August 27, 2025 • 39 mins
Bradley Jay Fills in on NightSide
Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted of first-degree murder for killing their parents, José and Mary Louise "Kitty" Menendez, at their Beverly Hills home in 1989. The Menendez Brothers were sentenced to life in prison. Both brothers have long said they killed their parents because they feared for their lives, and that their father had sexually abused them both for years. Both Lyle and Erik were up for parole this August and much to their family’s displeasure, they were both denied parole for 3 years. Michael Coyne, the Dean of the MA School of Law discussed the Menendez Brothers’ case and get into the debate on whether life behind bars is worse than the death penalty.
Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted of first-degree murder for killing their parents, José and Mary Louise "Kitty" Menendez, at their Beverly Hills home in 1989. The Menendez Brothers were sentenced to life in prison. Both brothers have long said they killed their parents because they feared for their lives, and that their father had sexually abused them both for years. Both Lyle and Erik were up for parole this August and much to their family’s displeasure, they were both denied parole for 3 years. Michael Coyne, the Dean of the MA School of Law discussed the Menendez Brothers’ case and get into the debate on whether life behind bars is worse than the death penalty.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news
radio Night Tired.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Bradley J for Dan tonight and Dean Michael Coin Massachusetts
School of Law is with us. We've been talking about
whether or not the men and then whether or not
we believe and you believe the Menendez brothers should receive parole,
should go free time served. And I came in kind
of leaning one way, and I will give you my vertic.
(00:27):
I'm let Dean Coin go first. Okay, you want me
to go first, out, I'll go first.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
You can go first, if you'd ride, if you'd like.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
I was thinking, hey, if you're you know, if you're
if you did what they did, they had a chance
to leave. They didn't have to do this. They weren't
indirect danger. They were not in imminent danger. That's a
legal thing. That's a factory that was premeditated. They went
out and bought it with the plan. I was thinking,
(00:57):
if you let those guys go, you know, probably a
bunch of other people that you gotta let go too.
But I have to say that Billy's call turned me
around because I realized that even though they might not
actually have been under physical eminent imminent danger at the time. Mentally,
(01:18):
their heads could be so could have been so scrambled
that they perceived that there was a danger all the time,
like a real PTSD thing. Who knows, maybe seeing the
bother was a triggering thing for actual PTSD like a
sound will trigger for a soldier, like the sounds of battle.
(01:39):
I don't know. Now that coupled with the fact that
they have served thirty five years, I guess.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
And the third thing, are they a danger to society? No,
I don't see that unless prison made them a danger
to society. I'm gonna I'm going to go ahead and
vote for yes on parole. But let's hear what Dean
Coinn has to say.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Well, it is problematic because you know, I do like
to consider that Lauren order is very important, and it
is clearly a premeditated crime here. So it's it's of
a concern that it's of such a heinous nature and
it is in fact the parents both parents, and that's
troubling part for me as well. But I do worry
(02:33):
that if the allegations are true, that they may have
seen no escape. So at this point they can't even
petition for parole till at least they're halfway through the
next three years with good time, they would get the
benefit of that that. So the question I would have
is can they abide by all the rules for the
(02:54):
next eighteen months, And if they can, and so that
there is no further misconduct and the like, I think
the parole board could grant them parole and also then
keep restrictions in place, because when you're on parole, you're
released on the basis of certain conditions, and if you
don't meet those conditions, then you are going to be
(03:16):
brought back, actually without much due process, directly to prison.
So you could put them on some terms where they
can't violate the law, they can't be arrested for X,
Y or Z, they have to intend counseling for the
next five years to give them some help for the
problems that they have faced, both from the standpoint of
(03:40):
the parents as well as in prison, and know that
after that five year period, say that they really have
been able to find their place back in society and
they're not likely to pose a risk to anyone and
really have the ability to then straighten out their life.
I think under those conditions, if I were a member
(04:02):
of the parole board, I would certainly be likely to
not just consider their petition, but assuming those factors are
in place about no further violation of prison rules and
we've got a solid plan for reintroducing them to the
community under close supervision for a period of time. I
(04:24):
think at this point then you're talking they've been in
prison for thirty seven years. That's an awful long time.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
There is one concern, I have they acted the way
they did when there was no actual threat? And I
don't know if they've gotten better as they go through life.
Are they going to see because they were so damaged,
Are they going to see threats where there are none?
And the erratic behavior of going on spending that money
(04:51):
doesn't seem I don't know. Are they better? Are they
going to be able to get along in society because
they didn't seem to have their act together? After that?
After that's it's I.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Think a case like this, you're always going to have
questions and always concerns about whether you're doing the right thing.
But if the idea at the end of the day,
at some point is do people get second chances even
for such a heinous act as this? And I think
we almost always tend to agree everyone should get a
second chance. They really haven't gotten it yet, so parole
(05:23):
would be able to do that under supervised circumstances.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
How many people are on the parole board? And how
do you get on the parle board? Not that I
want to be on. The governor get paid.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Yes, the governor appoints you to the parole board. And
then I don't know exactly how many there are in
mass At one point when I looked, there were either
three to five.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
And then it needs to takes a majority vote to
receive parole. And the qualifications usually are people in law enforcement, lawyers,
someone with you know, type social work background, so you
you would want a diversity of thought of people on
that parole board. And one of my graduates who used
(06:10):
to be a state representative, he's a lawyer in Amesbury.
He's a member of the board. He had served for
many years. Now, he's served for many years. And what
they do is they bring their background and their experience
and they try to recognize whether someone deserves yet another
chance for that opportunity.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Maybe I should throw my hat in the ring to
be on the parole board because and this this this
segment that my resume because we seem so very reasonable.
I think tonight this would be a great audition. Yeah,
I think if you listen to this, you'd see I'd
be a good parole board member.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, I think, And that's the point is you almost
have to, and I think tonight we're doing it, I
hope fairly, is to look at both perspectives here and
then try to make sure both the public is protected
but the individual's rights are as well. So it's I
think some times an incredibly difficult job because oftentimes you
(07:08):
have victims in their families arguing for one thing, and
then you have the prisoner and his family arguing for
other relief. And it is a delicate balance there between
the rights of both.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
What if I do get a call and hey, you
want to be on the parole board, I actually probably
would decline. Why Well, because everyone, no matter what you do,
a couple of people are really going to hate your guts.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Well, but the point about making decisions is you've got
to be comfortable in your own skin. You do what's right,
and then you let the chips fall what they make.
You'll be good on the probo. When the offer comes in,
I'll consider it a quick question. How much does public
opinion and public pressure count. Probably not supposed to count
at all, but does it? Yeah, I don't think it should,
but I think obviously, since it is, at the end
(07:57):
of the day, a political appointment by the governor, you
do have to worry that to what extent the public
will ultimately influence those votes. And in some cases there's
an awful lot of public support or criticism one way
or the other. And to say that you think that
the process would be completely oblivious to it, that's just
(08:20):
not the reality of the world we live in. You
hope that to some extent that the decision is made
on the merits, But of course some would argue, well,
why shouldn't what the public thinks that at least be
a consideration as to what should take place here. You know,
(08:41):
we don't vote on judges in this state, but we
do in others, and some of that is based on
what they think those judges should be doing in various cases.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
All right, next segment or next topic is going to
be whether you think life in a supermac's prison is
somehow not as bad as the death penalty, or perhaps
you think is worse. I guess it boils down to
whether you think life in a supermax prison is tantamount
to torture. Now, I don't know if you know what
it's like in a supermax prison. It's not county jail.
