April 30, 2025 • 39 mins
Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his legal defense team continue to challenge the bomber’s death sentence arguing two of the jurors were biased and should have been stricken from the panel. The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has instructed Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. to take another look at the alleged bias of those jurors. However, Tsarnaev’s team wants Judge O’Toole to recuse himself (which the Judge refuses to do) over comments he made about the case on a podcast that the defense says raises, “concerns about his impartiality.” Do you think the bomber should receive the death penalty? Do you think the sentencing needed to be revisited?
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
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 WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, welcome back everyone. It is April thirtieth, and
we are about to leave a month in Boston that
generally represents the beginning of the baseball season, and for
twelve years now has represented the horrible, that horrible day
back in twenty thirteen when the Boston Marathon was struck
(00:28):
by the marathon bombers. And we've had a lot of
conversation on Nightside this week about the concept of due
process and what it means. And it is a concept
that is founded, you know, in the in the legal
documents of this country, and certainly founded in the Constitution,
(00:52):
but it is a process that sometimes defies definition depending
upon the circumstances. So, for example, we've been talking about
a due process for the guy from Maryland who was
flown out of the country with other members of MS
thirteen and Toronte Duragua, and there's a big conversation about, well,
(01:14):
how do we know he was a gang member and
all of that, and you know, at some point, well,
we can deal with that. But I thought that just
by way of explaining how we in this country bend
over backwards to provide due process for lots of people,
some of whom come here and become US citizens. And
(01:39):
in this case, Boston bomber number two, who tonight hopefully
sits in a jail cell by himself at the Supermax
Federal Penitentiary in Colorado. And I I'd love it and
have him a radio so he could listen to this
show tonight. But I just the question that I have is,
(02:00):
is here we have a Boston barmber number two, who
I choose not to mention my name. I hope you
can understand who I'm talking about, the younger of the
two bombers, the one that was not run over. Actually
he was the run that ran over his brother the
night of the shootout in Watertown. So these guys do
(02:22):
their dastardly deed, their first dastardly deed. Maybe there were
other dastardly deeds that we weren't able to prove, like
the triple murder in Waltham, but we'll say that for
another night. The dastardly deed of April fifteenth, when they
left two pressure cooker bombs about a block and a
(02:42):
half or so apart on Boylston Street near the finished
line of the Boston Marathon with the intention to kill
and name as many people as possible. They killed in
that moment three individuals, and of course we have come
to know the name of Martin Richard and Crystal Cake
Campbell and Lindsay lou who was only twenty three, Crystal
(03:05):
Campbell only twenty nine, and Martin Richard only eight. And
then on Thursday night of that week they shot and
killed MIT police officer, executed, let's be honest, MIT Police
officer Sean Collier on the campus of MIT. And then
in the shootout in Watertown, there was a Boston police
(03:29):
officer who died about a year later. He was injured
in that shootout, Boston Police officer Dennis Simons. So in all,
there were five deaths attributed to the Boston bombers who
came here from Augistan, sought all the protections and the
beneficence of this country, and then did what they did.
There's no question they did what they did. We have
(03:51):
the videotapes. We have them. We watched them walking away
from the scene after they had planted and activated the bombs.
Boston bomber Number to played guilty. He didn't fight the
evidence that was against him, the evidence was overwhelming, played
guilty to what they had done. And of course they
(04:11):
also maimed more than one hundred well injured, and some
people named over one hundred and fifty people. Just as
by way of mentioning, there's the Norton family. Liz Norton,
who had two sons lost both their legs, both lost
legs in the bombing. She was quoted on Wednesday in
(04:32):
the Boston Herald. It's mind bobble boggling. It's taken this long.
My hope is I'm still alive to see it through. Okay,
So what I did was I did a little bit
of a timeline here and there is you're going to
read about this tomorrow in the Boston Herald, a little
(04:52):
bit of it's been in the Boston Globe. But I
want to explain to you what do process can mean.
It's a very elastic sized concept. Due process can be
short and direct, or it can be just stretched out.
And oftentimes the more bizarre your crimes, the more lawyers
(05:16):
and oftentimes pro bono lawyers are drawn to defend these
these horrific people. So the bombing takes place on April fifteenth,
twenty thirteen. That's now twelve years and two weeks ago.
So you do the math on the number of days
that this guy has lived. But he has lived over
If I'm doing some quick math, three hundred and sixty
(05:39):
five days a year, twelve twelve years, we're talking about
at least three thousand days, probably getting close to thirty
five hundred. It's convicted, pleads guilty in twenty fifteen, so
that's fairly quick, and he's sentenced to death. However, the
First Circuit Court of Appeals, in their infinite wisdom some reason,
(06:00):
decided to overturn the death penalty. Now I haven't read
the decision by the First Circle in a while, but
they may have concluded any of a number of grounds
cool and unusual punishment. Alough, it's really not that unusual.
