July 9, 2025 • 38 mins
Bradley Jay Fills in On NightSide
Michael Coyne, a trial attorney and the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, joined Bradley Jay to discuss some recent high-profile cases. Coyne remarked on some of the recent U.S. Supreme Court final decisions as well as Karen Read’s pending wrongful death lawsuit.
Michael Coyne, a trial attorney and the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, joined Bradley Jay to discuss some recent high-profile cases. Coyne remarked on some of the recent U.S. Supreme Court final decisions as well as Karen Read’s pending wrongful death lawsuit.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Hello.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
You know, if you ever find yourself without a radio
or out of range of WBZ, you can listen to
Nightside live online. It's Nightside on demand. Actually, you can
listen to it on demand online Knightside on demand dot com.
I do it all the time, simple as heck. Nightside
on Demand dot Com. Try it out. Now we continue
(00:30):
with Dean Coin. He is the Dean of the Massachusetts
School of Law, and we're talking about multiple legal issues.
We went through Karen Reid, Brian Walsh, and we're going
to get to the defender's Public Defenders strike, which is
a significant thing, and Supreme Court decisions as well. We
have Susan on the North Sure. Hello, Hi, Susan.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Hi.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Hi. Well, yeah, you're on WBZ with Dean Coin.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
Hi.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Yeah, Hi.
Speaker 6 (01:03):
I just wanted to know what do you think about
having professional jurors. I like that, you know people that
are paid and every three months, you know, they go
to school, they get paid. It's like the grand jury.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
I love that question.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
That's an interesting question, and.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
I think I have thought about this more than once.
I'll go first. I like the idea because I want
to be one. I want that job.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Yeah, I'm sure I want you. Why why what.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
About me would make me seem unfair?
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Well, because I think you think differently than than a lot.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Yeah, deffinitely meaning better.
Speaker 6 (01:38):
Well yeah, yeah, I agree, and probably more intelligent than
half of the jurors that were on county. But anyway,
I just called I called up.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
The liar, answer the question. Go ahead, Well here, I'm
going to defend the jury system, just just quickly. But
I I do really like the idea, and I think
it's it's worth having a little more of a conversation about.
But the idea as to why we impanel juries is
that we expect them to bring their common sense of
(02:14):
the community together and collectively arrive at the right decision.
And and more often than not, I think that happens.
Are there going to be cases where we think it
didn't happen? Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (02:28):
You know.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
The theory is, and it's an old adage, is that
it's better to release a thousand guilty men than to
have one innocent man go to prison. Well, it is debatable,
but that's the premise. Is that we set the standard
of proof high and because we don't want to incarcerate
(02:53):
innocent people. And and that's that's the question. I don't
know though, whether what you'd be trying to achieve would
be achievable simply by having an essence professional jurors, because
the question is, well, what would their qualifications be, who
would we select and how do we know that they'd
be fair about it?
Speaker 3 (03:13):
Well?
Speaker 6 (03:13):
Well, can I answer that? The reason why I asked, sure, okay,
because most jurors allay people lawyers, doctors, engineers most likely
are not going to get in the jury. So the
people that are on the jury, they look at evidence
it's really not relevant. For example, on Karen Reid's case,
the lawyers were brilliant. Ten million dollars gave lawyers as
(03:38):
opposed to a couple one hundred thousand. They've got entourage
of experts and investigators. Of course she got off, of course,
because they said, don't look at Karen Reid. Look at
the dirty police officers. You know, they may have been
corrupt or whatever they are, but they weren't on trial.
(03:59):
They may have been lax, in which a lot of
them are lazy, not that bright.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
How right.
Speaker 6 (04:10):
Have taken care of because they would be educated on
what evidence you're supposed to look at what is the
correct If they had looked at the correct evidence, she
would have been found guilty, but they refused to look
at it. I don't want to go if.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Correct, No, but.
Speaker 6 (04:30):
If you look at the evidence in that case, it
all points to her being guilty. All her texts, her
relationship with him, everything, everything adding up to the knight
that she killed them. She hit him with their cup.
She absolutely said it. She actually said I hit him.
Speaker 7 (04:46):
I hit him.
Speaker 6 (04:47):
But they all refused to listen to that, and they
listened to Arco. Now I understand because Arco got down
to their level and explained it very simply that the
average person and listen, you know, agree, but you have
to be an engineer to understand that.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
And I'm going to put you get a word in here.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Maybe it's better to have people who are simple and
they don't understand, because if you have to be able
to make it, it has to be obvious to folks
like that. Maybe maybe it's better that they're not like
inside baseball people.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
That's the idea about the jury bringing their collective common
sense to bear from the community and ultimately examine whether
the evidence supports the conviction. It's that we don't want
generally lawyers and legally all bound up. We want them
to use their common sense and their practical experience and
(05:47):
resolve the issue that's before them. You know what Susan's
idea though in part is, and we do see it
sometimes of what we call blue ribbon juries sometimes in
technology or and infringement cases and the like. You do
have this idea that we should have people who have
a higher level of expertise in these areas and really
(06:09):
be able to examine the evidence carefully and to make
a proper assessment on damages in the like. So it's
not crazy to say maybe we should look at different
forms of impaneling a jury so that we are comfortable
with the process. But for just as many people as
feel as strongly as Susan does on one side, A
(06:30):
lot of people looking at the evidence in this case
felt justly just as strongly on the other side. So
it's not one that you would have a different decision
simply with a different group of twelve deciding the case.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Thank you, Susan. I appreciate that. It is interesting how
in Stone people were about their opinions. Oh, people weren't
like G, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
There wasn't a lot of people G. I don't know.
Most people had committed to one side or the other.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
And that commitment didn't always have to do with the facts.
It was more of an emotional gut thing.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Well, I think a lot of it dealt with people's
the question they had about the system, the level of
distrust they have in law enforcement these days. Uh, and yeah,
I mean there's bigger questions like that there that are
out there. You know. I remember when when I was young,
you were you probably weren't born yet, but the FBI
was on on Sunday nights and from Zimbalis.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
I remember that and production.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Everyone had this high opinion and trusted law enforcement and
our government to a greater extent.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
Dragnet, Oh, Joe, Joe what was his partner's name? Do
you remember? TikTok Mike, I don't.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Bill Gannon, Oh, Bill Gannon, Harry. Uh.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
From that that was back Yeah, kind of when people
at least I thought that were they. The thing you
saw on TV was that the police.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Are right and well, but there was a level of
trust that I don't think, and I think it makes
it very difficult in many cases now to be able
to convince the jury that they should in fact trust
those that they hire and employ to try and carry
out the justice system, and that you know, that's going
(08:24):
to take a while to restore some level of trust
again so that people can feel confident that law enforcement
in our courts are doing a good job.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Okay, after the break, we'll go to Philip in New Hampshire.
Philip in Boston and Karen and Watertown is WBZ You're.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
On night Side with Dan Ray on wb Z, Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
All right, WBZ is the gentleman said that we're with
Michael Coin and we're talking legal things, legal matters, including
the Brian Welsh case, Karen readcase. We do need to
get to the public defender strike some point where we
have many folks who want to speak to Michael Coin.
And we sat with Philip in New Hampshire. Hello, Philip
in New Hampshire.
Speaker 8 (09:06):
Yes, two quick things please.
Speaker 9 (09:08):
I'm just curious.
Speaker 8 (09:09):
It sounds a lot like you've just finished your second
year at the Massachusetts School of Love, Rudy.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
He's doing post grad work.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
I learned everything, I learned everything I know from Dean Coin.
Speaker 8 (09:22):
Secondly, I would be opposed to a paid jury. I
think the homogeneity of it would deny the defendant. A
jury of their peers, would I would be opposed?
