the crimes
for which he was charged. He has sought to undermine the
integrity of the judicial process. As a result, Turner is
uniquely� undeserving of a downward departure or deviation.
Analysis:
As
you can see McNeil continues his tirade regarding my refusal
to quietly submit to their frame up. I once had asked my
lawyers why McNeil was taking actions that I thought were
exposing his hypocrisy. The response was that prosecutors
are so used to controlling the situation and being able
to intimidate the defendants that they can't emotionally
handle situations that don't fit that pattern. I think that
statement describes McNeil's state of mind in writing this
memorandum. Again, keep in mind that I am the one prosecuted
and convicted for a crime McNeil knew I didn't commit.
Narrative:
Turner
will likely rely on the letters submitted by friends and
constituents praising his efforts as a public servant and
calling for probationary sentence. Unlike the letters submitted
in the Wilkerson case, this collection of letters, while
undoubtedly heartfelt by the writers are not extraordinary
nor should they serve as the basis of a downward departure
or deviation.
Analysis:
I
think this comment refers to the fact that in gathering
letters I did not go to prominent elected and former elected�
officials. I put out a call to the people in the communities
I have worked with for over forty years and asked for their
support. However, the irony of his statement is that even
though he saw the letters submitted in the Senator's case
as "extraordinary", her sentencing had to be delayed
because he used the day she was to be sentenced to continue
testimony regarding her "criminal behavior".
When
a person pleads guilty, the expectation is that the prosecutor
will honor whatever agreement has been made regarding the
amount of time to recommend to the judge. However, McNeil
seemed continually to try to find ways to increase her sentence
beyond the agreed upon length. Yet, here he is talking out
of the other side of his mouth and saying her letters were
"extraordinary". My question for Asst US Attorney
McNeil is, "If the Senator's letters were so extraordinary,
why were you trying to have her serve more time than that
originally recommended by you and her lawyer.
Narrative:
These
letters (comment: over 700) are consistent with those any
public official is likely to receive after serving a community
for a number of years, and are within the heartland of the
applicable guideline. (comment: I have left out the citations
except for the case that I think is relevant to my lawyers
request for a downward departure.) Case a)...rejecting a
substantial downward departure based on "good works
as a city councilor" because it was defendant's "job
to respond to the needs of his constituents and to make
positive contributions to his community. He was compensated
for these efforts, and were essential to (his) reelection
and prospects for other office"; Case b) United States
v. Wright, 363 F. 3d 23 "the political duties ordinarily
performed by public servants-the sort of duties that are
generally needed to stay in office-cannot quality. It is,
rather only when an individual goes well beyond the call
of duty and sacrifices for the community that a downward
departure may be appropriate."; Case c)... public service
and employment-related contributions not ordinarily relevant.�
5
Analysis:
McNeil's
point is that the 700 letters weren't relevant because they
responded to my doing my duty as a councilor which in the
cases cited had been rejected as a basis for downward departure
from the sentencing guidelines. However, he cited United
States v Wright which says in part "it is only when
an individual goes well beyond the call of duty and sacrifices
for the community that a downward departure may be appropriate".
What
McNeil doesn't acknowledge is that about half the letters
focused on my district office and monthly roundtable meetings,
activities that clearly went "beyond the call of duty"
and represented "sacrifices for the community".
I was the only Councilor to have an office fully staffed
during the week. I was the only Councilor to have monthly
meetings from the time of my election till the year of my
arrest. The cost of maintaining the office and the monthly
meetings to Terri and I was $120,000 at the time of my arrest
and $170,000 at the time of my conviction. Thus in citing
United States v. Wright, McNeil contradicts himself by not
urging a downward departure which was clearly justified.
His political perspective must have clouded his judgment.�
Narrative:
Note
5: Moreover, as Turner sought to introduce at trial through
a recording between Ms. Wilkerson and Mr. Wilburn on June
5, 2007 (the first payment meeting), there is a substantial
doubt about Turner's effectiveness as a public servant.
Wilkerson and Wilburn seemed to capture the larger public
sentiment about Turner.
Wilkerson:
Cause I think Chuck is crazy.
Wilburn:
No he is crazy. Chuck Turner. He is crazy. I mean he's living
in the nineteen sixties. He thinks Chairman Mao is still
alive. Communist Manifesto. You know? (Laughs)
Wilkerson:
He drives me batty. He really does.
Wilburn:
You know Chuck. The lit...? The guy with the beard?
Serret:
Yeah.