There was a period of time, even last late in
(06:21):
the Biden administration, when that death penalty could have been
lifted from his shoulders. But there were three bombers, three
killers that Biden. Out of forty people on death row,
thirty seven got commutations from the death penalty. Three did not.
Dylan Rufe, the racist kid that killed the nine older
(06:43):
black parishioners in a South Carolina Church after having prayed
with them, the anti Semite who attacked the synagogue Tree
of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh or outside of Pittsburgh, and
the Boston bomber number two. So the Supreme Court two
years later, now we're seven years out or we're actually
(07:06):
nine years out from the bombing, they overruled it and
reinstated the death penalty. So then the lawyers, these are
these lawyers who I guess we're paying for them. They're
they're billing the government. These lawyers asked the First Circuit
to re examine the wadir of the jurors, and specifically
(07:28):
jurors number one, thirty eight, and eighty six. I mean,
we're really drilling down here. And the First Circuit, who
again had overturned the death penalty already, maybe they should
be recused from reviewing this. They ordered the trial judge,
Georgie O'Toole, who's someone who I know a little bit.
(07:49):
He's very competent trial judge. An amazing background on him.
He had as his bachelor's degree from Boston College, went
to Harvard Law School. He practiced for about ten years
from nineteen seventy two to nineteen eighty two. He became
(08:10):
an associate justice in the Boston Municipal Court from eighty
two to ninety and then in the Superior Court of
Massachusetts from ninety to ninety five, and then in ninety
five he was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the
Federal Court, and he served in the Federal Court from
nineteen ninety five until he assumed senior status in twenty eighteen.
(08:32):
So this is a very competent, qualified, highly respected jurists.
By the way, I have no idea what his politics
are or anything like that. He is a quintessentially a jurist.
So the lawyers now for the bombers have gone one
more step further. They have asked that Judge O'Toole be
(08:57):
taken off the case because Judge o'tool needs to needs
to recuse himself. Well, Judge O'Toole is not going to
recuse himself from the case, nor should he. He will
stay on this case, thankfully, because we do have an
adult in the house. When Judge O'Toole, and he has
(09:17):
written recently, he's denied the Marathon bomber's allegation that another
judge should re examine the judge o'tools procedure at sentencing
Barmber number two to death, he wrote, He wrote this
(09:41):
in that decision. He said, it is a parent that
the Court of Appeals intended that this court investigate the
potential bias of two jurors an issue. As I mentioned,
those are jurors one thirty eight and two eighty six.
Everybody knew about the case. Okay. It was impossible, I think,
to find jurors who didn't know about the case. I mean,
(10:01):
I guess you could find twelve people out of an
insane asylum who never heard about the case, maybe twelve
people who lived under a bridge. But amongst people who
would intellectually qualify to be able to sit in a jury,
they all had known about this case. The instruction, according
to Judge O'Toole, was plainly directed to this Dusk District judge,
(10:23):
meaning himself. Recusal would be at odds with the direction
of the Court of Appeals. He also adds, quote, doubting
my ability to follow my old to faithfully apply the
law unquote is dead wrong. The reason I'm going through
this tonight, and going through it at a pace that
hopefully all of you can follow, is that this is
(10:45):
all part kitten kaboodle, if you will, of what we
would call due process for Boston bomber number two. Now
under the standard that I have recommended, when there is
no scintilla of doubt about the guilt of an individual,
(11:05):
and there is no scintilla of doubt in this case,
as a matter of fact, this guy has pled guilty
to the crime. And there's no suggestion that he was
pleading guilty for because he was being pressured or anything
like that. He's guilty, he understands it. And are the
aggravating circumstances, Yeah, A couple of pipe bombs, a pressure
cook of bombs near a crowded marathon finished line the
(11:29):
day of the Boston Marathon on Boylston Street, where there
are hundreds or not thousands of people who could have
been impacted by the explosions. Yeah, I think those are
aggravating circumstances. So the consequence is that as we fight
and argue about the guy from Maryland, the Maryland dad
who now is in El Salvador, I guess he's in
(11:51):
a better prison than the sea caught prison. Good for
him or someone else who is deported the Trump administration
how much? How much due process. Do we need to
give the Boston Marathon bomber. I think we need to
give him one more bit of due process, and it
(12:13):
should be applied in Terre Haute, Indiana, where he would
go to be executed. I want to open this line
up because most of you out there understand in your
in your gut, in your heart what should be done
and how quickly it should be done. I certainly understand
what should be done. And I know that there are
people who were posted in aulterably opposed to death penalty.
(12:35):
That's fine. Kind of argue with people who have a
either a philosophical or religious opposition of that, that's fine.