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
I guess it would not be a jury of their peers,
would it.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
No, it would be a correct It be a paid jury,
and it would have just as many problems now with
who did they favor, why did they favor? The whole
idea is a jury of your peers is a common
sense collective from the community, and I do think it's
a better system that we have. It's not perfect.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
I suppose you'd be more susceptible to corruption if you
didn't case after case after case. Right, it's kind of
like right, anybody who has a long term position, like
Supreme Court justice is vulnerable to that kind of thing. Okay,
what else?
Speaker 10 (10:15):
And the last thing?
Speaker 8 (10:16):
I have you mentioned?
Speaker 9 (10:18):
A q M production.
Speaker 8 (10:21):
I'll get I'll increase your grades if you can tell
you what QM stands for.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Quen Martin, we both, Oh, you win.
Speaker 5 (10:27):
Very good.
Speaker 8 (10:28):
Good, I'll talk to the registrant.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
All that means is we're all all your lies.
Speaker 9 (10:34):
Anyway.
Speaker 8 (10:35):
Wonderful show. Good to hear you back on the air.
Speaker 9 (10:37):
Bradley.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Thank you very much, and now we go to let's
see it's Karen, Karen and Watertown. Hi Karen, you're on BZ.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
I had to get off speaker.
Speaker 7 (10:50):
Hi Karen, Hi.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
I just want to say, first off, Michael con I
was I consider it for privileged to speaking to you.
I was following religiously the Jonald Keith. I guess you
could call it. Karen read trial on on another station
(11:13):
that aired seven to seven thirty every night, and you
were you were just the voice of reason, you know,
amidst all the hysteria, the speculation.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
According according to you, what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
What you're saying is you agreed with with Mike. It
doesn't mean he's reasonable. It just means you agreed he was.
Speaker 5 (11:35):
He was Jesus calm, knowledgeable. That was the antithesis of
what was going on. You know, let's say, is it
turtle boy?
Speaker 2 (11:49):
You know, I try to be balanced, and I know
I got at times I got emails and texts and
and the like from from people on both sides saying, oh,
you're crazy, are you doing this crazy? But you did.
I did try to bring some balance to it and
really look at it from the evidentiary and trial issues
as to how the case went. So I appreciate the
(12:10):
idea that you you appreciated that we were trying to
be balanced or I was trying to be balanced in
our approach to the.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Karen, before I let you go, and have a question.
I have a question before I let you go, because
I do have to scoot. At the beginning of the show,
we posed a couple of questions. One was this, Let's
say you were charged with the crime, but they offer
you a deal where you plead guilty to a crime
you did not commit, and you don't have to do
(12:39):
the five years, but you admit to a crime you
did not commit, and you'll be on probation forever. Would
you take the dealer? Would you go to trial?
Speaker 10 (12:49):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (12:49):
I probably go to trial. And I'm sure this is
Karen Reid. Did I know she didn't want.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
To see that's we believe, both Michael and I that
that's crazy. You're taking a chance of going to jail
for five years to save your reputation.
Speaker 5 (13:02):
No, you take a deal to spend no jail time. No,
I probably do the deal.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Yeah, me too. And the other question is this, what's worse? Uh?
The death penalty, Like which is the worse punishment, the
death penalty or life in prison?
Speaker 5 (13:18):
I think life in prison is no. No, definitely is no.
I am I am, I am anti shall not kill.
I do not believe in state sanctioned murder. Okay, all right,
but Bradley Jay, it's great to hear you. I really
like your your take on things, and it's great to
have you on this week.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Thank you, Thank you appreciate it. That's interesting. Doesn't doesn't
believe in state sponsored Burtter, I get that. But the
usual beef, and we talked about this. My usual beef
is it's too expensive to keep them in jail forever.
But the fact is it's the death penalty. Attempting an
execution is more expensive. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Yeah, because of all the appeals and which are on
attorney's fees and they are automatic and paid for by
all of us. That's why son As appeals are still
moving forward. He still has not met his sentence that
the jury handed out and likely won't for many many
years to come. And and to me, I would accept
(14:18):
the death penalty versus life in prison without the benefit
of parole, because to me, that's a more humane way
to die than to spend the rest of my life
hopeless in supermacs.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Well, that's kind of a isn't being in solitary environment?
It is a form of torture used to extract confessions
from people. You put you in it in a room
you don't hate, your out for a long time, and
it's not a nice room. The whole the whole place
is nasty and it's filled with it's a very dangerous
and bad place and you're never getting out ever that
(14:53):
this is what you have to look for to the end,
you know, rocky like not the probably not the best
dental care, probably not the best doctors, probably not the
best food, probably not the most insanitary environment. Uh, I
don't where the other way seems like the easy and
do main way out Actually, so far as I'm concerned,
(15:15):
if you really want the worst for the perpetrator or
the convict, you would go with life in prison and
that if everybody agreed, we could just move on. Let's
go to fill phill in Boston.
Speaker 10 (15:31):
How you doing, I said, work in the prison, but
let they go what you mentioned that jury?
Speaker 4 (15:38):
Do you?
Speaker 10 (15:38):
And I'm probably wrong, but I believe back in the
sixties and at least in BMC they would they would
pick the jewelry pull from people who would come there
in the morning and watch the court proceedings. They would
pick those people to be on the jury in a
sense they were professionals in a sense that they weren't
(15:59):
being paid. But maybe you're wrong. Does that make sense
to you.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Well to fit? No, Actually, I spent some time in
the BMC in the seventies and eighties as well, so
it's one of my favorite courts actually. But no, there
were always in BMC and Suffolk Superior there were what
we call backbenches. There were likely older retired folks who
this was entertainment to come in and watch the cases.
(16:24):
If you got stuck trying to impanel a jury, it
would not be surprising for a judge to look at
who might have been there and to be able to
use them unpaid, but to use them to complete filling
out the jury.
Speaker 10 (16:39):
I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Yeah, well, remember a lot of people try to avoid
jury duty and if we've got a trial to take place,
there have been times where judges have ordered the court
officers to go out to the street and bring people
in to press, getting them to make them members of
the jury. So if there are in the courthouse, it's
(17:01):
a hell of a lot easier to just hang out
and hope to get tapped. No, they go to hang
out to watch trials.
Speaker 7 (17:07):
All right.
Speaker 10 (17:08):
I knit something, It knit something that.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
I did this.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
I did this when I was in both college and
law school. Uh, and I got I watched some of
the best trials ever and learned as a result of it.
But it was terrific entertainment. I watched Newman Flanagan, who's
the former Suffolk County District Attorney, and James Saint Clair,
President Nixon's former lawyer try a case in Suffolk Superior.
(17:36):
Every move they made was masterful. It was terrific experience.
So people, Judge Stanzi, Judge Stanziani is one of my
favorites of all time. You know, we we have Judge
Stanziani's old courtroom in Chelsea at the law school. And
really yes, and his daughter Doris graduated from the law school.
Speaker 10 (17:58):
No heights.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Yeah, dog Judge Sanziani, Bradley may not know, had this
flowing white hair. Was a well known defense attorney and Durham.
When he sat on the bench, he marched from side
to side across the bench. He never sat, He stood
the entire day. He was terrific. He was a terrific
lawyer before he came to judge. He was a great
judge too.
Speaker 10 (18:21):
I was just before I let you go, let me go,
you know, I watched him cold with him and he
was ad rest in the witness and he took off
the head of along gray hair and took his coat off.
It was beautiful. But I had a super ball in
a for you doing a good job, because all your
stuff does not sound like a stupid question. But there's
someone with half a decade and working in a prison
(18:47):
facility with a cause education and who's pair was a lawyer.
Would that makes sense to get back at a loss?
I mean, I was just this thought of being that's
something like that. But does that make sense to you?