(09:16):
You can't let me go through a couple of things.
And I guess i'll ask you before you know the
question ahead of time. Are you a person who thinks
that the death penalty is the ultimate penalty? Or do
you think you know what? If you really want to
sentence them to to really suffer, life in a supermax
(09:37):
prison is the way to go. Now, While it's true
that life in a supermax prison is like the one
in Colorado I can't remember the name of it that
these Snaia is in, is more expensive than a regular prison, However,
my research tells me that it's still cheaper than pursuing
a death penalty with expensive appeals, et cetera. So let's
(10:02):
just let's say the expense is a wash. Which do
you think is a more horrific penalty? And let me
give you a little bit of a description of life
in a supermax prison. Extreme prolonged solitary confinement, sensory deprecation,
and minimal human contact. And by the way, it knew.
(10:22):
I've been to many prisons, political prisons like the political
prison in Lithuania and in Berlin, and one of the
things they do to torture you is put you in
solitary confinement. Of course, this is the ones I saw
were like a closet. But still they're in solitary confinement
eleven hours a day. Think about that small space twenty
(10:47):
three excuse me, twenty three hours a day. Why did
I say eleven hours a day. Twenty three hours a day.
They get one hour of supervised walking around in a
little yard, and the the isolation takes place in a
cell seven by twelve feet. You get your meal shoved
(11:08):
through the door, the chair, the bed, your furniture is
made of cement, bed desks to immovable made of pored
concrete and as I mentioned, sensory DEPP for deprivation. Cell windows
are often little narrow slits that only allow a view
of a sky or brick wall. You can't see anything
(11:31):
going on in the world. Constant surveillance twenty four to
seven cameras in every cell once again allowed one hour
of recreation a day. And you gotta remember these places
are nasty, they're not. You know, I can't even explain
(11:51):
the conditions because it would be too gruesome for radio.
No recreation. Limited to one hour of walking, und escorted
and restrained. Anytime youmate leaves their cell, they are restrained
with handcuffs, leg irons, and stomach chains for that hour.
No contact visits. Family visits are extremely limited, no contact
(12:14):
and conducted via telephone through a glass partition. Is this
a life worth living? I'm not sure why people hang
on to life where it seems that death would be
a release from this hell. At least that's one way
to look at it. I don't know how Dan con
looks at it, but though those are the conditions, and
if you know of any other conditions, whether you disagree
(12:35):
with these conditions, or maybe you want to add on,
let me know what do you think. I know that
there are certain people that we want the very worst for,
like marathon bombers, Marathon bomber remaining, which is worse six
seven two five four thirty w BZ.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
That's right, good evening to Yeah, it's great to be
here on WBZ Bradley J. For Dan and Dean Michael
Coyne of the Massachusetts School of Law. Here, what do
you think's worse A worse A more severe penalty for
committing a crime, the death penalty or life in a
supermax prison. To Dean, Cone and I were saying, gee whiz,
it almost seems like if you have no hope of
(13:21):
ever getting out, death penalty is almost a relief. And
by the way, after you living years and decades in hell,
you still die in the prison, and probably a long, horrible,
slow death from some disease and have terrible health care
and terrible food. I don't know's I'm not in that position.
(13:42):
It's always difficult to decide when you're not in that position.
We have John and Hampton to weigh in on this, ready,
Dean yep, Dean, Mike, Hi, John, you're in Hampton and
you're on WBZ.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Hey, gentlemen, I just want to it's good to have
you back. Bradley J. Talked a while back. I must say,
maybe four or five years ago. I really don't want
to go into too much detail, but I have worked supermax, federal,
I worked death row in Central Prison, and then I
came back up here. The ad X in Colorado is
(14:19):
buried in a mountain. It's down underneath and you know
the hum of armor and all those folks are down there.
What I find being and working in this environment for
the last twenty six years, guys on death row majority,
no remorse. The citizen rate is the highest it's been
(14:41):
in years. Once they get out, and I'm talking so
much a death row in mat but just a general population.
There's not a lot of programs for these guys. So
usually during the winter time, if they get out on November, December, January,
they come right back in. They'll go out and steal
a snowblower from home depot just to come in to
(15:03):
get that housing. So they got a computer because they
give them tablets now, so they run the tablets, they
get a meal, they get all over to schooling if
they're doing that. Almost passed out when I came back
up here to hear that the map program was started
in Massachusetts and start spread out to the other states
(15:24):
where they You know, back in the day when my
wife and I both were corrections, subox and strips. For
a pack of ten, you get probably two grand on
the inside. If you're corrupt and now they actually give
them a suboxin strip and the map program. Just a
lot of stuff goes on, but I don't see a
(15:45):
lot of remorse the way.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
In and in discussion and thank you, you're really great
your call. So my description did I leave anything out?
The physical environment is it? Is it clean? Is it
covered with excrement? Is it?
Speaker 3 (16:03):
The isolation is it?
Speaker 1 (16:05):
You know? Yeah, well, well.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
It depends on the facility because because the shoe it's
called shoe segregated housing. Some of the prisons, and I've
worked in quite quite a few, they have quarter janders.
So two of the guys will come out and be
janners and they get paid you know, minimal. I think
(16:30):
the Hampshire is like a dollar a day, but the
Feds they could make anywhere from forty to seventy bucks
a week. But they have janners that clean up. So,
you know, it depends on the prison. But yeah, some
of them. Dunce I toured Arizona, New Mexico, and uh,
you know, two three years ago they want me to
do a report on ice conditions and yeah, they were pitiful.
(16:53):
That was just it was horrible.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
You mean the conditions where the uh, the illegal immigrants.
I hate to use that word. Illegal immigrants are being detained.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
Yeah, out that way up out in the west.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
While you're here, can you describe those conditions?
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Well, the toilet was a ripped off camel and a
milk bottle, and that's where they would do the number
two number one. They use a gatorade bottle. So those
conditions can get worse if they just you know, they
if they want to get out and your blind We
(17:37):
blind feed in the cafeteria and we slaught feed in
supermaxis so we physically unlock it, drop the drop the door,
tonal come grab their child, they come grab it. We
pass it through and then, uh, well, what is your
(17:57):
what is your answer to the question?
Speaker 2 (17:58):
You probably know the answer to the question we're asking
better than anyone because you have the most What is
the worst thing being executed or life in prison in
like an.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Ad X without the benefit of parole.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Without the benefit of the like do they have enough
of a life to make it worthwhile to live?
Speaker 4 (18:21):
It should be supermax, But it has to be supermax.
They can't be released. Some of these guys released the
general pop it should be supermax. I mean, there's no doubt.
I mean the Feds. The food really is night and
day to state or county. So I've worked federal level,
I've worked state, county, state level, I worked Juvi's, I
(18:44):
worked females, and I worked county, so i worked them all.