Wilkerson:
He would be good, if you needed somebody who, you needed
to go pick up a ruckus and just protest for you, I would
hire him. You want to get something done? He's not the p...,
that's not his, he doesn't know...
Wilburn:
Yeah.
Wilkerson:
That's not what he does.
Analysis:
The
irony that McNeil includes this is that in September 2008,
over a year after the above conversation, the Senator lost
the preliminary election to a relative newcomer while in
2009 despite Sullivan's indictment against me, I was reelected
to my City Council seat with over 60% of the votes. The
other irony is that this conversation started with Wilburn
at the direction of the FBI asking the Senator if she would
agree to include me in the work to get him a license. She
said no and so this conversation as I pointed out in Chapter
3 supports my contention that there was no conspiracy between
the Senator and I despite the fact that McNeil did not drop
the conspiracy charge until the eve of my trial.
Narrative:
More
importantly, Turner's most recent legal maneuvering belies
the core assertion in the letters submitted--that he is
a selfless public servant, motivated by the public good.
On January 10, 2011, Turner filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction in Charles H. Turner, et al v. City of Boston.�
This motion was designed in part to prevent the the City
of Boston from holding a special election to fill the empty
City Council seat for District 7. 6
Note
6: (The preliminary election is currently scheduled for
February 15, 2011 and the final election for March 15, 2011.)
That
seat has been vacant - and the district unrepresented -
since the City Council voted 11-1 to expel Turner on December
1, 2010. The same day Turner filed the preliminary injunction
motion, he filed a motion to continue his sentencing hearing
in this case from January 25, 2011 until mid-March 2011.
Because
Massachusetts law requires an elected official to vacate
his office if sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the combined
effect of these simultaneous motions was to prevent Turner's
civil suit from becoming moot, while also depriving the
electorate in District 7 of representation on the City Council
for an additional period of time. In other words, a delay
in his sentencing date would preserve his civil claims while
also denying District 7 representation and throwing into
question any special election held before he was sentenced.
Analysis:
Once
I was convicted, I made three announcements immediately
in order to give clarity to my constituents and supporters.
The first was that I would not resign, on principle. The
fact that I was convicted did not change the reality that
I had been framed. To me, resigning would be to accept the
conclusion of the jury that I was guilty of the crime. Since
I knew that I wasn't guilty, the principled position was
to continue to serve.
-0-
My
constituents, the majority of whom still supported me, urged
me to stay. There was only one person from the community
that I remember publicly calling for my resignation - Rev.
Eugene Rivers, a minister, who at a City Council hearing
had referenced his close relationship with Karl Rove, Bush's
political strategist, who worked with Attorney General Gonzalez
to fire the eight US Attorneys who wouldn't target those
on the Bush enemy list. It was interesting that there was
only one elected official who publicly called for my ouster
by the Council, Mayor Menino, who had a variety of reasons
for wanting me off the Council.�
My
second announcement was that if removed by the Council,
I would support as my replacement Tito Jackson, the son
of a Kwaku Zulu Jackson, a close ally, who before his death
in 2003 played a key role in the community as a skilled,
veteran organizer and champion of the rights of community
construction workers. In November 2009, Tito had come in
5th in the race for one of the four at large City Council
seats. I had said to him that I didn't plan to run for the
District 7 seat in 2013 and if he was interested in running
for the seat at that time, I would support him. While not
an activist in the mode of his father, I felt his ties to
the younger generation, his organizing skills, his focus
on economic development, and his experience in state government
provided a strong foundation for him to represent District
7.�
My
third announcement was that I would only appeal the jury's
verdict if the Court would honor my request to provide a
lawyer. I felt that it didn't make sense to spend scarce
family resources or money that could be raised for other
more important uses on another court fight.� I had not expected
to be convicted in the first trial and yet I was. Given
that experience, I thought that it would be foolish to put
time, energy, and resources into fighting to have another
court level affirm my innocence or create the opportunity
for a new trial unless the government would pay for the
lawyer. I knew I didn't commit the crime that Sullivan,
Wilburn, and the FBI had manufactured. If necessary, I was
willing to let future courts of public opinion decide the
truth.
My
other action was to contact City Council President Michael
Ross to ask if he could delay any action by the Council
until after my sentencing on January 25th. The state law
was clear that I could continue to serve despite the conviction
as long as I was not sentenced to jail.� I said that I thought
that it would be appropriate for the Council to wait until
Judge Woodlock made that decision before deciding whether
they wanted to take any action. His position was that there
needed to be a quicker resolution.