But we have a death penalty in this country. It
has been found by our Supreme Court to be to
be constitutional. And it is now time for Boston bomber
number two to get the Jews as far as I'm concerned,
(12:56):
which he so richly deserves. We don't need to allow
him to live a long and comfortable life in supermacs
in my opinion. But the reason I mentioned this tonight
is in the last few days, the whole concept of
due process is sort of an elastic process. What due
(13:16):
process might mean for one person is a little bit different.
There are some fundamentals of due process. Now, this guy
actually was a citizen. He became a citizen. I think
it was just about seven months before he did this
dastardly act. He knew what he got himself into. Okay,
(13:38):
we're told, well, he was the younger brother and he
was influenced. All of that has been out there. We're
done with this. Let's get it over with. I'd love
to hear from you. This is my little bit of
a treatise, a due process. Okay. I believe in due process,
I truly do. But due process is different for an
American citizen who is charged with a crime for which
(14:00):
that you enjoy the presumption of innocence than this guy
who has surrendered his presumption of innocence. At this point,
it is time to put to get the show on
the road. Six one, seven, two, five, four to ten
thirty six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty. Feel
free to join the conversation. I'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w B Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
So my question essentially is how much due process does
the Boston bomber deserve and has he has he has
he exhausted his his his good, his good, his due process?
Pretty simple question. I think it was exhausted a long
time ago. Six one, seven, two, five, four to ten
(14:45):
thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty. Gonna
go to Larry in Boston. Larry, welcome your first this
hour night side. Larry, go right ahead.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Thanks Dan, thanks for taking my call. I agree with
you wholeheartedly. I think I think this this individual, let's
give him the benefit of that at least, has has
lived thirty five hundred days too too long. Given the
rough math, I think, you know, the the you know,
the abhorrent situation that he and his brother caused, and
(15:18):
the and the you know, irreparable harm that he's done
to the city of Boston, and the plague that he's
kind of placed upon us. One more bullet by the
Watertown police would have solved that problem, right yeah, And
and I and I think you know, he's he's lived
too long, and he's not due any due process, so,
you know, and I think due process is something that
(15:40):
you know, we as citizens deserve if if there are
situations and situations that require that due process to be invoked. However,
not something you know, again, you come here illegally and
not here as a legal citizen. Due process unfortunately does
not apply, right, And I know your question is specifically
about this individual on I don't think he's deserved any
(16:02):
and I think I agree with you. I think he's
he's he's kind of taken up residents in a federal
institution far longer than he deserves.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Yeah, that's you know, that's my feeling on it.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
That's my point, and that that we as a society, Okay,
we're very generous. And the more publicity that a case gets, Uh,
there are plenty of you know, young poor Americans, young people,
teenagers who do something stupid, rob a bank or whatever,
(16:34):
and they get moved through the process pretty quickly. But
on the high profile cases, if you have enough money
to purchase lawyers, or if you have enough money because
of the the case, you can attract lawyers who will
be willing to offer their services for the publicity that
you get.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
In the background, this guy could live another four or
five years here, I mean, you know, he What will
happen is that Georgia O'Toole is not going to refuse himself.
They're going to probably appeal that back up to the
first Circuit Court of Appeals. It's like a yo yo
going up and down. His due process is endless, endless. Uh.
(17:14):
And you think about what what the people who lost
loved ones, or the people whose loved ones were badly injured,
or the individuals who were badly injured, what is their
due process?
Speaker 5 (17:25):
You know?
Speaker 2 (17:25):
I mean, same way with this guy down in down
down in Maryland. Whiz whiz, where's the due process?
Speaker 6 (17:35):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (17:36):
For him? He's they want to bring him back now.
He apparently, you know, was told to leave the country,
didn't leave the country. It's uh, it's almost the more
bizarre your crime, the more due process that you're allowed.
And I think President Trump said it yesterday talking with
(18:00):
the guy from ABC for ABC Terry Terry what the
heck was his last name? The reporter who I have,
Terry Moran. He's basically saying to him, hey, uh, let's
you know, let's you know, let's let's get this over with.
(18:21):
There's no question of this guy's guilt or innocence. We
we know that they are aggravating circumstances because there was
one or two yours who might have been a little
less than forthcoming. I think it's it's a complete waste
of time, and it it gives me something to talk about,
(18:41):
but it also it shows how the system can be
In my opinion, a great system of justice can be abused.
I'm gonna let you go. I appreciate your calling and
getting us going.
Speaker 5 (18:51):
Okay, Thanks Dan, Thank you much.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
I'd love to hear from you. Six one, six, one tenth.
The whole concept of due process difficult to explain, but
when you look at it in the context of what
we're talking about, Boston bomber number two, how long does
it go on? You've You've seen that there are killers.