Am my out of my mind?
Speaker 2 (19:02):
My oldest well, one of my oldest graduates was a
seventy three year old retired nun. Another one of my
oldest graduates was seventy three years old when he finished
law school, became a lawyer in Masson, New Hampshire, then
became a da in New Hampshire for a few years,
and now is a defense attorney. You know, you're never
(19:23):
too old to try and achieve your dream. And if
you work hot enough, anything's possible.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
And if you do go, I'm sure we're talking about you.
If you do go to law school, you might be
older when you get out, But if you don't, you're
still going to get older and you won't.
Speaker 10 (19:39):
Be a lawyers at the LSAT stuff all don't We don't.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Use the LSATs. We think it's a bad test to
decide who should be a member of our community representing people.
Speaker 10 (19:52):
All right, well, you know, are you going to hand
over an hour?
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Well we're in Boston at the studio right now, but
the law school is an up off River Road in Andover.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Make it happen, Pe'll do it. It's time for a
break on w BZ.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
Here we go. It's WBZ News Radio ten thirty, number six,
one seven, two thirty. We have Jacob and Frank and
Vinnie and Dan to talk to Michael Cohendin to the
Massachusett School of Law and pretty much now we're into
anything legal goes, anything that's related to legality, juries, stuff
like that procedural stuff, and we like to keep it
(20:36):
fun as well. So who's been on hole longest? That
would be Vinnie in Maine. So hello, Vinnie, how are
you hey.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
I want to first begin saying, how sincerely happy I
am to hear your voice again, Bradley, Well, thank.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
You very much. I'm happy to be speaking. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
Yeah, you definitely bring the the other side of the coin.
The you bring the you feel it, you make it full,
you make it full, you bring balance to WBZ and
and I think you round it out perfectly. And you
know to your boss hintdd hint hint at any.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Rate, and you say I bring the other side of
the coin. That's true because there's Michael coin. He's one side.
He's one coin on the other side of.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
In more ways than one, right on, right on, what
I what what I want to bring or ask if
you will with his knowledge. I have a followed the
Karen Read case very closely because I just knew it
was going to be a very very long, dragged out
case and I just don't have the patience for that.
I'm intrigued with true crime because I really believe that
(21:47):
the bad guy needs to be held accounted for when
you hurt someone. But I'm just wondering with the Karen
Reid thing. He is autopsy, where was it done and
was it unbiased?
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Yeah, the autopsy would have been done likely in the
Medical Examiner's office in Boston, Okay, And there is you
know a lot of people have questioned how well it
was done. You know, there was questions about where they're
broken bones, but there were no X rays and that
(22:19):
they couldn't ultimately determine the cause of death. So what
you say, was it done one hundred percent? There's so
many questions. Nothing in this case was done as well
as it should have been done, frankly, And that's there's
a lot of open questions about how that, whether they
(22:40):
did their job correctly, and if they had, whether we
would have had clearer answers on a lot of the
questions about the cause of his death.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
Okay. And it's like people you know, in the jury
and so forth. What struck me, as say a civilian
just listening to the news and so forth, It kind
of struck me as the atmosphere of when college kids
get together and everybody drinks like crazy, and one kid
want his home, ends up wandering in the swamp and
gets killed from hypothermia, you know, And I'm just wondering
(23:14):
exactly Like that's why I was wondering about the autopsy.
What was his toxicology level? Was it enough alcohol to
kill him? What else was in his system?
Speaker 10 (23:26):
You know.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
That's how it struck me. That's how it struck me.
And also you might think this is a you know,
a little bit of a joke, and it's nice to
laugh once in a while. But when that comment from Karen,
I hit him, what was the punctuation mark at the
end of that sentence? Was it a question or was
it a period? Almost like in the movie my cousin Vinnie,
I shot the clerk.
Speaker 9 (23:46):
I shot the clerk.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
People have suggested that, and as well as some of
the other statements with respect to what she said, is
did I hit him? So in other times it clearly
was more questioning what the statement actually was. And as
you point out the punctuation in the way in which
you say, it matters, and you know the other part
(24:09):
of that which I'm you know, I think the dog
expert talked a little bit about is you know, wouldn't
you question your own activity if if somehow a loved
one you would just with something tragic like this happened.
So I'm not so sure that it wouldn't have been
something all of us might say, well, could I have
(24:31):
done something here to contribute to the death. So there
are other ways to explain it as well, that it's
not just her making a definitive statement. It could be
questioning whether somehow could she have done things differently and
not end up where we are. So, uh, this is
going to be one of these cases. I think that
(24:51):
we're going to have questions forever anytime we look into it.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
Thank you, thank you, Yeah, love you, Bradley, thank you
very much.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
Those are kind of words, you know, folks. There's more
to life than the Karen Reid case. There's more to
life than the Karen read case. There's a public defender
strike right which is going on now, which really affects
public safety. And before we take the call, Dan coinn
please outline that so maybe we can skew away from
(25:21):
Karen Reid.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
My friend Hutch just sent me a note saying, when
are you going to get to the public defense. Yes,
as you might guess, he has some personal involvement.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
Lit do that.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
But here is what's going on, and it is more problematic.
People oftentimes don't worry about our lawyers getting paid enough
because it doesn't impact them directly generally, but it does.
At the end of the day. Indigent individuals in Massachusetts
are entitled to representation. If they cannot afford one, it
(25:53):
will be appointed by the court. We've all heard that
on Law and Order a million times, that if you
cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you.
The problem in Massachusetts is that the public defenders who
are engaged with CPCs, the Committee for Public Council Service.
They're private lawyers but paid by them to represent indigen clients.
(26:17):
They are now on strike because they say the rate
of pay they generally get, which is sixty five dollars
an hour, is far too low to be able to
do their job effectively and to be able to represent
the clients as well as they would like.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
How does that square up with those states.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
It's about half of what it would be in Maine,
and it's about seventy five percent of what it would
be in New Hampshire. Both of those states the rates
are well over one hundred dollars an hour and so
it's not without some merit to say the rate is
really low when we look at our surrounding neighbors and
that would also include Rhode Island and Connecticut. Is that
(26:56):
generally people who are doing the defense of the indigens
and those states are getting well in excess of what
we pay in mass. The problem is, and why people
should worry about it, is that the court has now
determined that these are constitutional violations, that if these folks
are indigent, they're entitled to lawyers, and if you do
(27:17):
not provide them, then they're going to be released. And
so what we're seeing in the Globe had an article
today about it. What we're seeing is that even violent
offenders are being released because we can't provide them a
lawyer within the fifteen days of their arrest and arraignment,
and that if we don't provide them that lawyer, they're
(27:39):
entitled to be released. Even for the bail arguments, they're
entitled to a lawyer. And so the court has now determined,
Supreme Court has determined that you can hold them for
fifteen days and then you're going to release them. And
if you can't get them a lawyer within forty five days,
then those charges will be dismissed. And these are not
just you know, motive vehicle issues and the like. These
(28:01):
are some significant charges. The individual today had been accused
of choking his wife and the like, and so you've
got others in the system. I talked to my clinic
students tonight about it. They're in courts down in Brockton
and on the North Shore as well, and this is
(28:23):
a real problem in the district courts is they do
not have lawyers now to represent indigent defendants whose constitutional
rights will then be impacted. And what will happen is
they'll be released on the streets and will be less safe.
All of us will be less safe.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
So what do you think's fair double what they get.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Well, I'm not going to make the argument for double,
because I know we've got budget problems in Massachusetts. But
I do think we should be closer to our neighbors.
And I don't think even the people that are working
within the Public Defender's Office doing this type of work
for clients on the contract basis would argue that they
(29:04):
want to be paid like New Hampshire and Maine one
twenty one fifty. They might like, but I think they'd
settle for far more of a modest increase and maybe
staged over a few years so that they know down
the road will be more competitive with those states.