To
determine next steps for the Council, he consulted with
Corporation Counsel Sinnott, the Mayor's lawyer. Sinnott
told him that the Council had the right to remove me which
led to Ross scheduling a Council meeting for December 1
to vote on his motion that I be removed. On the 1st, in
front of a Council chamber filled with my supporters, despite
an eloquent argument by 26 year black veteran City Councilor
Charles Yancey that the Council had no power to remove me,
the Council voted 11-1 in favor of the motion.
Approximately,
a week after my removal, I was contacted by Chester Darling,
a well known retired Boston lawyer, who said, echoing Councilor
Yancey, that he believed that the Council had no right to
remove me. He also said that despite his reputation as a
conservative lawyer, he was a champion of human and civil
rights. Since he felt my rights had been violated, he said
he was willing to come out of retirement and volunteer to
help restore them. My response was that I would be delighted
to have his help.
With
the assistance of Paul Winoski, former chief of staff for
Jimmy Kelly, a deceased former Boston City Councilor, Attorney
Darling worked feverishly over the next few weeks and developed
a brief arguing against the Council's actions. This brief
was submitted to the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts
Federal Court, Mark Wolf. Based on our excellent chance
of winning the case, we thought it was appropriate to ask
for an injunction to postpone the election until Chief Justice
Wolf made his decision in March or Judge Woodlock sentenced
me to jail on January 25th. I also sent word to Tito Jackson
to explain why I was taking this action.
The
request by Barry Wilson's office for a continuance of the
sentencing hearing had nothing to do with Attorney Darling's
request for an injunction. Given the fact that the sentencing
hearing would happen before the Chief Justice's ruling,
Attorney Darling asked me whether I wanted to go forward
knowing that my filing the challenge might give Judge Woodlock
additional reason to sentence me to jail. My response was
yes; let's go forward.� Even if I could not be seated because
of incarceration, I thought that it was important that the
public know that the Mayor's lawyer mislead the City Council
by saying there was a legal basis for my removal. It is
hard to believe that he didn't know that the Massachusetts
Supreme Court had ruled in 1973 that the case he used as
a justification for my removal could not be used as a legal
basis for removal of elected officials.
The
filing for a postponement of the sentencing hearing by Barry's
office was actually caused by an unanticipated action by
McNeil. Barry had scheduled his vacation to start in December
with a return in late February/early March. John Pavlos,
who had worked with him on my case since my arrest and had
assisted in the trial, had agreed to represent me at the
sentencing hearing. However, when Barry was informed that
McNeil was going to try to increase my potential time in
prison by alleging that I committed perjury, he asked his
office to ask for a postponement until he returned so that
he and John could work together in combating McNeil's ploy.
Unfortunately, from the standpoint of appearances, the motions
were filed on the same day without either office realizing
the other was filing a motion on that particular day.
Narrative:
If
Turner is what he claims--a selfless public servant deserving
of a substantial downward departure or deviation--he would
not have sought to deprive his former constituents of representation
on the City Council while he delayed and otherwise maneuvered
his criminal sentencing. If Turner were the public servant
he claims to be, at a minimum he would have welcomed an
expedited process for representation for citizens in dire
need of responsive government.
Respectfully
Submitted, Carmen M. Ortiz, United States Attorney By:��
John T. McNeil, James Dowden, Assistant US Attorneys
Analysis:
This is an amazingly hypocritical statement when you realize
that McNeil understood that I was not guilty of the crime
for which he had prosecuted me. His boss, former US Attorney
Sullivan, had worked to deprive my constituents of my representation
by having his paid pawn Wilburn attempt to paint a picture
of my guilt. Now after their goal--my removal from office--had
been achieved, he questions my loyalty to my constituents
for fighting against my removal. As I said earlier, they
have no shame.
D)
Sentencing Hearing:
Narrative:
Judge
Woodlock:
Now,
let me turn to the question of perjury. The Government has
identified from the defendant's testimony a number of incidents
that that they say are perjurious, and frankly, I am of
the view that they are. But I want to understand what arguments
there are with respect to the question of perjury. I do
though, call it obstruction of justice", because that
is the character of the Guideline, but they seem to me to
have been part of a strategy, not very successful, to fundamentally
interfere with the fair trial and resolution of the case
through the testimony of the defendant.
But
I will hear you on that, Mr. Pavlos, if there is something
more you want to say. I have of course read your Memorandum
on this issue.
Mr.