The thing about the FED some of the shoe units
they have an attached kate to their cell, so we go,
we've gotta let them out to do rerec the size
of their cell. At some just at some prisons, the
size of the s cell. You would pop the door,
(19:07):
go into the cell, PLoP the next door and that's
his reck yard and it's the same size as a
cell fence high, so they would go through it and
that's their hour break. So yeah, twenty three hours a day,
one hour wreck. I'm pretty sure it's always pretty much.
If they have a visit, they would get a video visit.
If you had a joke contact.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
If you had to choose, if you were sentenced to
for a crime and they gave you the choice of yes,
please give me a lethal injection or please give me
life without parole in the ad X, what would you choose.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
I wouldn't do the death because FED feed you're pretty
good and you got programs you're gonna live. Okay, it's
worse than dying, because it's.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Better than dying. I mean, you would choose. You choose
the living in the ad X because it's you do
have some life. The food's pretty good and it's not
as bad as being killed. Interesting.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Yeah, well, I think they really did a research on it.
They really be shocked. Like there's just no I don't
know what the percentage rate.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
We could probably look it up, but no remorse.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
That's the thing that really strikes you. No remorse.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
It's just it's heartbreaking, really, it really is. For the
families that are out there.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
You must kind of have PTSD from dealing with these
people all the time, and not like lightweight PTSD. But
it must be gruesome, especially and you and your wife.
You go home when she was in the business too,
and this is what you do it during the day,
you talk about it during the night. It must be brutal.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
Well, the thing I learned a long time ago, and
she told me as well, she told me do it
more often is when you get your can, you're done
with your shift. They could be eight hours. They mandate
you up to sixteen, five days a week. They try
to give you two days off because it's so short staffed.
So I mean, everybody says, oh, these guys make one
hundred and thirty thousand, but they're earning one hundred and
thirty thousand because it is very mental training. But the
(21:07):
things kind of a little bit better for me and
my wife because I did some time in Iraq and
then I came home and then she jumped right on
board the corrections and she's a pipule, so she was
excellent at it. So when you do your job, it's
not really as bad as you just you can't always
say no because you know, one of the times, you
(21:28):
know you're just getting your flow. You don't be soft,
you don't be wicked hot. You try to be that
medium to semi hot, you know, let them know you're
on deck and it's going to be okay. It's a
good job. The benefits are good. But I agree totally.
If you guys are saying supermax, yeah, you would write
out supermax and FED joint State. I don't know. State
(21:50):
food is a little bit worse, you know what I mean,
because Feds and State are apples and homages, all right,
you know, a cook form and now that the federal
prisons if you apply it, saying awhere from like thirty
six seventy one to forty four to eighty an hour,
you take that at the state level, state levels like
(22:12):
twenty four to twenty nine hour.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
I appreciate the imagine that this is extremely extremely valuable.
Call John, thank you, thank you. We do have to
break back. What a lot of insight I think he
was saying, since he was talking about the food being
pretty good, that he would choose to live in the
supermax because it was kind of a life.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
Well, there's some value to it, you know, it's a
it's I understand you're looking for anything under the circumstances
to make it worth it. I have just never thought,
at least not having to face that choice, that if
I had no hope of ever seeing really anyone that
(22:56):
I love face to face. And that's the other point
that he made is that even if they visit, it's
a FaceTime or it's zoom, it's not face to face.
And even in prisons, when you're not there for the
rest of your life, there's no touching, there's no generally
you can't even connect with that person that's visiting you.
(23:19):
I think if if I have no hope of ever
being out, no hope, then I think I'd rather be done.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
I think me too, and think of the lack of
self esteem you'd have. I should I need to break
now because we need to leave some time for the
final the final section here of our three question evening,
Should Trooper Proctor get his job back? Their hearing's going
on now and it's in the balance. What do you think?
(23:47):
At six, one, seven, two, five, four, ten, thirty more
with Dean Michael Coyn in the Massachusetts School of Law
on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
In a moment, You're on night Side with Dan Ray
on WBZ Boston News Radio.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
We continue with Dean Michael Coyn, Massachuset School of Law,
and we're asking you what do you think should Trooper
Proctor get his job back? Dean Coin is gonna spell
out the situation, the pros, the cons, what's gone on
so far in the herring one two three.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
Go well, Well, as most people know, Trooper Proctor was
the lead investigator in the Karen Reid case. He's also
actually was the lead investigator in the Matthew Walsh case
that's going to be coming to trial, and he's charged
with murdering his wife, dismembering her body, and they've yet
to find the body. But the key on this is
(24:39):
shortly after the first trial in Karen Reid Troop, Proctor
was dismissed from the Massachusetts State Police as punishment because
of misconduct on the job and specifically really dealing with
Karen Reid's case, where he called her all sorts of
vulgar her names, names you don't want your mum knowing,
(25:02):
you say, and talked about her physical disability and used
really incredibly derogatory terms. And it didn't He talked to
not just other officers, he talked to high school friends
of his. His supervisors were involved in some of the chats,
received them, and ultimately, at least in part that testimony
(25:28):
was admitted and insignificant part some would say not well,
it clearly had damaged the case. Whether it was the
case was salvageable otherwise, he is subject to some dispute.
But with the evidence that was introduced in the first
trial by him on the stand was so powerful and
so fatal to the government's case, you had a hung jury.
(25:51):
In the second case, he didn't testify. That's how adverse
the government thought his testimony would be, but nonetheless a
lot of that information was then admitted in through other witnesses,
and ultimately the jury found her not guilty of the
most serious charges. So what you have now is really
(26:13):
Civil Service Commission hearings where he's saying the termination of
his status as a state police officer was far too
severe for the conduct that he performed, and therefore, since
you have treated other state police officers far more leniently
than me, and what I did didn't truly affect the
(26:39):
investigation or the manner in which it was conducted, even
if it was inappropriate, that I shouldn't be fired. There
should be some lesser penalty, and over the last couple
of days, that's what they argue to the Civil Service Commission. Now,
the rest of the hearing isn't going to take place
for another couple months, but that's what we're looking at now.
(27:02):
The question is should he be restored to his job
as a state police officer, and whether you know, if
he's right that there were others that you know in
essence the overtime scandal, troopers stole money from the commonwealth,
in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars and they
(27:23):
were either allowed to retire or didn't certainly face the
severe consequence that he says he did with absolute termination
from his job virtually immediately. Well, if that's the standard,
how come I'm being treated so much worse than some
of the other state police officers who have done improper things.
(27:45):
And that's the question that we we, I think, as
a public, have to struggle with. Even let's assume he's right, a,
do you want him to continue to be a state
police officer representing us, supposed to be protecting us? Shouldn't?
Don't we have a right to demand more of law enforcement?
(28:05):
And even when you think about the fairness issue, well,
does that mean then that the commonwealth and the governor
can never set a different standard for what we expect
our state troopers to do? Because if we've got all
this baggage from past cases where people were treated leniently,
(28:26):
does that mean we never can expect more and demand
more and be entitled to it, because you're always going
to get this argument was some of the folks before
us are treated more leniently. Well, when you set new
standards than the new and that are likely the correct standards, well,
then why shouldn't we have the ability to do that,
(28:48):
even if it means that the people facing punishment now
are going to face more severe punishment than those that
committed similar acts or even worse acts before this.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
I think practice teams saying didn't materially affect the outcome
of the not the trial, but the investigation. Big difference there.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
Well, there is a big difference there, and that's the question.