Speaker 3 (29:19):
So I think that's unpopular with taxpayers to fund I
think this.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
I think taxpayers don't care if lawyers eat their own
So I mean, I think it's a question of everyone
hates lawyers until they need one, and then they love us.
And so what they really should recognize is this impacts
their own safety, and we should, we should, we can
and should do better by people who are doing what
the constitution asks them to do.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
So what do you think, folks, should we pay those
those lawyers more? Really, I have to shorten the calls
now because it's getting getting kind of crowded. Frank and Middleton. Hello,
you're on WBZ. Hi Frank, how are you doing very well?
Thank you?
Speaker 7 (30:02):
How are you doing? Yeah?
Speaker 11 (30:05):
I was just trying to give my input and you
don't want to talk about the can read. But I've
been on hold a little bit. But to me, it
was just too much information that you know, the police
didn't do enough job. If someone found someone dead at
my front lawn, fun lawn, I would expect they're gonna
(30:28):
knock on the door in the neighborhood.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
The warrant situation, probable cause right right, the search warrant issues,
and I hear and many people have said just what
you've said.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
You know, but uh, I grew up in the city.
People die sometimes near your house, and that doesn't necessarily
give them the ability to enter your house without permission,
and so that's where that problem comes in. But I
do hear what you're saying is I think a lot
of people believe that if if in fact that happened
(30:59):
on my front on that the police would come a
knocking a lot sooner and make a lot closer examination.
Speaker 11 (31:07):
To me, they should have knocked that night, and they
don't have to let them in, but they could ask
questions and that's fair, and they could refuse to open
the door, they could do all that stuff.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
That's reasonable reason.
Speaker 11 (31:19):
Yeah, it just seemed to me there was too much
doubt that the police work wasn't done correctly. Guilty or
not fair enough.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
The police work was good.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
Good call, Frank, And we still have Dan, David and
Jacob after this on BZ.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's News radio.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
That ride home was a bit Hello, it's WBZ and
we have let's go right to the cause, Dean Coin
any any legal questions, and again, there's more to life
than Karen Reid. There's the public defender strike. Let's try
to let's try to branch out a little bit we have.
Let's go first to Jacob and Bill Ricker. How do
(32:04):
you do?
Speaker 7 (32:06):
Yeah, Hi, I have a question for the dean about
Mass School of Law if he doesn't mind answering, and
it feel like you would, you know, be the private
person to ask. Yeah, I was wondering why Mass School
of Law isn't accredited by the American Bar Association.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
Yeah, we don't seek accreditation by the ABA. What we
think is that a number of their standards are anti
educational and done more to protect existing lawyers than to
offer opportunity to people.
Speaker 9 (32:35):
You know.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
The fact is law school doesn't have to be sixty
thousand dollars a year and require students to be taught
by faculty who don't continue to have some real knowledge
of the practice of law and continue to practice law.
So we have created and for now nearly forty years,
had a very different model of legal education. We are
(32:57):
accredited by the New England Commission of Higher Education, and
we think our model works for folks. I don't think
that law students should have to borrow one hundred and
fifty or two hundred thousand dollars to attend law school
and to have be a member of the community and
represent people that need help. And so we don't recognize
(33:18):
that that's an effective way to go about it. You know,
I went to Boston Latin School, which was a terrific school.
We had no facilities virtually at all for athletic facilities
or even the classrooms were old and decrepit. What makes
a great school is the faculty and the students committed
to a good learning environment. And that's what you'd find
(33:41):
where we are. And it's not the peat the standards
set by the lawyers that are existing to be able
to try and preclude others from reaping the rewards that
those lawyers have.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Passing the bars where the rubber MEAs the road right
and it is, and.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
Then ultimately practicing law. You know, we have just had
another student who now is the police chief in your
neighboring town of Wilmington, hard working guy, Brian Pope.
Speaker 7 (34:08):
So we have heard of them.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
Yeah, we have a lot of folks that are looking
at the law as we a way to give back
to the community. And the problem is, and it's generally
available throughout education, is that all schools are too expensive.
And what we've done is set our path differently to
try and create a different model so that you offer
(34:30):
more opportunity to people. And it's it's different and it's working.
Uh and I think it works great for our for
our graduates. You know, the Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll is
a graduate of a loss of our law school, so
so ish the District Attorney of Essex County, Paul Tucker,
as well as the Great District Attorney down in the
(34:50):
Cape in the Islands, Rob Galliboy. The fact is is
that if you offer opportunity to people at a reasonable cost,
they can go back to the communities and really contribute
a significant way exactly.
Speaker 4 (35:01):
That's what I was just going to say.
Speaker 7 (35:02):
I bet they stay local too, I do they do. Thankfully,
that's awesome, Thank.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
You, thank you, Jacob.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Now it's Dan in New Hampshire.
Speaker 9 (35:10):
Hi Dan, Hi, how are you Dean Coin? How are
you sir?
Speaker 2 (35:14):
I'm doing good.
Speaker 9 (35:14):
How are you, Dan Good, so a couple of quick things.
I am also a graduate of the Maschool Law and
it is a profound experience. But I am calling about
the labor work stoppage with the Public Defender's Office Good.
I am a public well, my bar advacate in Nessa's County,
and there's just a few things I want to hit them.
(35:34):
I'd like to hear from Dean Coin about it as well.
The CPCs unit itself can only handle about twenty percent
of the caseload for the entire state of Massachusetts. The
rest is left to the bar advocates. Now well, the
pay is low. It was never intended to be a
full time job. The idea is, we give you a shot.
Much like maschool law, we give you a chance to
get in. Everybody gets in, but you work your way
(35:57):
through it. The bar advocts are no different. You learn
how to be a law You accept cases that you
wouldn't get on your own as a brand new attorney,
and they teach you how to fight and protect people,
especially in the people who are now suffering because they're
not getting represented. Now, it doesn't really matter to me
what side of the coin you're on. I think The
(36:18):
important thing here is yes they are under paid, but
there's a vehicle for it. We're hitting a concert crisis
in Suffolk and Middlesex County. They just implemented the La
Valley Protocol, which is where you were speaking earlier about
the seven days to release somebody in forty five days
for dismissals on misdemediate cases, even founty cases. The problem
(36:39):
with that is the prosecutors are you know, they're spending
money to bring cases forward, they're getting dismissed. All these
cases are coming back once this is over, so they're
really not doing any any favors. The other thing is
I heard a story this morning about a young lady
that was a victim of one of these people that
(37:00):
was released on Monday, and he went right to the
lady's house. So it's a problem.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
So what's your solution button You got to just pay him?
Speaker 9 (37:10):
Well, I mean, well, let me get to that real quick.
Speaker 3 (37:12):
So we have a very limited time. Bear that in mind,
where because we have three minutes max.
Speaker 9 (37:18):
So the pay rates for New Hampshire and Maine are
not apples to apples and apples to oranges. So the
statutory limits on the amount you can build on a
misty universe's a felony in New Hampshire. I want to say,
one of those twenty five hundred or whatever mass Howsett
doesn't have that protocol, so it's not quite the same thing. Yes,
they deserve to be paid more, but you should also
(37:40):
be skilled enough after you're a new lawyer making sixty
five an hour, which is decent when you get out,
to be able to get private work and supplement your
income with this work while helping intigen people. That's op op.
Speaker 3 (37:53):
Sorry, sorry, I get the button, but we do have
to go. I just wanted to give you a little
time to answer that.