(19:17):
I'm not familiar with all of their cases, but some
of these very bizarre killers are on death row for
twenty years. And I know that there are good people
out there who are posted the death betal. We may
hear from one in a few moments. I'd love to
hear from you. Six one, seven, two, five, four ten
thirty six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty Coming
right back after the news break here at the bottom
of the hour on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
All right, let's get right back to the phones. You're
going to be talking with Harvey Silverglad in just a moment.
But Jean's been waiting a little longer. So I want
to get to Gene. Jeane. You are next up on
Nightside Gene from Brookline.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Welcome, Hi, how are you?
Speaker 2 (19:57):
I'm doing just great, Gene. We're talkingalking about due process.
Speaker 7 (20:01):
It is, Uh, he had a not due process. He
should have been executed within a year of getting found guilty.
I give a year versus he's young. He could be
on death row for sixty years, working in his twenties
or something.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
It's only thirty one right now. He's already been there
for twelve for twelve years. Yeah, well he's been there.
He's been there a long time.
Speaker 7 (20:28):
He's Yeah, I think he should not be there any longer.
Speaker 5 (20:31):
I mean, where was where.
Speaker 7 (20:32):
Were the rights of people that just want to go
watch a marathon not get killed or made you think
about them? So how can we think about him?
Speaker 2 (20:41):
I understand, I understand, but uh, it's it's a real
it's a problem. It's a problem, and it is a problem.
It's a it's it's it's a problem that people understand
due process. But uh, it's it's it's sort of a
it's a concept that is uh, it's it's it's a
(21:04):
concept that is somewhat flexible. It's it's not specifically laid
out that due processes A, B, C, and D. There
there are a number of ways in which due process
has been incorporated on a on a case by case
basis into the rights that all Americans and everyone in
(21:24):
this country to some degree is provided. Absolutely well, Gene,
I appreciate your your.
Speaker 7 (21:31):
Supporting oh, because I believe what you're saying with the
tail and that's the right way to pronounce it, doubt
without with the world until Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Again, that's a standard that I have created, which is
without a sintela means that there is no doubt. Okay,
that's it means like the smallest possible pardon. Okay, you know.
The whole The word due process comes from the fourteenth Amendment.
(22:01):
It says no States shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States. So, nor shall state deprived of any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
That's that's what we're what we're referring to. But it's
not defined with any specificity. It's become defined over years,
(22:24):
depending upon you know, various you know, various court decisions,
nor deny any person within his jurisdiction the equal protection
of the law fourteenth Amendment. Thank you so much, very much, Gene.
I thank you for taking the time to call, and
thank you for agreeing with me.
Speaker 7 (22:38):
Okay, okay, always.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
Probably going to disagree with me.
Speaker 5 (22:43):
Thanks.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Yea.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
This is my friend, Harvey Silverglade. Harvey is a pre
eminent defense attorney. UH, one of the best, if not
the best, that I've ever watched in court. Harvey, welcome
to Night's side. You've heard me talk about due process.
It has been applied and applied very very well. Uh
(23:05):
to the benefit of Boston bomber number two.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
At what point do we say, Okay, this guy's had
enough due process. He has had due process.
Speaker 5 (23:15):
Let me the last time I dealt with this on
your program, I pointed out that institutionally I was opposed
to the death penalty because of the possibility that the
line would be of what is certain would be moved
and moved and moved, and eventually an innocent person would
(23:36):
be executed, with which the innocent spasure has shown has happened,
and my.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
And my my audience respects and I respect your philosophical
concern absolutely.
Speaker 5 (23:48):
Now, now let me take another approach. You're an orthodox Catholic.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
I'm a Colby that I'm a Catholic.
Speaker 5 (23:56):
I'm you're you're you're believing Catholic.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Yeah, I'm a strugg like everyone else who's a Catholic,
they will tell you they're they're an imperfect, struggling Catholic.
Speaker 5 (24:06):
If you know what I'm saying, Hey, I I do.
I do. I have the same problem with Well, okay,
go ahead. My question is this, how do you square
your support for the death penalty with the Ten Commandments?
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Well, I I do see a little bit of separation,
separation of church, church and state. Let me just finish,
let me sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (24:32):
The Tank Commandment says say murder it is our start kill,
which is different than murder you kill. Yeah, okay, now
let's let's go just by your opposition.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Well, what I'm what I would be, what I would
argue is that the state is not murdering him. He is,
you know, he's living just as if in a state
of war. If someone goes to war and happens to
kill an enemy combatant, they haven't murdered them. They generally,
you know, they get they get a medal for having
taken out one of the enemy. I think that a
(25:09):
society has a right to defend itself, and I do
believe that the death penalty does have a deterrent effect
and it will make some people think about it. And
I feel that, you know, it is up it is
up to God Almighty whether and I think the same
God runs Judaism, Catholicism, Islam and all of that. There's
(25:30):
not multiple gods up there. There's one person. In my belief.