The problem is is that we don't know whether that's
a fact or not. What we do know is there's
little doubt that his behavior was unprofessional, that his behavior
certainly gave the defendant far more to work with in
creating that reasonable doubt than if he had not made
(29:30):
some of the comments, use some of the vulgarities, and
at least appeared to direct his attention to her almost immediately,
you know, in essence to borrow from OJ's case the
rush to judgment defense. And so there's no doubt his
conduct adversely reflected on the government's case and adversely reflected
(29:51):
on the state police as well. The question is, though
you can't point directly and say, oh, this was the
tipping point that truly was the problem with the case.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
He and so, but the the stay police say he
created an aura of bias.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
Well, it's not just an aura of bias when you're
talking about a suspect in the manner in which he did,
using the you know, a whack jaw bad word, that's
what he called her, and you know, really was talking
about her in a demeaning and belittling way, even to
the point where he talked about her medical condition in
(30:35):
a demeaning and belittling way. That doesn't convey the objectivity,
the lack of bias that one would hope to find
her and expect to find and be entitled to find
in our law enforcement if we were in fact the suspect,
if we were in fact involved in this case, and
you know, we can say that it was adverse to
(30:58):
miss Reid, but it was. It's also harmful to the
family of John O'Keefe because they still don't have justice
for his death, and in part they can look at
his actions and attribute at least some of that to
what he did here. You can make the argument in
(31:19):
the abstract that you can't directly prove it affected the case,
but those who heard the testimony knew that it was
likely fatal to the government's case.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
In defensive troop of productor the comments made were made
off duty. Is that a factor?
Speaker 3 (31:39):
Well, to me, it's not a factor, because you're talking
about information that you've obtained in the course of your
professional duties and you're now spreading it very wide, and
as you do so to people who certainly have no
entitlement to this inside information about a homicide case of
a Boston Police officer that you're not supposed to share
(32:03):
confidential information. Think about that, right, you're working here for BZ,
I work for the law school. If I'm sharing sensitive
information to people outside the normal chain of command or
the events, that's going to raise serious issues about protecting
the company's secrets, the confidentiality of the sensitive information we
(32:26):
have in a private business, that's oftentimes going to be
at least grounds for severe disciplinary action, if not termination.
State police should be entitled to demand the same.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
So the state police would prefer that it didn't work
there anymore, because basically he's become a liability, especially because
of the high profile nature of the case. Whether and
maybe that shouldn't count against him, the profile, high profile
nature of the case, but in the real world it did,
and it helped it hurt the State Police image, and
(33:01):
they'd rather make a statement say this is this is
not who we are, but the union, the police union
is fighting as it's their job to keep him on
the job. What is your take on what might happen.
Speaker 3 (33:14):
Well, it is a complicated issue. We have a new
head of the State Police. He's trying to set a
new standard. He's trying to write the ship and put
them in the correct direction. The governor has weighed in
early on and they're saying that she doesn't see any
role for him within the State Police and that he
should be terminated. I think the problem is is that
(33:37):
if there's a lot of evidence that others who have
done worse were not treated as harshly, well, from a
Civil Service Commission standpoint, they're going to say, or at
least potentially say that it's unequal treatment. You are treating
him to a greater extent, more harshly than you treated others.
They might lessen the punishment, reduce it down to a
(34:00):
six month or a year's suspension or some type of issue,
some type of penalty like that, but allow them eventually
to return. I don't see how the governor and the
State Police will ever allow that to happen because the
public perception is so bad and is such a level
of mistrust in law enforcement today, then we have ever
(34:22):
had that. I don't see how that can happen. And
what could ultimately happen then is that there's some type
of settlement where he receives compensation without ever working again
for the state Police. Who's the DESI judge, the commission itself.
It's an agency. They would make the decision at some point.
(34:44):
If you don't like that decision, you can continue to
pursue an appeal through the court system, but oftentimes that
commission decision is going to be given great deference because
they're the ones that are on a regular basis examine
the fairness of the treatment. We are closer to any
end of the ground as to what usually would be
appropriate punishment.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
So you're thinking that he may receive a'll get paid off.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
I think I think, and we could. People can ask
or can weigh in. I think I think if that's
the case, I don't think that's a good result, but
I think it's far better than putting him back in
a state Police trooper uniform, expecting that he can now
have some level of ability to enforce the laws of
(35:30):
the Commonwealth in a professional way where people will respect
what he has to say. He can never likely testify
in court again the post commission, I don't see them
restoring his ability for his certification. So he's going to
be in a back room somewhere if he, in fact
is restored, And I think the best solution would be
(35:50):
to cut ties and to try to figure out if
there's a reasonable number where it makes sense for everybody
walk away and save some face.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
Yet, after this, I do want ask it if he's
vulnerable to any sort of civil action? Okay, WBZ.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
Finishing up with Mike Coyner the Massachusetts School of Law.
One final question on the Trooper Proctor situation. You know
a person can get in civil trouble for saying really
bad things about people. Does Trooper Proctor? Is he vulnerable
to any sort of civil action? And if so, why
hasn't that happened? Or maybe it didn't I just missed out.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Yeah, I don't see it. And people have asked me
this a lot with respect to both him because it's
his opinion right right, And does Karen Reid have a
claim for abusive process or defamation because of all of this,
I don't see the civil suits is really falling like that.
The only civil suit we know that's present right now
is the family suit against her for wrongful death and
(36:54):
the bars that were involved. I don't see where he
has much of a claim or people can make claims
against him for his inappropriate language and his violation of
the public trust. Obviously, anyone can sue anyone, and I
don't see where she has a claim really that would
likely get past the motion to dismiss stage for defamation
(37:15):
there where there was a basis to bring forward the charges.
That's why we had two different trials. The grand jury
convicted her. I don't see where either one really is
likely much success in a civil suit.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Well, I pursue a civil case against her. She doesn't
have any money. Even if there's a big movie. There
are other people in line first to get the money,
like her attorneys. How does that pecking order go? Who
gets well money first?
Speaker 3 (37:40):
The insurance? First of all, there are insurance policies both
for the bars involved as well as her automobile. For
all we know, she may have a balloon policy as well,
we don't know yet what avenues there are for insurance.
But then the pecking order right now is she would
get the money, but there are likely leans that are
against the attorneys are in line. The family's going to
(38:03):
be in line. People will start, and especially the O'Keefe family,
will start to try and attach some of these proceeds.
I mean, this is a major movie now. Elizabeth Banks
is going to produce it and star in it, and
she's going to be Karen Reid, which is a good pick.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
I think I was thinking today as I first heard
of it, there's no way the movie's going to be
more compelling than the actual case.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
Well, I think that's probably true. I think the case
was incredibly compelling. But I also think we know when
the writers take their pen.