Speaker 7 (37:59):
Well.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
I just say I think what he's suggesting is what
I had talked about before. I don't think the public
defenders want necessarily a demand that they get one hundred
and twenty to one hundred and fifty dollars an hour
what they're saying. And I think what the caller suggests
is that a modest increase isn't uncalled for here and
it still allows the people to make a working wage
(38:21):
and to start to develop their other practice.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
Michael Coin, thank you so much for coming in as
thaying two hours. I really appreciate it,
It's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Hello.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
You know, if you ever find yourself without a radio
or out of range of WBZ, you can listen to
Nightside live online. It's Nightside on demand. Actually, you can
listen to it on demand online Knightside on demand dot com.
I do it all the time, simple as heck. Nightside
on Demand dot Com. Try it out. Now we continue
(00:30):
with Dean Coin. He is the Dean of the Massachusetts
School of Law, and we're talking about multiple legal issues.
We went through Karen Reid, Brian Walsh, and we're going
to get to the defender's Public Defenders strike, which is
a significant thing, and Supreme Court decisions as well. We
have Susan on the North Sure. Hello, Hi, Susan.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Hi.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Hi. Well, yeah, you're on WBZ with Dean Coin.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
Hi.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Yeah, Hi.
Speaker 6 (01:03):
I just wanted to know what do you think about
having professional jurors. I like that, you know people that
are paid and every three months, you know, they go
to school, they get paid. It's like the grand jury.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
I love that question.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
That's an interesting question, and.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
I think I have thought about this more than once.
I'll go first. I like the idea because I want
to be one. I want that job.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Yeah, I'm sure I want you. Why why what.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
About me would make me seem unfair?
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Well, because I think you think differently than than a lot.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Yeah, deffinitely meaning better.
Speaker 6 (01:38):
Well yeah, yeah, I agree, and probably more intelligent than
half of the jurors that were on county. But anyway,
I just called I called up.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
The liar, answer the question. Go ahead, Well here, I'm
going to defend the jury system, just just quickly. But
I I do really like the idea, and I think
it's it's worth having a little more of a conversation about.
But the idea as to why we impanel juries is
that we expect them to bring their common sense of
(02:14):
the community together and collectively arrive at the right decision.
And and more often than not, I think that happens.
Are there going to be cases where we think it
didn't happen? Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (02:28):
You know.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
The theory is, and it's an old adage, is that
it's better to release a thousand guilty men than to
have one innocent man go to prison. Well, it is debatable,
but that's the premise. Is that we set the standard
of proof high and because we don't want to incarcerate
(02:53):
innocent people. And and that's that's the question. I don't
know though, whether what you'd be trying to achieve would
be achievable simply by having an essence professional jurors, because
the question is, well, what would their qualifications be, who
would we select and how do we know that they'd
be fair about it?
Speaker 3 (03:13):
Well?
Speaker 6 (03:13):
Well, can I answer that? The reason why I asked, sure, okay,
because most jurors allay people lawyers, doctors, engineers most likely
are not going to get in the jury. So the
people that are on the jury, they look at evidence
it's really not relevant. For example, on Karen Reid's case,
the lawyers were brilliant. Ten million dollars gave lawyers as
(03:38):
opposed to a couple one hundred thousand. They've got entourage
of experts and investigators. Of course she got off, of course,
because they said, don't look at Karen Reid. Look at
the dirty police officers. You know, they may have been
corrupt or whatever they are, but they weren't on trial.
(03:59):
They may have been lax, in which a lot of
them are lazy, not that bright.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
How right.
Speaker 6 (04:10):
Have taken care of because they would be educated on
what evidence you're supposed to look at what is the
correct If they had looked at the correct evidence, she
would have been found guilty, but they refused to look
at it. I don't want to go if.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Correct, No, but.
Speaker 6 (04:30):
If you look at the evidence in that case, it
all points to her being guilty. All her texts, her
relationship with him, everything, everything adding up to the knight
that she killed them. She hit him with their cup.
She absolutely said it. She actually said I hit him.
Speaker 7 (04:46):
I hit him.
Speaker 6 (04:47):
But they all refused to listen to that, and they
listened to Arco. Now I understand because Arco got down
to their level and explained it very simply that the
average person and listen, you know, agree, but you have
to be an engineer to understand that.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
And I'm going to put you get a word in here.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Maybe it's better to have people who are simple and
they don't understand, because if you have to be able
to make it, it has to be obvious to folks
like that. Maybe maybe it's better that they're not like
inside baseball people.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
That's the idea about the jury bringing their collective common
sense to bear from the community and ultimately examine whether
the evidence supports the conviction. It's that we don't want
generally lawyers and legally all bound up. We want them
to use their common sense and their practical experience and
(05:47):
resolve the issue that's before them. You know what Susan's
idea though in part is, and we do see it
sometimes of what we call blue ribbon juries sometimes in
technology or and infringement cases and the like. You do
have this idea that we should have people who have
a higher level of expertise in these areas and really
(06:09):
be able to examine the evidence carefully and to make
a proper assessment on damages in the like. So it's
not crazy to say maybe we should look at different
forms of impaneling a jury so that we are comfortable
with the process. But for just as many people as
feel as strongly as Susan does on one side, A
(06:30):
lot of people looking at the evidence in this case
felt justly just as strongly on the other side. So
it's not one that you would have a different decision
simply with a different group of twelve deciding the case.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Thank you, Susan. I appreciate that. It is interesting how
in Stone people were about their opinions. Oh, people weren't
like G, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
There wasn't a lot of people G. I don't know.
Most people had committed to one side or the other.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
And that commitment didn't always have to do with the facts.
It was more of an emotional gut thing.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Well, I think a lot of it dealt with people's
the question they had about the system, the level of
distrust they have in law enforcement these days. Uh, and yeah,
I mean there's bigger questions like that there that are
out there. You know. I remember when when I was young,
you were you probably weren't born yet, but the FBI
was on on Sunday nights and from Zimbalis.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
I remember that and production.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Everyone had this high opinion and trusted law enforcement and
our government to a greater extent.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
Dragnet, Oh, Joe, Joe what was his partner's name? Do
you remember? TikTok Mike, I don't.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Bill Gannon, Oh, Bill Gannon, Harry. Uh.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
From that that was back Yeah, kind of when people
at least I thought that were they. The thing you
saw on TV was that the police.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Are right and well, but there was a level of
trust that I don't think, and I think it makes
it very difficult in many cases now to be able
to convince the jury that they should in fact trust
those that they hire and employ to try and carry
out the justice system, and that you know, that's going
(08:24):
to take a while to restore some level of trust
again so that people can feel confident that law enforcement
in our courts are doing a good job.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Okay, after the break, we'll go to Philip in New Hampshire.
Philip in Boston and Karen and Watertown is WBZ You're.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
On night Side with Dan Ray on wb Z, Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
All right, WBZ is the gentleman said that we're with
Michael Coin and we're talking legal things, legal matters, including
the Brian Welsh case, Karen readcase. We do need to
get to the public defender strike some point where we
have many folks who want to speak to Michael Coin.
And we sat with Philip in New Hampshire. Hello, Philip
in New Hampshire.
Speaker 8 (09:06):
Yes, two quick things please.
Speaker 9 (09:08):
I'm just curious.
Speaker 8 (09:09):
It sounds a lot like you've just finished your second
year at the Massachusetts School of Love, Rudy.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
He's doing post grad work.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
I learned everything, I learned everything I know from Dean Coin.
Speaker 8 (09:22):
Secondly, I would be opposed to a paid jury. I
think the homogeneity of it would deny the defendant. A
jury of their peers, would I would be opposed?
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
I guess it would not be a jury of their peers,
would it.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
No, it would be a correct It be a paid jury,
and it would have just as many problems now with
who did they favor, why did they favor? The whole
idea is a jury of your peers is a common
sense collective from the community, and I do think it's
a better system that we have. It's not perfect.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
I suppose you'd be more susceptible to corruption if you
didn't case after case after case. Right, it's kind of
like right, anybody who has a long term position, like
Supreme Court justice is vulnerable to that kind of thing. Okay,
what else?