I can't prove any of that, Howie that it's that
it's up to him and I but I think that
we as a society have a right to defend ourselves. Uh.
And you know what do you do? I'm with with someone.
Let us say who is on who kills? Uh? And
you don't give him or her the death penalty? And
(25:50):
then they kill a corrections officer? You know how many
how many people would they would they kill? I mean,
I have no problem morally or or religiously with doing
away with this guy based upon what he did. And
I know that there, by the way, are members of
the families of the victims who are opposed to the
death penalty. I don't think that the Richard family is
(26:12):
advocating for his death penalty. They're probably just better, better
people than I am.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
Well, I don't think it's got to do. It's better people,
but I do think that well, I guess in the end,
you and I just disagree, and there's no way of
reconciling our precisions. But I well, let me ask you that,
let me ask you us.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
I know that you're If there ever was a case
that my friend Harvey Silverglate, the great defense lawyer, could
see them, could see as a possibility, this would be it.
My feeling is that from a moral point of view,
I have no doubt about his guilt or innocence. He's
fled out, and he needed right, right, right, and and
(26:53):
we certainly have the aggravating circumstances that no sentilla of doubt,
So it fits my my standard. I also believe that
the amount of money that we're gonna utilize to feed
and house him and give him a lot of the
comforts that he will have for the balance of his
life could be better used to help people in this
(27:15):
country who have anyone.
Speaker 5 (27:18):
I wouldn't call being in a supermax prison comfortable.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Well, you know, I mean, here's the thing, Harvey, You
and I know that he can. He can meet religious
whatever religious leaders he wants. He can be visited by
family and friends. He can as time goes on, he
will get some of the privileges of time. I'm sure
that he gets to watch some level of television. They
(27:42):
don't put him in a cell twenty four you know,
three sixty five twenty four seven, because that would be
violation of the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment. And
if he behaves himself, if he behaves himself over time,
he will he will be treated better.
Speaker 5 (28:03):
It will never get out though.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
They would never get out, there's no question never get out.
And the only the only UH person who faced the
death penalty who told his lawyers to drop all appeals
that I know of, and you probably know more than
I do, was Timothy McVeigh. You know everyone has said
to me, oh, the death penalty is the easy way out.
(28:26):
I don't think it's the easy way out in the
minds of most killers. Harvey's from a you know, from
a from an argumentative point of view, most people who
are facing the death penalty fight it till the end legally,
in everything that's available to them. None of them say, oh,
you know, I want the easy way out. They say, no,
(28:47):
I'm going to fight this to the end. And yet
my friends will always tell me, oh, it's it's the
death penalty is the easy way out. I don't know
too many mass killers, and in this case, this guy
would be a mass killer who sees the death penalty
as an easy way out. How let me ask you this.
You know the system as well as anybody. He's been
(29:08):
on death row now since twenty fifteen, convicted in twenty fifteen.
How long How much longer do you think he will
be able to come up with his lawyers will come
up with appellet ideas that will string it out. How
many more years do you think he'll have before he
will face that moment in time, assuming the death penalty
is not eliminated in our country.
Speaker 5 (29:33):
Well, I think I think this is the end of
the road. But of course creative lawyer can usually flame something.
But I think this is the end of the road.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Yeah, I mean O'Toole has refused to recuse himself. I
have premendous respect for Georgie O'Toole. I think I know
you well enough to know that you respect O'Toole as well.
He's a good judge and uh and not you know,
not that that most judges aren't good judges, but he is,
in my opinion, a particularly experienced judge. I don't know
(30:09):
how much, how much time you've been in how often
you've been in front of him, but he's got a
great reputation. Uh. And I assume that they're going to
take his his his refusal to accuse himself up and
appeal that. So there's another set of appeals.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
Right, They'll they'll lose that.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
Yeah, but it will take Tod. It will take Tod, Harvey.
I so respect your your intellect and your your moral compass.
And I wish I could agree with you on this one,
but I don't. And I really appreciate you. You challenge
me on this every time, and it makes me think.
And I really do appreciate your friendship and your challenge here.
(30:48):
Thank you much, my friend. Right, Oh, by Howie Silverglate,
there there there's no if I haven't had a serious
criminal case, a criminal charge, Harvey would be my gut
to go do. I would advise any of you in
similar fashion. We got to take a break. I got
salin Ohio coming up. I got Mark and Cambridge. I
(31:08):
got a little bit of room for you. Six months
seven two four thirty, six months, seven nine thirty. Be
right back here on night's side. And by the way,
tomorrow night, the BSY car guys will be with us
from ten until twelve. I know that's a favorite guest
of many of you. It's time the spring driving season
come on, and the Bzy Car guys are going to
be here tomorrow night from ten to twelve. And we
(31:30):
will also have former state Representative Dave Nagel, who spent
time in federal prison. He ran into a problem with gambling,
gambling debts and then did some things which for which
he admitted used money that he should not have used
(31:50):
campaign money, not public money, but campaign money. And he
spent seven months in prison. It was sentenced to a
year and a half. And we're going to talk to
him tomorrow night about life and is it and what
he regrets, uh, and now how he will be able
and I think he will be able to build his
life back up. So it's a uh, it's a story
(32:11):
of reclamation tomorrow night, as as well as your crime
and punishment as well. We'll be back right after this
on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Okay, back to the phones. We're going to get both
the sale in market. Let's start off with Sal in Ohio. Sal.