Speaker 2 (38:34):
Pretty paper they get they're pretty good at it.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
And my guess is we'll have an interesting show and
people will be attracted to it and watch it because
they already know a lot about it and they want
to be able to watch and see what secrets they
finally learn, how ultimately it is portrayed.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
Michael Coyindine of the Massachusetts School of Law, my favorite,
very favorite school of law. Thanks so much for coming
in and thank you for the message of the School
of Law. Wear it in good health, pull over a
shirt there. I really appreciate it. Hey, what about that
cracker barrel logo deal. I'm gonna go there next on WBZ.
Yeah it's WBC.
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news
radio Night Tired.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Bradley J for Dan tonight and Dean Michael Coin Massachusetts
School of Law is with us. We've been talking about
whether or not the men and then whether or not
we believe and you believe the Menendez brothers should receive parole,
should go free time served. And I came in kind
of leaning one way, and I will give you my vertic.
(00:27):
I'm let Dean Coin go first. Okay, you want me
to go first, out, I'll go first.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
You can go first, if you'd ride, if you'd like.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
I was thinking, hey, if you're you know, if you're
if you did what they did, they had a chance
to leave. They didn't have to do this. They weren't
indirect danger. They were not in imminent danger. That's a
legal thing. That's a factory that was premeditated. They went
out and bought it with the plan. I was thinking,
(00:57):
if you let those guys go, you know, probably a
bunch of other people that you gotta let go too.
But I have to say that Billy's call turned me
around because I realized that even though they might not
actually have been under physical eminent imminent danger at the time. Mentally,
(01:18):
their heads could be so could have been so scrambled
that they perceived that there was a danger all the time,
like a real PTSD thing. Who knows, maybe seeing the
bother was a triggering thing for actual PTSD like a
sound will trigger for a soldier, like the sounds of battle.
(01:39):
I don't know. Now that coupled with the fact that
they have served thirty five years, I guess.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
And the third thing, are they a danger to society? No,
I don't see that unless prison made them a danger
to society. I'm gonna I'm going to go ahead and
vote for yes on parole. But let's hear what Dean
Coinn has to say.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Well, it is problematic because you know, I do like
to consider that Lauren order is very important, and it
is clearly a premeditated crime here. So it's it's of
a concern that it's of such a heinous nature and
it is in fact the parents both parents, and that's
troubling part for me as well. But I do worry
(02:33):
that if the allegations are true, that they may have
seen no escape. So at this point they can't even
petition for parole till at least they're halfway through the
next three years with good time, they would get the
benefit of that that. So the question I would have
is can they abide by all the rules for the
(02:54):
next eighteen months, And if they can, and so that
there is no further misconduct and the like, I think
the parole board could grant them parole and also then
keep restrictions in place, because when you're on parole, you're
released on the basis of certain conditions, and if you
don't meet those conditions, then you are going to be
(03:16):
brought back, actually without much due process, directly to prison.
So you could put them on some terms where they
can't violate the law, they can't be arrested for X,
Y or Z, they have to intend counseling for the
next five years to give them some help for the
problems that they have faced, both from the standpoint of
(03:40):
the parents as well as in prison, and know that
after that five year period, say that they really have
been able to find their place back in society and
they're not likely to pose a risk to anyone and
really have the ability to then straighten out their life.
I think under those conditions, if I were a member
(04:02):
of the parole board, I would certainly be likely to
not just consider their petition, but assuming those factors are
in place about no further violation of prison rules and
we've got a solid plan for reintroducing them to the
community under close supervision for a period of time. I
(04:24):
think at this point then you're talking they've been in
prison for thirty seven years. That's an awful long time.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
There is one concern, I have they acted the way
they did when there was no actual threat? And I
don't know if they've gotten better as they go through life.
Are they going to see because they were so damaged,
Are they going to see threats where there are none?
And the erratic behavior of going on spending that money
(04:51):
doesn't seem I don't know. Are they better? Are they
going to be able to get along in society because
they didn't seem to have their act together? After that?
After that's it's I.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Think a case like this, you're always going to have
questions and always concerns about whether you're doing the right thing.
But if the idea at the end of the day,
at some point is do people get second chances even
for such a heinous act as this? And I think
we almost always tend to agree everyone should get a
second chance. They really haven't gotten it yet, so parole
(05:23):
would be able to do that under supervised circumstances.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
How many people are on the parole board? And how
do you get on the parle board? Not that I
want to be on. The governor get paid.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Yes, the governor appoints you to the parole board. And
then I don't know exactly how many there are in
mass At one point when I looked, there were either
three to five.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
And then it needs to takes a majority vote to
receive parole. And the qualifications usually are people in law enforcement, lawyers,
someone with you know, type social work background, so you
you would want a diversity of thought of people on
that parole board. And one of my graduates who used
(06:10):
to be a state representative, he's a lawyer in Amesbury.
He's a member of the board. He had served for
many years. Now, he's served for many years. And what
they do is they bring their background and their experience
and they try to recognize whether someone deserves yet another
chance for that opportunity.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Maybe I should throw my hat in the ring to
be on the parole board because and this this this
segment that my resume because we seem so very reasonable.
I think tonight this would be a great audition. Yeah,
I think if you listen to this, you'd see I'd
be a good parole board member.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, I think, And that's the point is you almost
have to, and I think tonight we're doing it, I
hope fairly, is to look at both perspectives here and
then try to make sure both the public is protected
but the individual's rights are as well. So it's I
think some times an incredibly difficult job because oftentimes you
(07:08):
have victims in their families arguing for one thing, and
then you have the prisoner and his family arguing for
other relief. And it is a delicate balance there between
the rights of both.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
What if I do get a call and hey, you
want to be on the parole board, I actually probably
would decline. Why Well, because everyone, no matter what you do,
a couple of people are really going to hate your guts.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Well, but the point about making decisions is you've got
to be comfortable in your own skin. You do what's right,
and then you let the chips fall what they make.
You'll be good on the probo. When the offer comes in,
I'll consider it a quick question. How much does public
opinion and public pressure count. Probably not supposed to count
at all, but does it? Yeah, I don't think it should,
but I think obviously, since it is, at the end
(07:57):
of the day, a political appointment by the governor, you
do have to worry that to what extent the public
will ultimately influence those votes. And in some cases there's
an awful lot of public support or criticism one way
or the other. And to say that you think that
the process would be completely oblivious to it, that's just
(08:20):
not the reality of the world we live in. You
hope that to some extent that the decision is made
on the merits, But of course some would argue, well,
why shouldn't what the public thinks that at least be
a consideration as to what should take place here. You know,
(08:41):
we don't vote on judges in this state, but we
do in others, and some of that is based on
what they think those judges should be doing in various cases.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
All right, next segment or next topic is going to
be whether you think life in a supermac's prison is
somehow not as bad as the death penalty, or perhaps
you think is worse. I guess it boils down to
whether you think life in a supermax prison is tantamount
to torture. Now, I don't know if you know what
it's like in a supermax prison. It's not county jail.
(09:16):
You can't let me go through a couple of things.