Speaker 10 (10:15):
And the last thing?
Speaker 8 (10:16):
I have you mentioned?
Speaker 9 (10:18):
A q M production.
Speaker 8 (10:21):
I'll get I'll increase your grades if you can tell
you what QM stands for.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Quen Martin, we both, Oh, you win.
Speaker 5 (10:27):
Very good.
Speaker 8 (10:28):
Good, I'll talk to the registrant.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
All that means is we're all all your lies.
Speaker 9 (10:34):
Anyway.
Speaker 8 (10:35):
Wonderful show. Good to hear you back on the air.
Speaker 9 (10:37):
Bradley.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Thank you very much, and now we go to let's
see it's Karen, Karen and Watertown. Hi Karen, you're on BZ.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
I had to get off speaker.
Speaker 7 (10:50):
Hi Karen, Hi.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
I just want to say, first off, Michael con I
was I consider it for privileged to speaking to you.
I was following religiously the Jonald Keith. I guess you
could call it. Karen read trial on on another station
(11:13):
that aired seven to seven thirty every night, and you
were you were just the voice of reason, you know,
amidst all the hysteria, the speculation.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
According according to you, what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
What you're saying is you agreed with with Mike. It
doesn't mean he's reasonable. It just means you agreed he was.
Speaker 5 (11:35):
He was Jesus calm, knowledgeable. That was the antithesis of
what was going on. You know, let's say, is it
turtle boy?
Speaker 2 (11:49):
You know, I try to be balanced, and I know
I got at times I got emails and texts and
and the like from from people on both sides saying, oh,
you're crazy, are you doing this crazy? But you did.
I did try to bring some balance to it and
really look at it from the evidentiary and trial issues
as to how the case went. So I appreciate the
(12:10):
idea that you you appreciated that we were trying to
be balanced or I was trying to be balanced in
our approach to the.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Karen, before I let you go, and have a question.
I have a question before I let you go, because
I do have to scoot. At the beginning of the show,
we posed a couple of questions. One was this, Let's
say you were charged with the crime, but they offer
you a deal where you plead guilty to a crime
you did not commit, and you don't have to do
(12:39):
the five years, but you admit to a crime you
did not commit, and you'll be on probation forever. Would
you take the dealer? Would you go to trial?
Speaker 10 (12:49):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (12:49):
I probably go to trial. And I'm sure this is
Karen Reid. Did I know she didn't want.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
To see that's we believe, both Michael and I that
that's crazy. You're taking a chance of going to jail
for five years to save your reputation.
Speaker 5 (13:02):
No, you take a deal to spend no jail time. No,
I probably do the deal.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Yeah, me too. And the other question is this, what's worse? Uh?
The death penalty, Like which is the worse punishment, the
death penalty or life in prison?
Speaker 5 (13:18):
I think life in prison is no. No, definitely is no.
I am I am, I am anti shall not kill.
I do not believe in state sanctioned murder. Okay, all right,
but Bradley Jay, it's great to hear you. I really
like your your take on things, and it's great to
have you on this week.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Thank you, Thank you appreciate it. That's interesting. Doesn't doesn't
believe in state sponsored Burtter, I get that. But the
usual beef, and we talked about this. My usual beef
is it's too expensive to keep them in jail forever.
But the fact is it's the death penalty. Attempting an
execution is more expensive. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Yeah, because of all the appeals and which are on
attorney's fees and they are automatic and paid for by
all of us. That's why son As appeals are still
moving forward. He still has not met his sentence that
the jury handed out and likely won't for many many
years to come. And and to me, I would accept
(14:18):
the death penalty versus life in prison without the benefit
of parole, because to me, that's a more humane way
to die than to spend the rest of my life
hopeless in supermacs.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Well, that's kind of a isn't being in solitary environment?
It is a form of torture used to extract confessions
from people. You put you in it in a room
you don't hate, your out for a long time, and
it's not a nice room. The whole the whole place
is nasty and it's filled with it's a very dangerous
and bad place and you're never getting out ever that
(14:53):
this is what you have to look for to the end,
you know, rocky like not the probably not the best
dental care, probably not the best doctors, probably not the
best food, probably not the most insanitary environment. Uh, I
don't where the other way seems like the easy and
do main way out Actually, so far as I'm concerned,
(15:15):
if you really want the worst for the perpetrator or
the convict, you would go with life in prison and
that if everybody agreed, we could just move on. Let's
go to fill phill in Boston.
Speaker 10 (15:31):
How you doing, I said, work in the prison, but
let they go what you mentioned that jury?
Speaker 4 (15:38):
Do you?
Speaker 10 (15:38):
And I'm probably wrong, but I believe back in the
sixties and at least in BMC they would they would
pick the jewelry pull from people who would come there
in the morning and watch the court proceedings. They would
pick those people to be on the jury in a
sense they were professionals in a sense that they weren't
(15:59):
being paid. But maybe you're wrong. Does that make sense
to you.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Well to fit? No, Actually, I spent some time in
the BMC in the seventies and eighties as well, so
it's one of my favorite courts actually. But no, there
were always in BMC and Suffolk Superior there were what
we call backbenches. There were likely older retired folks who
this was entertainment to come in and watch the cases.
(16:24):
If you got stuck trying to impanel a jury, it
would not be surprising for a judge to look at
who might have been there and to be able to
use them unpaid, but to use them to complete filling
out the jury.
Speaker 10 (16:39):
I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Yeah, well, remember a lot of people try to avoid
jury duty and if we've got a trial to take place,
there have been times where judges have ordered the court
officers to go out to the street and bring people
in to press, getting them to make them members of
the jury. So if there are in the courthouse, it's
(17:01):
a hell of a lot easier to just hang out
and hope to get tapped. No, they go to hang
out to watch trials.
Speaker 7 (17:07):
All right.
Speaker 10 (17:08):
I knit something, It knit something that.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
I did this.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
I did this when I was in both college and
law school. Uh, and I got I watched some of
the best trials ever and learned as a result of it.
But it was terrific entertainment. I watched Newman Flanagan, who's
the former Suffolk County District Attorney, and James Saint Clair,
President Nixon's former lawyer try a case in Suffolk Superior.
(17:36):
Every move they made was masterful. It was terrific experience.
So people, Judge Stanzi, Judge Stanziani is one of my
favorites of all time. You know, we we have Judge
Stanziani's old courtroom in Chelsea at the law school. And
really yes, and his daughter Doris graduated from the law school.
Speaker 10 (17:58):
No heights.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Yeah, dog Judge Sanziani, Bradley may not know, had this
flowing white hair. Was a well known defense attorney and Durham.
When he sat on the bench, he marched from side
to side across the bench. He never sat, He stood
the entire day. He was terrific. He was a terrific
lawyer before he came to judge. He was a great
judge too.
Speaker 10 (18:21):
I was just before I let you go, let me go,
you know, I watched him cold with him and he
was ad rest in the witness and he took off
the head of along gray hair and took his coat off.
It was beautiful. But I had a super ball in
a for you doing a good job, because all your
stuff does not sound like a stupid question. But there's
someone with half a decade and working in a prison
(18:47):
facility with a cause education and who's pair was a lawyer.
Would that makes sense to get back at a loss?
I mean, I was just this thought of being that's
something like that. But does that make sense to you?
Am my out of my mind?
Speaker 2 (19:02):
My oldest well, one of my oldest graduates was a
seventy three year old retired nun. Another one of my
oldest graduates was seventy three years old when he finished
law school, became a lawyer in Masson, New Hampshire, then
became a da in New Hampshire for a few years,
and now is a defense attorney. You know, you're never
(19:23):
too old to try and achieve your dream. And if
you work hot enough, anything's possible.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
And if you do go, I'm sure we're talking about you.