You were next on Nightside.
Speaker 8 (32:32):
Welcome, Hi Dan, nice talking to you. Can you hear me?
Speaker 5 (32:36):
Okay, I can hear you, find sir, go right ahead, okay,
all right.
Speaker 8 (32:41):
As far as due process, you know, I followed, I followed,
I followed the bombing and such. But how does the
families heal if if this keeps coming up, if there
is anything about healing after you lose someone like at
least someone does something tragic like that, But how do
(33:03):
people get on with get on with their lives if
to me? For me, I've tried to follow his sister
Helen Praijan movement. I don't believe that. I think we
should just have have a cut and dry your lifer.
You've been sound guilty, and don't tie up the legal
(33:24):
system and all the everybody. You know, somebody's gonna some
attorneys some days are going to make a book or
something about what they how they defended somebody.
Speaker 5 (33:35):
Again, Yeah, I just understand that.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
By the way, I understand, I know, I know who
Helen Prejean is. I understand that, and I respect her opinion.
I don't agree with it. I just think that in
my opinion, sal and it's only my opinion that there
are certain levels of crime. And if someone you know.
Speaker 5 (33:57):
Breaks into a store masterardly.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
No, no, no, Yeah. What I'm saying is if someone
breaks into a store and they've done it repeatedly, or
they get caught stealing something out of a store, that's
one level of crime. If someone goes in the street
and they have a gun and they threaten someone, well
that that raises the stakes a little bit. And but
in terms of what these guys did, I think everyone
and you use the word dastardly, I agree with you.
(34:21):
I mean, there's just no way to defend it. I mean,
it's as simple. It is as simple.
Speaker 8 (34:25):
As I don't think that you know, you know, as
as as if we want to be true Christians, we're
supposed to forgive everything. We're supposed to not we're not
supposed to keep punishing. Really, Jesus probably wouldn't have prisons.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
Well, I don't know about that. Well, say, here's a
different thing. If here, if you're my neighbor and all
of a sudden you come over and you steal something
out of my house, uh, and I see you stealing
it and running away, and I will go over to
you and I will say, look, you stole that. I
(35:02):
want it back. And if you give it to me back,
I might say, look, don't do that again. So, but
society has an interest above and beyond my forgiving heart
to prosecute you for doing something.
Speaker 8 (35:17):
You know, I understand that, And I mean, look at
the volumes and volumes of law that there is. But
I understand that. But I think I really think that
we need to look at other countries. I don't think
great Great Britain has I don't think that they have
death penalty.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
I think you're right. I think you're right. And again
we're a different country where the United States of America we're.
Speaker 8 (35:42):
We have three hundred and fifty million people too.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
But yeah, I mean again, look, here's the thing. If
if you do, if you truly in your heart believe
that this guy should not get the death penalty, I
understand that Okay, I respect you. I don't agree with you,
but I respect you.
Speaker 8 (35:57):
I'm on the bench. I'm kind of on the fence
because if some if something happened directly into my family,
you know, with something I probably I might be inclined
to change my opinion.
Speaker 5 (36:12):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (36:12):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (36:13):
I don't know what I'm.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
Saying is morally your opinion should be if you're based
it on a true moral foundation, it should be the
same whether it's your family or your neighbor's family. Well, anyway, hey, Sal,
I got one more I got to get in here.
Really interesting phone call. I don't know how often. I
don't know if you've called before, but i'd invite you
to continue to call my program Always welcome.
Speaker 8 (36:34):
One other time, and we disagreed on Donald Trump a
long time ago, It's like twenty fifteen.
Speaker 5 (36:39):
But I listened to you, and people are listening to you.
All right.
Speaker 8 (36:43):
You have a good night.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
Thanks Sale. Where about to Ohio you call it from?
I love to know what.
Speaker 8 (36:46):
How many people from Ohio?
Speaker 5 (36:51):
Pittsburgh I've heard of?
Speaker 2 (36:52):
Stupid Ville? Yeah, absolutely great, Sam, Thanks thanks much. Sal.
Let me go next to Mark and Cambridge. Mark, you're
gonna wrap the hour for us here nightside. What's your
thought on due process for the Boston boment number two?
