Forgot your password?
New user?
State prison plans: mental therapy or torture?
‘Progressive’ City Council abuses vulnerable persons—and free speech
East Cambridge Property
Ten Lessons from the Criminalization of Dissent
Document Actions
Lafayette 8 trial delayed again
On the morning of April 13, 2006 Lafayette Eight defendants and their supporters gathered in Cambridge District Court for what was supposed to be their final trial. What occurred was a violation of the standard rules of criminal procedure—although not uncommon in these modern times.
Lafayette Eight legal counsel had previously submitted to the court a motion to dismiss, based on violation of right to a speedy trial. The District Attorney's office had apparently done nothing since the filing of the motion three weeks ago, and even began the day with submitting extended discovery a full two years into the litigation process. Despite numerous objections from defense counsel, the court awarded the prosecution an additional 30 days to answer the motion.
The court even had the audacity to suggest that defense counsel should assist the prosecution in the matter. Additionally, in a very Orwellian fashion, the judge also used the words "Commonwealth" and "Court" interchangeably, as if they referred to the same entity. One final insult, two days prior to the court appearance, the Cambridge Police Department refused to accept subpoena notification from Lafayette Eight legal counsel, claiming that they did not accept papers at headquarters.
Unfortunately we live in a nation without equal application under the law and special treatment and advantages are typically given to prosecutors over defendants. Prosecution witnesses are allowed to check notes prior to answering cross examination. Prosecution noncompliance is rewarded with extended grace periods, and use of state agencies to conduct pretrial investigations.
Recent trends include grand jury misuse, paramilitarization of local police agencies, and anti-defendant legislation such as the recent "anti-gang violence" bill authored by Senator Jarrett T. Barrios (D-Cambridge) and Representative Stephen Canessa (D-New Bedford). Our courts will no doubt continue to function under pro-prosecution bias until the Commonwealth and the Court truly are the same entity.
The litigation process has now been pushed back into the pretrial stage, and a pretrial hearing to rule on the original motion is now scheduled for June 5.
On April 14, 2004, eight Boston area community activists were arrested in Lafayette Square, on the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Main Street.
The location had previously been the end point of the Cambridge leg of March to Abolish Poverty in an event co-coordinated by march organizers and the local chapter of Homes Not Jails.
Lafayette Square was chosen for the rally due to the fact that MIT had pushed for the property to be seized from the private owner via eminent domain. MIT wanted the property to form a buffer zone between their commercial development at University Park and the more working-class and low income neighborhood of Area 4.
As a result, local activists targeted the location to call attention to MIT's plans and embarrass city administrators for failing to properly utilize the property for public good, as the parameters of eminent domain supposedly dictate.
During the rally a banner was dropped over the abandoned gas station proclaiming, "Public space for communities, not private universities!" Local businesses donated coffee to the crowd and Food Not Bombs provided refreshments after the day's march.
In the two weeks period following the march and rally, organizers and community activists donated labor and time into fixing up the abandoned property, removing unsightly and dangerous clutter, debris and trash, and even planting flowers and a young sapling.
|
Neighborhood residents from Area 4 displayed their support and appreciation by donating tools, plants, and potting soil. This positive sense of community solidarity and pride was dramatically cut short by the actions of City Manager Robert W. Healy and the Cambridge Police Department. On April 14, 2002 eight organizers were arrested at random and charged with multiple felonies for their effort.
At the courthouse the next morning for the arraignment, the District Attorney's office made their intentions clear with opening remarks challenging the citizenship status of the defendants.
Within a few months, the charges had been dropped on the two juvenile defendants, leaving the six remaining adult defendants to suffer through two years of pretrial litigation in which state prosecutors attempted to claim authority to subvert due process of the court due to the political affiliation of the defendants, claimed that the original police report was all that was necessary to provide defense counsel during discovery, and otherwise wasted the time of the defendants, their counsel, and the court.
The writer is one of the Lafayette 8 defendants. For more information, please email: bostonabc@riseup.net.