And I guess i'll ask you before you know the
question ahead of time. Are you a person who thinks
that the death penalty is the ultimate penalty? Or do
you think you know what? If you really want to
sentence them to to really suffer, life in a supermax
(09:37):
prison is the way to go. Now, While it's true
that life in a supermax prison is like the one
in Colorado I can't remember the name of it that
these Snaia is in, is more expensive than a regular prison, However,
my research tells me that it's still cheaper than pursuing
a death penalty with expensive appeals, et cetera. So let's
(10:02):
just let's say the expense is a wash. Which do
you think is a more horrific penalty? And let me
give you a little bit of a description of life
in a supermax prison. Extreme prolonged solitary confinement, sensory deprecation,
and minimal human contact. And by the way, it knew.
(10:22):
I've been to many prisons, political prisons like the political
prison in Lithuania and in Berlin, and one of the
things they do to torture you is put you in
solitary confinement. Of course, this is the ones I saw
were like a closet. But still they're in solitary confinement
eleven hours a day. Think about that small space twenty
(10:47):
three excuse me, twenty three hours a day. Why did
I say eleven hours a day. Twenty three hours a day.
They get one hour of supervised walking around in a
little yard, and the the isolation takes place in a
cell seven by twelve feet. You get your meal shoved
(11:08):
through the door, the chair, the bed, your furniture is
made of cement, bed desks to immovable made of pored
concrete and as I mentioned, sensory DEPP for deprivation. Cell windows
are often little narrow slits that only allow a view
of a sky or brick wall. You can't see anything
(11:31):
going on in the world. Constant surveillance twenty four to
seven cameras in every cell once again allowed one hour
of recreation a day. And you gotta remember these places
are nasty, they're not. You know, I can't even explain
(11:51):
the conditions because it would be too gruesome for radio.
No recreation. Limited to one hour of walking, und escorted
and restrained. Anytime youmate leaves their cell, they are restrained
with handcuffs, leg irons, and stomach chains for that hour.
No contact visits. Family visits are extremely limited, no contact
(12:14):
and conducted via telephone through a glass partition. Is this
a life worth living? I'm not sure why people hang
on to life where it seems that death would be
a release from this hell. At least that's one way
to look at it. I don't know how Dan con
looks at it, but though those are the conditions, and
if you know of any other conditions, whether you disagree
(12:35):
with these conditions, or maybe you want to add on,
let me know what do you think. I know that
there are certain people that we want the very worst for,
like marathon bombers, Marathon bomber remaining, which is worse six
seven two five four thirty w BZ.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
That's right, good evening to Yeah, it's great to be
here on WBZ Bradley J. For Dan and Dean Michael
Coyne of the Massachusetts School of Law. Here, what do
you think's worse A worse A more severe penalty for
committing a crime, the death penalty or life in a
supermax prison. To Dean, Cone and I were saying, gee whiz,
it almost seems like if you have no hope of
(13:21):
ever getting out, death penalty is almost a relief. And
by the way, after you living years and decades in hell,
you still die in the prison, and probably a long, horrible,
slow death from some disease and have terrible health care
and terrible food. I don't know's I'm not in that position.
(13:42):
It's always difficult to decide when you're not in that position.
We have John and Hampton to weigh in on this, ready,
Dean yep, Dean, Mike, Hi, John, you're in Hampton and
you're on WBZ.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Hey, gentlemen, I just want to it's good to have
you back. Bradley J. Talked a while back. I must say,
maybe four or five years ago. I really don't want
to go into too much detail, but I have worked supermax, federal,
I worked death row in Central Prison, and then I
came back up here. The ad X in Colorado is
(14:19):
buried in a mountain. It's down underneath and you know
the hum of armor and all those folks are down there.
What I find being and working in this environment for
the last twenty six years, guys on death row majority,
no remorse. The citizen rate is the highest it's been
(14:41):
in years. Once they get out, and I'm talking so
much a death row in mat but just a general population.
There's not a lot of programs for these guys. So
usually during the winter time, if they get out on November, December, January,
they come right back in. They'll go out and steal
a snowblower from home depot just to come in to
(15:03):
get that housing. So they got a computer because they
give them tablets now, so they run the tablets, they
get a meal, they get all over to schooling if
they're doing that. Almost passed out when I came back
up here to hear that the map program was started
in Massachusetts and start spread out to the other states
(15:24):
where they You know, back in the day when my
wife and I both were corrections, subox and strips. For
a pack of ten, you get probably two grand on
the inside. If you're corrupt and now they actually give
them a suboxin strip and the map program. Just a
lot of stuff goes on, but I don't see a
(15:45):
lot of remorse the way.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
In and in discussion and thank you, you're really great
your call. So my description did I leave anything out?
The physical environment is it? Is it clean? Is it
covered with excrement? Is it?
Speaker 3 (16:03):
The isolation is it?
Speaker 1 (16:05):
You know? Yeah, well, well.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
It depends on the facility because because the shoe it's
called shoe segregated housing. Some of the prisons, and I've
worked in quite quite a few, they have quarter janders.
So two of the guys will come out and be
janners and they get paid you know, minimal. I think
(16:30):
the Hampshire is like a dollar a day, but the
Feds they could make anywhere from forty to seventy bucks
a week. But they have janners that clean up. So,
you know, it depends on the prison. But yeah, some
of them. Dunce I toured Arizona, New Mexico, and uh,
you know, two three years ago they want me to
do a report on ice conditions and yeah, they were pitiful.
(16:53):
That was just it was horrible.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
You mean the conditions where the uh, the illegal immigrants.
I hate to use that word. Illegal immigrants are being detained.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
Yeah, out that way up out in the west.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
While you're here, can you describe those conditions?
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Well, the toilet was a ripped off camel and a
milk bottle, and that's where they would do the number
two number one. They use a gatorade bottle. So those
conditions can get worse if they just you know, they
if they want to get out and your blind We
(17:37):
blind feed in the cafeteria and we slaught feed in
supermaxis so we physically unlock it, drop the drop the door,
tonal come grab their child, they come grab it. We
pass it through and then, uh, well, what is your
(17:57):
what is your answer to the question?
Speaker 2 (17:58):
You probably know the answer to the question we're asking
better than anyone because you have the most What is
the worst thing being executed or life in prison in
like an.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Ad X without the benefit of parole.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Without the benefit of the like do they have enough
of a life to make it worthwhile to live?
Speaker 4 (18:21):
It should be supermax, But it has to be supermax.
They can't be released. Some of these guys released the
general pop it should be supermax. I mean, there's no doubt.
I mean the Feds. The food really is night and
day to state or county. So I've worked federal level,
I've worked state, county, state level, I worked Juvi's, I
(18:44):
worked females, and I worked county, so i worked them all.
The thing about the FED some of the shoe units
they have an attached kate to their cell, so we go,
we've gotta let them out to do rerec the size
of their cell. At some just at some prisons, the
size of the s cell. You would pop the door,
(19:07):
go into the cell, PLoP the next door and that's
his reck yard and it's the same size as a
cell fence high, so they would go through it and
that's their hour break. So yeah, twenty three hours a day,
one hour wreck. I'm pretty sure it's always pretty much.
If they have a visit, they would get a video visit.