Pavlos:
Judge,
what's extremely disturbing to us about that was certainly
your Honor was in a position to hear the trial, hear the
facts--
Judge
Woodlock:
Right.
Mr.
Pavlos:
--come
in through a number of witnesses that the Government put
on the stand. There are kind of two components to this argument,
and one is quite basic and I think the case laws certainly
supports that you have the discretion, the standard's clear
from the case law, by a preponderance of the evidence. It
makes allowances for--
Judge
Woodlock:
I
think I should be clear. I find it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I do not even have to rely on preponderance of the evidence.
The defendant perjured himself at trial as specified. He
stated things that he knew were untrue, and he did it with
a view to corrupt the trial process. That is obstruction.
Mr.
Pavlos:
Judge,
then, kind of switching from an attempt to persuade the
Court that the testimony denial is based on a lack of memory,
"do not remember this individual", I would like
to, for the record, lay out the argument. Its clear that
the Court has made up its mind on this.
Judge
Woodlock:
I
have. I am ready to hear argument about it, but you are
entitled to know where I stand on it. The question of he
could not remember was pretextual. Of course he remembered.
It is as clear as it could have been. The suggestion that
this passed his mind, someone who says he has never received
that kind of money before, receiving that kind of money
is very difficult to accept. So you know where my fact finding
is on this.
Let
me add one further point. The Guidelines add only two points,
Criminal history points. There is an alternative way that
this perjury could be dealt with. I suspect it will be dealt
with here by the sentencing. But a subsequent case could
be brought and if a subsequent case was brought, we would
not be talking about two points; we would be talking about
a person who had previously been convicted of the crimes
here with a higher Criminal History Category. And my rough
calculation of what perjury would be, if it were separately
tried and he was convicted of it, is not less than a doubling
of the Guideline range. So, it is important, I think to
understand exactly what the playing field is on this.
Mr.
Pavlos:
Regardless,
your Honor, of the math, it is the principle. It is the
testimony from Chuck Turner and your evaluation of it that
concerns us, obviously. It is not the metrics of what that
does to enhance his sentence or any future attempts, vindictive
or otherwise, to further prosecute Mr. Turner for not just
exercising his right, but, as he expressed to the media
and to your Honor, and to anyone else who would listen,
that he believed public officials should take the stand
and testify, regardless of what the implications were. And,
your Honor, in fact, cautioned him at sidebar,; you did
a colloquy with him.
Judge
Woodlock:
Right.
Mr.
Pavlos:
You're
entitled to your opinion, but ours is that up until that
point the Government failed miserably to prove their case,
and that taking the stand and testifying when asked about
the incident, when asked about the videotape, that he saw
what he saw. He could see the videotape and observe it,
like anyone else could, but he did not remember this guy,
did not remember this meeting is something he felt strongly
about. Not that it was some tactical decision that somehow
facilitated a defense, but that it was the right thing to
do, and he was adamant about that.
It
was no secret that that was against the advice of counsel,
because tactically it was not desirable, against the advise
of supporters and, I would suggest, your warning or caution
about the possible implications of that. And he went forward
anyhow, three years after this event.
-0-
And
so we believe that there were facts that came out at that
trial that allow you to make certain inferences about the
testimony not simply say the jury found-and the case law
supports this, you are able to evaluate independently--that
the jury found that it was inconsistent. But more than that,
there were no specific questions put to the jury. Do you
believe his denial, lack of memory of the events. These
were certainly not specific findings from a jury.
So,
we would ask you to look at the record, and the record involved
a number of issues that you could use to make reasonable
inferences that it was consistent with what he had said
all along. The video itself shows 45 minutes of meeting
with other constituents before this individual, before Wilburn--public
record--actually sat down at the table with him five feet
away and had a very brief conversation and made this exchange.
You
saw Wilburn from the stand, who said, This is how it happened.
And he took it upon himself, maybe with the advice of the
counsel you appointed, I don't know, but he had a fistful
of white materials, papers, that he had cut that he said
were the same number and size as the money that was handed,
and we saw, almost comedically, that, when he did it, he
said, This is how I did it, it was sticking out of both
sides of his hand.
We
believe that it was reasonable to assume that that individual,
after cross examination, his history of clipping, if you
will, that he hadn't handed $1,000, that there was no basis
of fact that he handed Councilor Turner $1,000, that what
was secreted, if you will, was a much smaller number of
bills. And Mr. Turner, honestly and forthright, said on
it, I see it, yeah, I see it, in response to the cross examination
from AUSA McNeil, that, I see it, it looks like money, I
just don't remember.