Speaker 6 (37:04):
My call again, You're welcome. The Celtics one anyway.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
The one last night, that one last night.
Speaker 6 (37:12):
Yep, yeah, anyway, let's get so. Anyway, in my opinion,
due process and justice should have been served that day
when they call him on that boat and he was
in that boat. Due profice and justice should i've been
served that day.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
No, I understand your opinion. I disagree with that because
that's not what this society is about, and I think
that's a yeah, we could disagree and that. So therefore,
I assume you agree with me that it is time
as long since passed for this guy to be breathing,
you know, the fresh air that all of us are
breathing or whatever there is being pumped into the Supermax
(37:55):
in Colorado.
Speaker 6 (37:57):
But to make it to the bop it up real quick.
Due process, in my opinion again, should only be for
naturally born American citizens. If you here on is here visiting,
and you commit a crime, due process should not apply. Again,
that's my opinion.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
Yeah, well, the courts have held otherwise. The courts have
held otherwise. However, However, the thing that to me is
most interesting in my opinion, is that there is no
clear definition of due process that says to get full
due process, you've got to go through steps one through ten.
(38:37):
So you can have a different level of due process
for different circumstances. Okay, this guy is getting much more
due process than he deserves because of the crime that
he committed. In terms off, you're a US citizen, you
have full due process rights. If you're someone who here
is here illegally and it was committed a crime while
(38:57):
you while you're here, you get what I would call
expedited due process. If you get my drift, okay, a
different form. It's like you go to a restaurant. You
can order the whole meal. You can order the everything
from soup to nuts, or you get a sandwich. You
still had a meal, it was just a little different. Hey, look,
(39:21):
I always appreciate you call Mark. You and I pretty
much here on the same page. Thanks, buddy, You have
a great night. We get back right after the not
the ten o'clock news. Here on nightside. I want to
talk about the Trump administration's decision to arrest judges. We
have a case here, which is one that you might
(39:41):
be familiar with, but there's a case down in Wisconsin,
in New Mexico where judges are facing some very serious
federal charges, and I suspect we'll get some good different
points of view on this in the next hour back
on night Side right after this
It's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, welcome back everyone. It is April thirtieth, and
we are about to leave a month in Boston that
generally represents the beginning of the baseball season, and for
twelve years now has represented the horrible, that horrible day
back in twenty thirteen when the Boston Marathon was struck
(00:28):
by the marathon bombers. And we've had a lot of
conversation on Nightside this week about the concept of due
process and what it means. And it is a concept
that is founded, you know, in the in the legal
documents of this country, and certainly founded in the Constitution,
(00:52):
but it is a process that sometimes defies definition depending
upon the circumstances. So, for example, we've been talking about
a due process for the guy from Maryland who was
flown out of the country with other members of MS
thirteen and Toronte Duragua, and there's a big conversation about, well,
(01:14):
how do we know he was a gang member and
all of that, and you know, at some point, well,
we can deal with that. But I thought that just
by way of explaining how we in this country bend
over backwards to provide due process for lots of people,
some of whom come here and become US citizens. And
(01:39):
in this case, Boston bomber number two, who tonight hopefully
sits in a jail cell by himself at the Supermax
Federal Penitentiary in Colorado. And I I'd love it and
have him a radio so he could listen to this
show tonight. But I just the question that I have is,
(02:00):
is here we have a Boston barmber number two, who
I choose not to mention my name. I hope you
can understand who I'm talking about, the younger of the
two bombers, the one that was not run over. Actually
he was the run that ran over his brother the
night of the shootout in Watertown. So these guys do
(02:22):
their dastardly deed, their first dastardly deed. Maybe there were
other dastardly deeds that we weren't able to prove, like
the triple murder in Waltham, but we'll say that for
another night. The dastardly deed of April fifteenth, when they
left two pressure cooker bombs about a block and a
(02:42):
half or so apart on Boylston Street near the finished
line of the Boston Marathon with the intention to kill
and name as many people as possible. They killed in
that moment three individuals, and of course we have come
to know the name of Martin Richard and Crystal Cake
Campbell and Lindsay lou who was only twenty three, Crystal
(03:05):
Campbell only twenty nine, and Martin Richard only eight. And
then on Thursday night of that week they shot and
killed MIT police officer, executed, let's be honest, MIT Police
officer Sean Collier on the campus of MIT. And then
in the shootout in Watertown, there was a Boston police
(03:29):
officer who died about a year later. He was injured
in that shootout, Boston Police officer Dennis Simons. So in all,
there were five deaths attributed to the Boston bombers who
came here from Augistan, sought all the protections and the
beneficence of this country, and then did what they did.
There's no question they did what they did. We have
(03:51):
the videotapes. We have them. We watched them walking away
from the scene after they had planted and activated the bombs.