If you had a joke contact.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
If you had to choose, if you were sentenced to
for a crime and they gave you the choice of yes,
please give me a lethal injection or please give me
life without parole in the ad X, what would you choose.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
I wouldn't do the death because FED feed you're pretty
good and you got programs you're gonna live. Okay, it's
worse than dying, because it's.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Better than dying. I mean, you would choose. You choose
the living in the ad X because it's you do
have some life. The food's pretty good and it's not
as bad as being killed. Interesting.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Yeah, well, I think they really did a research on it.
They really be shocked. Like there's just no I don't
know what the percentage rate.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
We could probably look it up, but no remorse.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
That's the thing that really strikes you. No remorse.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
It's just it's heartbreaking, really, it really is. For the
families that are out there.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
You must kind of have PTSD from dealing with these
people all the time, and not like lightweight PTSD. But
it must be gruesome, especially and you and your wife.
You go home when she was in the business too,
and this is what you do it during the day,
you talk about it during the night. It must be brutal.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
Well, the thing I learned a long time ago, and
she told me as well, she told me do it
more often is when you get your can, you're done
with your shift. They could be eight hours. They mandate
you up to sixteen, five days a week. They try
to give you two days off because it's so short staffed.
So I mean, everybody says, oh, these guys make one
hundred and thirty thousand, but they're earning one hundred and
thirty thousand because it is very mental training. But the
(21:07):
things kind of a little bit better for me and
my wife because I did some time in Iraq and
then I came home and then she jumped right on
board the corrections and she's a pipule, so she was
excellent at it. So when you do your job, it's
not really as bad as you just you can't always
say no because you know, one of the times, you
(21:28):
know you're just getting your flow. You don't be soft,
you don't be wicked hot. You try to be that
medium to semi hot, you know, let them know you're
on deck and it's going to be okay. It's a
good job. The benefits are good. But I agree totally.
If you guys are saying supermax, yeah, you would write
out supermax and FED joint State. I don't know. State
(21:50):
food is a little bit worse, you know what I mean,
because Feds and State are apples and homages, all right,
you know, a cook form and now that the federal
prisons if you apply it, saying awhere from like thirty
six seventy one to forty four to eighty an hour,
you take that at the state level, state levels like
(22:12):
twenty four to twenty nine hour.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
I appreciate the imagine that this is extremely extremely valuable.
Call John, thank you, thank you. We do have to
break back. What a lot of insight I think he
was saying, since he was talking about the food being
pretty good, that he would choose to live in the
supermax because it was kind of a life.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
Well, there's some value to it, you know, it's a
it's I understand you're looking for anything under the circumstances
to make it worth it. I have just never thought,
at least not having to face that choice, that if
I had no hope of ever seeing really anyone that
(22:56):
I love face to face. And that's the other point
that he made is that even if they visit, it's
a FaceTime or it's zoom, it's not face to face.
And even in prisons, when you're not there for the
rest of your life, there's no touching, there's no generally
you can't even connect with that person that's visiting you.
(23:19):
I think if if I have no hope of ever
being out, no hope, then I think I'd rather be done.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
I think me too, and think of the lack of
self esteem you'd have. I should I need to break
now because we need to leave some time for the
final the final section here of our three question evening,
Should Trooper Proctor get his job back? Their hearing's going
on now and it's in the balance. What do you think?
(23:47):
At six, one, seven, two, five, four, ten, thirty more
with Dean Michael Coyn in the Massachusetts School of Law
on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
In a moment, You're on night Side with Dan Ray
on WBZ Boston News Radio.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
We continue with Dean Michael Coyn, Massachuset School of Law,
and we're asking you what do you think should Trooper
Proctor get his job back? Dean Coin is gonna spell
out the situation, the pros, the cons, what's gone on
so far in the herring one two three.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
Go well, Well, as most people know, Trooper Proctor was
the lead investigator in the Karen Reid case. He's also
actually was the lead investigator in the Matthew Walsh case
that's going to be coming to trial, and he's charged
with murdering his wife, dismembering her body, and they've yet
to find the body. But the key on this is
(24:39):
shortly after the first trial in Karen Reid Troop, Proctor
was dismissed from the Massachusetts State Police as punishment because
of misconduct on the job and specifically really dealing with
Karen Reid's case, where he called her all sorts of
vulgar her names, names you don't want your mum knowing,
(25:02):
you say, and talked about her physical disability and used
really incredibly derogatory terms. And it didn't He talked to
not just other officers, he talked to high school friends
of his. His supervisors were involved in some of the chats,
received them, and ultimately, at least in part that testimony
(25:28):
was admitted and insignificant part some would say not well,
it clearly had damaged the case. Whether it was the
case was salvageable otherwise, he is subject to some dispute.
But with the evidence that was introduced in the first
trial by him on the stand was so powerful and
so fatal to the government's case, you had a hung jury.
(25:51):
In the second case, he didn't testify. That's how adverse
the government thought his testimony would be, but nonetheless a
lot of that information was then admitted in through other witnesses,
and ultimately the jury found her not guilty of the
most serious charges. So what you have now is really
(26:13):
Civil Service Commission hearings where he's saying the termination of
his status as a state police officer was far too
severe for the conduct that he performed, and therefore, since
you have treated other state police officers far more leniently
than me, and what I did didn't truly affect the
(26:39):
investigation or the manner in which it was conducted, even
if it was inappropriate, that I shouldn't be fired. There
should be some lesser penalty, and over the last couple
of days, that's what they argue to the Civil Service Commission. Now,
the rest of the hearing isn't going to take place
for another couple months, but that's what we're looking at now.
(27:02):
The question is should he be restored to his job
as a state police officer, and whether you know, if
he's right that there were others that you know in
essence the overtime scandal, troopers stole money from the commonwealth,
in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars and they
(27:23):
were either allowed to retire or didn't certainly face the
severe consequence that he says he did with absolute termination
from his job virtually immediately. Well, if that's the standard,
how come I'm being treated so much worse than some
of the other state police officers who have done improper things.
(27:45):
And that's the question that we we, I think, as
a public, have to struggle with. Even let's assume he's right, a,
do you want him to continue to be a state
police officer representing us, supposed to be protecting us? Shouldn't?
Don't we have a right to demand more of law enforcement?
(28:05):
And even when you think about the fairness issue, well,
does that mean then that the commonwealth and the governor
can never set a different standard for what we expect
our state troopers to do? Because if we've got all
this baggage from past cases where people were treated leniently,
(28:26):
does that mean we never can expect more and demand
more and be entitled to it, because you're always going
to get this argument was some of the folks before
us are treated more leniently. Well, when you set new
standards than the new and that are likely the correct standards, well,
then why shouldn't we have the ability to do that,
(28:48):
even if it means that the people facing punishment now
are going to face more severe punishment than those that
committed similar acts or even worse acts before this.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
I think practice teams saying didn't materially affect the outcome
of the not the trial, but the investigation. Big difference there.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
Well, there is a big difference there, and that's the question.