(Note:
Mr. Pavlos goes on to point out several other inconsistencies
in prosecution's arguments and concludes:)
Beyond
that, he testified, and this is three years later, he didn't
come up with some assisting testimony, if you will, and
you've been on the Bench for that, I will gather, when--and
the case law is also replete with those fact patterns--where
individuals in drug cases or even in white-collar cases
come up with an alternative reality: Oh, that was fifty
bucks, I didn't report it, I forgot about it. He didn't
offer that. That would have been testimony that would have
assisted and had a purpose. But he didn't do that. It factually
didn't assist.
So,
what purpose was it that a man that didn't have to testify,
was principled--that was the only reason he testified because
it wouldn't assist--principled would then lie and say nothing
in his lie? It doesn't make sense. It's not what happened,
and its not consistent, and we would ask you on this basis
to reject it.
This
individual took the stand and testified his memory was limited.
The Governments position is it shouldn't have been because
it was this event that was of, you know, major proportions.
It wasn't.
Judge
Woodlock:
Well,
I have to say a couple of things. Part of this is fact-finding,
a large part of it, and fact-finding frequently deals with
the resolution of apparent inconsistencies.
The
reference to where the money was withdrawn from calls to
mind a story of a case that once was tried in which a defendant
thought that any inconsistency was helpful to him. If was
a theft in a grocery store from a young woman who was at
the cash register, and she testified that it was as a result
of the defendant reaching across with his right hand and
getting the money. And the defendant poked his lawyer next
to him and said, "It was my left hand." That kind
of inconsistency is not very helpful.
The
core of it is that I am satisfied that Mr. Turner ineffectively
sought to pollute the trial with his testimony.
Analysis:
I
have presented at length the exchange between Mr. Pavlos
and Judge Woodlock that took place at the beginning of the
hearing. I thought it was important for you to observe for
yourself Judge Woodlock's thinking regarding my testimony
at the trial. From my perspective, there are three critically
important elements to be noted in his arguments.:
1)
His adamant conviction that I was consciously lying (committing
perjury) in order to "pollute the trial";
2)
His lack of substantive arguments to support his conviction;
3)
His absolute avoidance of any discussion of my lawyer's
argument that I testified because of a principled belief
in the necessity that public officials be accountable for
their actions regardless of the risks entailed.
Judge
Woodlock's argument is a classic example of an ad hominem
argument. Since "ad hominem" is not a widely used
term, let me share with you the two definitions from Webster's
Third International Dictionary:
Ad
Hominem: 1) Directed or appealing to one's personal feelings
or prejudices rather than his intellect and reason; 2) Marked
by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by answers
to his contentions.
In
other words, Judge Woodlock's argument had nothing to do
with the issue of principle being raised by John. He chose
instead to attack my character by incessantly accusing me
of lying without giving any substantial justification for
his accusation. I believe there were three reasons for this
approach:
1)
His attack on my character was designed to squelch the "buzz"
in the court of public opinion that I had been framed and
actually was the victim of a government plot.
2)
His character attack was design also to justify as long
a prison sentence as possible to implant the idea in the
court of public opinion that my level of corruption required
a relatively long sentence.
3)
By punishing me severely, they (McNeil and Woodlock) were
sending a message to those they may attack in the future
that if you fight us, we'll do to you what we did to Turner.
E)
Action Steps:
As
I said in the preview, the purpose of writing "The
Anatomy of a Frame Up" has been to fulfill a commitment
made to my constituents and supporters that I would use
my experience with the Justice Department to create a study
of the techniques used by US Attorneys and their special
police force, the FBI, to frame a person who they want to
incarcerate and/or remove from the position which they hold.
My
purpose is not to mount a campaign to "Free Chuck".
Attorney Charles Rankin, my appeal lawyer, suggests that
my appeal will be heard in the spring/summer of 2012. If
the appeal is not successful, the Bureau of Prisons has
informed me in writing that I could be sent to home confinement
on July 17, 2013. If this does not take place, I will be
released on November 2, 2013, pending the maintenance of
my good time. From my perspective, it would be a waste of
people's valuable time and energy to focus on my incarceration.
The
reality, as I have stated earlier, is that I view my case
as just the tip of the iceberg. Over 2.3 million people
in this country are incarcerated. Over 1 million of the
incarcerated� are black. The prison/jail population has
quintupled. grown by almost 500% during the last 35 years,
growing from less than 500,000 of all races in 1975 to an
estimated 2.3 million today. While there have been some
modifications of the incarceration policies recently, the
reality is that the prosecutorial establishment that has
built an empire through these laws is still in place. To
strengthen your understanding of prosecutorial terrorism
from a legal perspective, as I mentioned earlier, please
read Attorney Michelle Alexander's The
New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
and Three
Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
by
Attorney Harvey Silverglade.
