People sometimes complaint to me about the law. They complain about a broken "system," and complain that justice seems more accessible to those with money than those without. And for a few years now, since I've been an attorney, I've been able to tell those people that, by and large, the system we have works, and it usually produces the correct result, or something reasonably close to the correct result. And I've been able to say that with some confidence.
Until today.
This morning I was called into a probable cause hearing in the Boston Municipal Court to determine whether or not there was enough evidence to bring a criminal complaint against Anthony Galluccio for driving under the influence. The key thing to remember about such a hearing is that it is the clerk magistrate's job to determine whether ANY evidence exists, if believed by the magistrate, that Galluccio was operating under the influence.
Readers of this blog recall that I have stated, on numerous times, and in many places, that Galluccio was drunk when he caused a four car accident on December 18, 2006 in downtown Boston. Peter Manderino, the operator of another car involved, has written similarly.
This past week it was revealed that the EMT's on the scene also informed the Boston Police that Galluccio "appeared drunk", was "definitely alcohol impaired," and informed them repeatedly that he was a Cambridge City Counselor.
This morning, the two EMTs, Peter Manderino, his passenger, and I all testified similarly of our observations on December 18 with regard to Mr. Galluccio's condition.
Galluccio's defense attorney, predictably, turned the tables right back around on us. Questions to me centered on how much I had to drink that evening, whether I had "political motivations," and given that I had spoken with Channel 5, whether or not I was enjoying my "celebrity status."
I don't find those theatrics particularly disturbing or all that below board - after all, they belie the fact that Galluccio has very little in the way of actual defense.
No, what I find astounding is that the clerk magistrate made actual FINDINGS OF FACT (reserved exclusively for a jury)when he ruled in Galluccio's favor, stating that he believed that Galluccio had consumed some alcohol that night, but not enough to impair him.
That is, quite frankly, unbelievable and completely inappropriate. Our system is designed to prevent one man from making a determination behind closed doors as to guilt or innocence.
Ultimately, Galluccio MAY have gone before a jury and he MAY have been acquitted. But we'll never know now, will we?