The problem is is that we don't know whether that's
a fact or not. What we do know is there's
little doubt that his behavior was unprofessional, that his behavior
certainly gave the defendant far more to work with in
creating that reasonable doubt than if he had not made
(29:30):
some of the comments, use some of the vulgarities, and
at least appeared to direct his attention to her almost immediately,
you know, in essence to borrow from OJ's case the
rush to judgment defense. And so there's no doubt his
conduct adversely reflected on the government's case and adversely reflected
(29:51):
on the state police as well. The question is, though
you can't point directly and say, oh, this was the
tipping point that truly was the problem with the case.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
He and so, but the the stay police say he
created an aura of bias.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
Well, it's not just an aura of bias when you're
talking about a suspect in the manner in which he did,
using the you know, a whack jaw bad word, that's
what he called her, and you know, really was talking
about her in a demeaning and belittling way, even to
the point where he talked about her medical condition in
(30:35):
a demeaning and belittling way. That doesn't convey the objectivity,
the lack of bias that one would hope to find
her and expect to find and be entitled to find
in our law enforcement if we were in fact the suspect,
if we were in fact involved in this case, and
you know, we can say that it was adverse to
(30:58):
miss Reid, but it was. It's also harmful to the
family of John O'Keefe because they still don't have justice
for his death, and in part they can look at
his actions and attribute at least some of that to
what he did here. You can make the argument in
(31:19):
the abstract that you can't directly prove it affected the case,
but those who heard the testimony knew that it was
likely fatal to the government's case.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
In defensive troop of productor the comments made were made
off duty. Is that a factor?
Speaker 3 (31:39):
Well, to me, it's not a factor, because you're talking
about information that you've obtained in the course of your
professional duties and you're now spreading it very wide, and
as you do so to people who certainly have no
entitlement to this inside information about a homicide case of
a Boston Police officer that you're not supposed to share
(32:03):
confidential information. Think about that, right, you're working here for BZ,
I work for the law school. If I'm sharing sensitive
information to people outside the normal chain of command or
the events, that's going to raise serious issues about protecting
the company's secrets, the confidentiality of the sensitive information we
(32:26):
have in a private business, that's oftentimes going to be
at least grounds for severe disciplinary action, if not termination.
State police should be entitled to demand the same.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
So the state police would prefer that it didn't work
there anymore, because basically he's become a liability, especially because
of the high profile nature of the case. Whether and
maybe that shouldn't count against him, the profile, high profile
nature of the case, but in the real world it did,
and it helped it hurt the State Police image, and
(33:01):
they'd rather make a statement say this is this is
not who we are, but the union, the police union
is fighting as it's their job to keep him on
the job. What is your take on what might happen.
Speaker 3 (33:14):
Well, it is a complicated issue. We have a new
head of the State Police. He's trying to set a
new standard. He's trying to write the ship and put
them in the correct direction. The governor has weighed in
early on and they're saying that she doesn't see any
role for him within the State Police and that he
should be terminated. I think the problem is is that
(33:37):
if there's a lot of evidence that others who have
done worse were not treated as harshly, well, from a
Civil Service Commission standpoint, they're going to say, or at
least potentially say that it's unequal treatment. You are treating
him to a greater extent, more harshly than you treated others.
They might lessen the punishment, reduce it down to a
(34:00):
six month or a year's suspension or some type of issue,
some type of penalty like that, but allow them eventually
to return. I don't see how the governor and the
State Police will ever allow that to happen because the
public perception is so bad and is such a level
of mistrust in law enforcement today, then we have ever
(34:22):
had that. I don't see how that can happen. And
what could ultimately happen then is that there's some type
of settlement where he receives compensation without ever working again
for the state Police. Who's the DESI judge, the commission itself.
It's an agency. They would make the decision at some point.
(34:44):
If you don't like that decision, you can continue to
pursue an appeal through the court system, but oftentimes that
commission decision is going to be given great deference because
they're the ones that are on a regular basis examine
the fairness of the treatment. We are closer to any
end of the ground as to what usually would be
appropriate punishment.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
So you're thinking that he may receive a'll get paid off.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
I think I think, and we could. People can ask
or can weigh in. I think I think if that's
the case, I don't think that's a good result, but
I think it's far better than putting him back in
a state Police trooper uniform, expecting that he can now
have some level of ability to enforce the laws of
(35:30):
the Commonwealth in a professional way where people will respect
what he has to say. He can never likely testify
in court again the post commission, I don't see them
restoring his ability for his certification. So he's going to
be in a back room somewhere if he, in fact
is restored, And I think the best solution would be
(35:50):
to cut ties and to try to figure out if
there's a reasonable number where it makes sense for everybody
walk away and save some face.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
Yet, after this, I do want ask it if he's
vulnerable to any sort of civil action? Okay, WBZ.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
Finishing up with Mike Coyner the Massachusetts School of Law.
One final question on the Trooper Proctor situation. You know
a person can get in civil trouble for saying really
bad things about people. Does Trooper Proctor? Is he vulnerable
to any sort of civil action? And if so, why
hasn't that happened? Or maybe it didn't I just missed out.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Yeah, I don't see it. And people have asked me
this a lot with respect to both him because it's
his opinion right right, And does Karen Reid have a
claim for abusive process or defamation because of all of this,
I don't see the civil suits is really falling like that.
The only civil suit we know that's present right now
is the family suit against her for wrongful death and
(36:54):
the bars that were involved. I don't see where he
has much of a claim or people can make claims
against him for his inappropriate language and his violation of
the public trust. Obviously, anyone can sue anyone, and I
don't see where she has a claim really that would
likely get past the motion to dismiss stage for defamation
(37:15):
there where there was a basis to bring forward the charges.
That's why we had two different trials. The grand jury
convicted her. I don't see where either one really is
likely much success in a civil suit.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Well, I pursue a civil case against her. She doesn't
have any money. Even if there's a big movie. There
are other people in line first to get the money,
like her attorneys. How does that pecking order go? Who
gets well money first?
Speaker 3 (37:40):
The insurance? First of all, there are insurance policies both
for the bars involved as well as her automobile. For
all we know, she may have a balloon policy as well,
we don't know yet what avenues there are for insurance.
But then the pecking order right now is she would
get the money, but there are likely leans that are
against the attorneys are in line. The family's going to
(38:03):
be in line. People will start, and especially the O'Keefe family,
will start to try and attach some of these proceeds.
I mean, this is a major movie now. Elizabeth Banks
is going to produce it and star in it, and
she's going to be Karen Reid, which is a good pick.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
I think I was thinking today as I first heard
of it, there's no way the movie's going to be
more compelling than the actual case.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
Well, I think that's probably true. I think the case
was incredibly compelling. But I also think we know when
the writers take their pen.
Speaker 2 (38:34):
Pretty paper they get they're pretty good at it.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
And my guess is we'll have an interesting show and
people will be attracted to it and watch it because
they already know a lot about it and they want
to be able to watch and see what secrets they
finally learn, how ultimately it is portrayed.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
Michael Coyindine of the Massachusetts School of Law, my favorite,
very favorite school of law. Thanks so much for coming
in and thank you for the message of the School
of Law. Wear it in good health, pull over a
shirt there. I really appreciate it. Hey, what about that
cracker barrel logo deal. I'm gonna go there next on WBZ.
Yeah it's WBC.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.