The
problem is clear. The need for justice cries out. The question
is what are we going to do? We must move beyond the definition
of the problem. We have to identify and take appropriate
action to end the problem. It is clear that we need to build
a movement. While it would be wonderful to have a network
of national organizations with units in key cities and towns
in every state, we are a long way from that formation. We
are at the stage where those of us who are outraged at the
injustices we see being committed through the criminal justice
system must speak out and demand justice.
Right
now, prosecutors are above the law. We all know the saying:
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As
I said throughout the Anatomy of a Frame Up, I believe that
if prosecutors could be criminally charged and civilly sued
for prosecutorial misconduct, they would begin to discipline
themselves. Right now there is no risk for misconduct and
potentially great reward, in terms of reputation and career
advancement. Even Presidents can be impeached. We have to
make prosecutors legally accountable for their actions.
We need immediate legislation enabling criminal charges
as well as civil suits to be brought against prosecutors
for misconduct.�
Let
us begin building this movement by focusing our energies
and actions on the Chief Prosecutor of this country, Attorney
General Holder, our President's appointee. I urge each of
you to write a letter to Attorney General Holder to accomplish
two objectives:
1)
Bring to his attention a person you know or know of who
you believe has been unjustly incarcerated on the county,
state, or national level.( If you don't know such a person,
ask you friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. if they could
identify someone who is unjustly incarcerated.) Give him
as many details of the injustice as possible and ask him
to inform you what he believes can be done to resolve the
injustice.�
2)
Tell him that you are concerned that prosecutors can not
be charged or sued for misconduct. Suggest that you believe
that is one of the reasons why our jail and prison population
has grown by almost 500% during the last 35 years, from
an estimated 500.000� of all races in 1975 to 2.3 million
today, with over million blacks among that number. Point
out that we have a higher percentage of our overall population
as well as people of color incarcerated than any other country
on the face of the earth.
Ask
him as the nation's chief prosecutor to lead the effort
with the assistance of the President to establish legislation
that will assure that prosecutors legally accountable for
their actions. Raise the question, why prosecutors should
be above the law when even Presidents can be impeached.
Close by asking for a response to your request for legislative
action. (Even if you are not able to identify a person who
has been unjustly incarcerated, write the letter and focus
on #2.)
As
Frederick Douglas told us over 150 years ago, if we need
change, we must make the demand. I would also ask you to
take similar action with the highest elected official of
your state, the Governor. Make similar requests of h/er
and ask that the effort be made to involve the state's Attorney
General in the process. To help me keep track of the volume
of letters and the issues of injustice being raised, please
send a copy to Chuck Turner, P.O. Box 190251, Roxbury, Ma.
02119.
Let
me close with the thought that every civilized society must
have an effective criminal justice system to discourage
those who would abuse the rights of their fellow citizens
and prosecute those who choose the path of abuse. However,
if the principle of justice is not the guiding spirit of
the system, the system itself becomes the instrument through
which justice is denied.
We
owe it to future generations to make justice the fundamental
guiding principle of our criminal justice system. Let us
begin by demanding that we require prosecutors to be legally
accountable to the principal of justice rather than to their
own political and career goals and aspirations. Let us demand
legislation that can make such accountability part of the
legal framework of this country by enabling prosecutors
to be criminally charged and civilly sued.�
A
Luta Continua--The Struggle For Justice Continues,
chuck
Next
week: I will provide a postscript report on my outlook after
five months at USP Hazelton as well as my writing plans
for the fall.
BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board Member Chuck
Turner - Served as a member of the Boston City Council
for ten years and eleven months. He was a member and founder
of the Fund the Dream campaign and was the Chair of the
Council�s Human Rights Committee, and Vice Chair of the
Hunger and Homelessness Committee. Click here to
contact Mr. Turner. Your email messages will be passed on
to Mr. Turner by BC. You may also visit SupportChuckTurner.com.
You may also write to Mr. Turner. The address is:
Charles
Turner #80641038
Hazelwood Penitentiary, P.O. Box 2000
Bruceton Mills, West Virginia 26525
If you send
us an emaill message we may publish all or part
of it, unless you tell us it is not for publication.
You may also request that we withhold your name.