If you do go to law school, you might be
older when you get out, But if you don't, you're
still going to get older and you won't.
Speaker 10 (19:39):
Be a lawyers at the LSAT stuff all don't We don't.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Use the LSATs. We think it's a bad test to
decide who should be a member of our community representing people.
Speaker 10 (19:52):
All right, well, you know, are you going to hand
over an hour?
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Well we're in Boston at the studio right now, but
the law school is an up off River Road in Andover.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Make it happen, Pe'll do it. It's time for a
break on w BZ.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
Here we go. It's WBZ News Radio ten thirty, number six,
one seven, two thirty. We have Jacob and Frank and
Vinnie and Dan to talk to Michael Cohendin to the
Massachusett School of Law and pretty much now we're into
anything legal goes, anything that's related to legality, juries, stuff
like that procedural stuff, and we like to keep it
(20:36):
fun as well. So who's been on hole longest? That
would be Vinnie in Maine. So hello, Vinnie, how are
you hey.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
I want to first begin saying, how sincerely happy I
am to hear your voice again, Bradley, Well, thank.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
You very much. I'm happy to be speaking. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
Yeah, you definitely bring the the other side of the coin.
The you bring the you feel it, you make it full,
you make it full, you bring balance to WBZ and
and I think you round it out perfectly. And you
know to your boss hintdd hint hint at any.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Rate, and you say I bring the other side of
the coin. That's true because there's Michael coin. He's one side.
He's one coin on the other side of.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
In more ways than one, right on, right on, what
I what what I want to bring or ask if
you will with his knowledge. I have a followed the
Karen Read case very closely because I just knew it
was going to be a very very long, dragged out
case and I just don't have the patience for that.
I'm intrigued with true crime because I really believe that
(21:47):
the bad guy needs to be held accounted for when
you hurt someone. But I'm just wondering with the Karen
Reid thing. He is autopsy, where was it done and
was it unbiased?
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Yeah, the autopsy would have been done likely in the
Medical Examiner's office in Boston, Okay, And there is you
know a lot of people have questioned how well it
was done. You know, there was questions about where they're
broken bones, but there were no X rays and that
(22:19):
they couldn't ultimately determine the cause of death. So what
you say, was it done one hundred percent? There's so
many questions. Nothing in this case was done as well
as it should have been done, frankly, And that's there's
a lot of open questions about how that, whether they
(22:40):
did their job correctly, and if they had, whether we
would have had clearer answers on a lot of the
questions about the cause of his death.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
Okay. And it's like people you know, in the jury
and so forth. What struck me, as say a civilian
just listening to the news and so forth, It kind
of struck me as the atmosphere of when college kids
get together and everybody drinks like crazy, and one kid
want his home, ends up wandering in the swamp and
gets killed from hypothermia, you know, And I'm just wondering
(23:14):
exactly Like that's why I was wondering about the autopsy.
What was his toxicology level? Was it enough alcohol to
kill him? What else was in his system?
Speaker 10 (23:26):
You know.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
That's how it struck me. That's how it struck me.
And also you might think this is a you know,
a little bit of a joke, and it's nice to
laugh once in a while. But when that comment from Karen,
I hit him, what was the punctuation mark at the
end of that sentence? Was it a question or was
it a period? Almost like in the movie my cousin Vinnie,
I shot the clerk.
Speaker 9 (23:46):
I shot the clerk.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
People have suggested that, and as well as some of
the other statements with respect to what she said, is
did I hit him? So in other times it clearly
was more questioning what the statement actually was. And as
you point out the punctuation in the way in which
you say, it matters, and you know the other part
(24:09):
of that which I'm you know, I think the dog
expert talked a little bit about is you know, wouldn't
you question your own activity if if somehow a loved
one you would just with something tragic like this happened.
So I'm not so sure that it wouldn't have been
something all of us might say, well, could I have
(24:31):
done something here to contribute to the death. So there
are other ways to explain it as well, that it's
not just her making a definitive statement. It could be
questioning whether somehow could she have done things differently and
not end up where we are. So, uh, this is
going to be one of these cases. I think that
(24:51):
we're going to have questions forever anytime we look into it.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
Thank you, thank you, Yeah, love you, Bradley, thank you
very much.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
Those are kind of words, you know, folks. There's more
to life than the Karen Reid case. There's more to
life than the Karen read case. There's a public defender
strike right which is going on now, which really affects
public safety. And before we take the call, Dan coinn
please outline that so maybe we can skew away from
(25:21):
Karen Reid.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
My friend Hutch just sent me a note saying, when
are you going to get to the public defense. Yes,
as you might guess, he has some personal involvement.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
Lit do that.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
But here is what's going on, and it is more problematic.
People oftentimes don't worry about our lawyers getting paid enough
because it doesn't impact them directly generally, but it does.
At the end of the day. Indigent individuals in Massachusetts
are entitled to representation. If they cannot afford one, it
(25:53):
will be appointed by the court. We've all heard that
on Law and Order a million times, that if you
cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you.
The problem in Massachusetts is that the public defenders who
are engaged with CPCs, the Committee for Public Council Service.
They're private lawyers but paid by them to represent indigen clients.
(26:17):
They are now on strike because they say the rate
of pay they generally get, which is sixty five dollars
an hour, is far too low to be able to
do their job effectively and to be able to represent
the clients as well as they would like.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
How does that square up with those states.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
It's about half of what it would be in Maine,
and it's about seventy five percent of what it would
be in New Hampshire. Both of those states the rates
are well over one hundred dollars an hour and so
it's not without some merit to say the rate is
really low when we look at our surrounding neighbors and
that would also include Rhode Island and Connecticut. Is that
(26:56):
generally people who are doing the defense of the indigens
and those states are getting well in excess of what
we pay in mass. The problem is, and why people
should worry about it, is that the court has now
determined that these are constitutional violations, that if these folks
are indigent, they're entitled to lawyers, and if you do
(27:17):
not provide them, then they're going to be released. And
so what we're seeing in the Globe had an article
today about it. What we're seeing is that even violent
offenders are being released because we can't provide them a
lawyer within the fifteen days of their arrest and arraignment,
and that if we don't provide them that lawyer, they're
(27:39):
entitled to be released. Even for the bail arguments, they're
entitled to a lawyer. And so the court has now determined,
Supreme Court has determined that you can hold them for
fifteen days and then you're going to release them. And
if you can't get them a lawyer within forty five days,
then those charges will be dismissed. And these are not
just you know, motive vehicle issues and the like. These
(28:01):
are some significant charges. The individual today had been accused
of choking his wife and the like, and so you've
got others in the system. I talked to my clinic
students tonight about it. They're in courts down in Brockton
and on the North Shore as well, and this is
(28:23):
a real problem in the district courts is they do
not have lawyers now to represent indigent defendants whose constitutional
rights will then be impacted. And what will happen is
they'll be released on the streets and will be less safe.
All of us will be less safe.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
So what do you think's fair double what they get.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Well, I'm not going to make the argument for double,
because I know we've got budget problems in Massachusetts. But
I do think we should be closer to our neighbors.
And I don't think even the people that are working
within the Public Defender's Office doing this type of work
for clients on the contract basis would argue that they
(29:04):
want to be paid like New Hampshire and Maine one
twenty one fifty. They might like, but I think they'd
settle for far more of a modest increase and maybe
staged over a few years so that they know down
the road will be more competitive with those states.
Speaker 3 (29:19):
So I think that's unpopular with taxpayers to fund I
think this.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
I think taxpayers don't care if lawyers eat their own
So I mean, I think it's a question of everyone
hates lawyers until they need one, and then they love us.
And so what they really should recognize is this impacts
their own safety, and we should, we should, we can
and should do better by people who are doing what
the constitution asks them to do.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
So what do you think, folks, should we pay those
those lawyers more? Really, I have to shorten the calls
now because it's getting getting kind of crowded. Frank and Middleton. Hello,
you're on WBZ. Hi Frank, how are you doing very well?
Thank you?
Speaker 7 (30:02):
How are you doing? Yeah?
Speaker 11 (30:05):
I was just trying to give my input and you
don't want to talk about the can read. But I've
been on hold a little bit. But to me, it
was just too much information that you know, the police
didn't do enough job. If someone found someone dead at
my front lawn, fun lawn, I would expect they're gonna
(30:28):
knock on the door in the neighborhood.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
The warrant situation, probable cause right right, the search warrant issues,
and I hear and many people have said just what
you've said.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
You know, but uh, I grew up in the city.
People die sometimes near your house, and that doesn't necessarily
give them the ability to enter your house without permission,
and so that's where that problem comes in. But I
do hear what you're saying is I think a lot
of people believe that if if in fact that happened
(30:59):
on my front on that the police would come a
knocking a lot sooner and make a lot closer examination.
Speaker 11 (31:07):
To me, they should have knocked that night, and they
don't have to let them in, but they could ask
questions and that's fair, and they could refuse to open
the door, they could do all that stuff.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
That's reasonable reason.
Speaker 11 (31:19):
Yeah, it just seemed to me there was too much
doubt that the police work wasn't done correctly. Guilty or
not fair enough.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
The police work was good.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
Good call, Frank, And we still have Dan, David and
Jacob after this on BZ.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's News radio.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
That ride home was a bit Hello, it's WBZ and
we have let's go right to the cause, Dean Coin
any any legal questions, and again, there's more to life
than Karen Reid. There's the public defender strike. Let's try
to let's try to branch out a little bit we have.
Let's go first to Jacob and Bill Ricker. How do
(32:04):
you do?
Speaker 7 (32:06):
Yeah, Hi, I have a question for the dean about
Mass School of Law if he doesn't mind answering, and
it feel like you would, you know, be the private
person to ask. Yeah, I was wondering why Mass School
of Law isn't accredited by the American Bar Association.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
Yeah, we don't seek accreditation by the ABA. What we
think is that a number of their standards are anti
educational and done more to protect existing lawyers than to
offer opportunity to people.
Speaker 9 (32:35):
You know.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
The fact is law school doesn't have to be sixty
thousand dollars a year and require students to be taught
by faculty who don't continue to have some real knowledge
of the practice of law and continue to practice law.
So we have created and for now nearly forty years,
had a very different model of legal education. We are
(32:57):
accredited by the New England Commission of Higher Education, and
we think our model works for folks. I don't think
that law students should have to borrow one hundred and
fifty or two hundred thousand dollars to attend law school
and to have be a member of the community and
represent people that need help. And so we don't recognize
(33:18):
that that's an effective way to go about it. You know,
I went to Boston Latin School, which was a terrific school.
We had no facilities virtually at all for athletic facilities
or even the classrooms were old and decrepit. What makes
a great school is the faculty and the students committed
to a good learning environment. And that's what you'd find
(33:41):
where we are. And it's not the peat the standards
set by the lawyers that are existing to be able
to try and preclude others from reaping the rewards that
those lawyers have.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Passing the bars where the rubber MEAs the road right
and it is, and.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
Then ultimately practicing law. You know, we have just had
another student who now is the police chief in your
neighboring town of Wilmington, hard working guy, Brian Pope.
Speaker 7 (34:08):
So we have heard of them.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
Yeah, we have a lot of folks that are looking
at the law as we a way to give back
to the community. And the problem is, and it's generally
available throughout education, is that all schools are too expensive.
And what we've done is set our path differently to
try and create a different model so that you offer
(34:30):
more opportunity to people. And it's it's different and it's working.
Uh and I think it works great for our for
our graduates. You know, the Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll is
a graduate of a loss of our law school, so
so ish the District Attorney of Essex County, Paul Tucker,
as well as the Great District Attorney down in the
(34:50):
Cape in the Islands, Rob Galliboy. The fact is is
that if you offer opportunity to people at a reasonable cost,
they can go back to the communities and really contribute
a significant way exactly.
Speaker 4 (35:01):
That's what I was just going to say.
Speaker 7 (35:02):
I bet they stay local too, I do they do. Thankfully,
that's awesome, Thank.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
You, thank you, Jacob.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Now it's Dan in New Hampshire.
Speaker 9 (35:10):
Hi Dan, Hi, how are you Dean Coin? How are
you sir?
Speaker 2 (35:14):
I'm doing good.
Speaker 9 (35:14):
How are you, Dan Good, so a couple of quick things.
I am also a graduate of the Maschool Law and
it is a profound experience. But I am calling about
the labor work stoppage with the Public Defender's Office Good.
I am a public well, my bar advacate in Nessa's County,
and there's just a few things I want to hit them.
(35:34):
I'd like to hear from Dean Coin about it as well.
The CPCs unit itself can only handle about twenty percent
of the caseload for the entire state of Massachusetts. The
rest is left to the bar advocates. Now well, the
pay is low. It was never intended to be a
full time job. The idea is, we give you a shot.
Much like maschool law, we give you a chance to
get in. Everybody gets in, but you work your way
(35:57):
through it. The bar advocts are no different. You learn
how to be a law You accept cases that you
wouldn't get on your own as a brand new attorney,
and they teach you how to fight and protect people,
especially in the people who are now suffering because they're
not getting represented. Now, it doesn't really matter to me
what side of the coin you're on. I think The
(36:18):
important thing here is yes they are under paid, but
there's a vehicle for it. We're hitting a concert crisis
in Suffolk and Middlesex County. They just implemented the La
Valley Protocol, which is where you were speaking earlier about
the seven days to release somebody in forty five days
for dismissals on misdemediate cases, even founty cases. The problem
(36:39):
with that is the prosecutors are you know, they're spending
money to bring cases forward, they're getting dismissed. All these
cases are coming back once this is over, so they're
really not doing any any favors. The other thing is
I heard a story this morning about a young lady
that was a victim of one of these people that
(37:00):
was released on Monday, and he went right to the
lady's house. So it's a problem.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
So what's your solution button You got to just pay him?
Speaker 9 (37:10):
Well, I mean, well, let me get to that real quick.
Speaker 3 (37:12):
So we have a very limited time. Bear that in mind,
where because we have three minutes max.
Speaker 9 (37:18):
So the pay rates for New Hampshire and Maine are
not apples to apples and apples to oranges. So the
statutory limits on the amount you can build on a
misty universe's a felony in New Hampshire. I want to say,
one of those twenty five hundred or whatever mass Howsett
doesn't have that protocol, so it's not quite the same thing. Yes,
they deserve to be paid more, but you should also
(37:40):
be skilled enough after you're a new lawyer making sixty
five an hour, which is decent when you get out,
to be able to get private work and supplement your
income with this work while helping intigen people. That's op op.
Speaker 3 (37:53):
Sorry, sorry, I get the button, but we do have
to go. I just wanted to give you a little
time to answer that.
Speaker 7 (37:59):
Well.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
I just say I think what he's suggesting is what
I had talked about before. I don't think the public
defenders want necessarily a demand that they get one hundred
and twenty to one hundred and fifty dollars an hour
what they're saying. And I think what the caller suggests
is that a modest increase isn't uncalled for here and
it still allows the people to make a working wage
(38:21):
and to start to develop their other practice.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
Michael Coin, thank you so much for coming in as
thaying two hours. I really appreciate it,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.