Boston bomber Number to played guilty. He didn't fight the
evidence that was against him, the evidence was overwhelming, played
guilty to what they had done. And of course they
(04:11):
also maimed more than one hundred well injured, and some
people named over one hundred and fifty people. Just as
by way of mentioning, there's the Norton family. Liz Norton,
who had two sons lost both their legs, both lost
legs in the bombing. She was quoted on Wednesday in
(04:32):
the Boston Herald. It's mind bobble boggling. It's taken this long.
My hope is I'm still alive to see it through. Okay,
So what I did was I did a little bit
of a timeline here and there is you're going to
read about this tomorrow in the Boston Herald, a little
(04:52):
bit of it's been in the Boston Globe. But I
want to explain to you what do process can mean.
It's a very elastic sized concept. Due process can be
short and direct, or it can be just stretched out.
And oftentimes the more bizarre your crimes, the more lawyers
(05:16):
and oftentimes pro bono lawyers are drawn to defend these
these horrific people. So the bombing takes place on April fifteenth,
twenty thirteen. That's now twelve years and two weeks ago.
So you do the math on the number of days
that this guy has lived. But he has lived over
If I'm doing some quick math, three hundred and sixty
(05:39):
five days a year, twelve twelve years, we're talking about
at least three thousand days, probably getting close to thirty
five hundred. It's convicted, pleads guilty in twenty fifteen, so
that's fairly quick, and he's sentenced to death. However, the
First Circuit Court of Appeals, in their infinite wisdom some reason,
(06:00):
decided to overturn the death penalty. Now I haven't read
the decision by the First Circle in a while, but
they may have concluded any of a number of grounds
cool and unusual punishment. Alough, it's really not that unusual.
There was a period of time, even last late in
(06:21):
the Biden administration, when that death penalty could have been
lifted from his shoulders. But there were three bombers, three
killers that Biden. Out of forty people on death row,
thirty seven got commutations from the death penalty. Three did not.
Dylan Rufe, the racist kid that killed the nine older
(06:43):
black parishioners in a South Carolina Church after having prayed
with them, the anti Semite who attacked the synagogue Tree
of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh or outside of Pittsburgh, and
the Boston bomber number two. So the Supreme Court two
years later, now we're seven years out or we're actually
(07:06):
nine years out from the bombing, they overruled it and
reinstated the death penalty. So then the lawyers, these are
these lawyers who I guess we're paying for them. They're
they're billing the government. These lawyers asked the First Circuit
to re examine the wadir of the jurors, and specifically
(07:28):
jurors number one, thirty eight, and eighty six. I mean,
we're really drilling down here. And the First Circuit, who
again had overturned the death penalty already, maybe they should
be recused from reviewing this. They ordered the trial judge,
Georgie O'Toole, who's someone who I know a little bit.
(07:49):
He's very competent trial judge. An amazing background on him.
He had as his bachelor's degree from Boston College, went
to Harvard Law School. He practiced for about ten years
from nineteen seventy two to nineteen eighty two. He became
(08:10):
an associate justice in the Boston Municipal Court from eighty
two to ninety and then in the Superior Court of
Massachusetts from ninety to ninety five, and then in ninety
five he was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the
Federal Court, and he served in the Federal Court from
nineteen ninety five until he assumed senior status in twenty eighteen.
(08:32):
So this is a very competent, qualified, highly respected jurists.
By the way, I have no idea what his politics
are or anything like that. He is a quintessentially a jurist.
So the lawyers now for the bombers have gone one
more step further. They have asked that Judge O'Toole be
(08:57):
taken off the case because Judge o'tool needs to needs
to recuse himself. Well, Judge O'Toole is not going to
recuse himself from the case, nor should he. He will
stay on this case, thankfully, because we do have an
adult in the house. When Judge O'Toole, and he has
(09:17):
written recently, he's denied the Marathon bomber's allegation that another
judge should re examine the judge o'tools procedure at sentencing
Barmber number two to death, he wrote, He wrote this
(09:41):
in that decision. He said, it is a parent that
the Court of Appeals intended that this court investigate the
potential bias of two jurors an issue. As I mentioned,
those are jurors one thirty eight and two eighty six.
Everybody knew about the case. Okay. It was impossible, I think,
to find jurors who didn't know about the case. I mean,
(10:01):
I guess you could find twelve people out of an
insane asylum who never heard about the case, maybe twelve
people who lived under a bridge. But amongst people who
would intellectually qualify to be able to sit in a jury,
they all had known about this case. The instruction, according
to Judge O'Toole, was plainly directed to this Dusk District judge,
(10:23):
meaning himself. Recusal would be at odds with the direction
of the Court of Appeals. He also adds, quote, doubting
my ability to follow my old to faithfully apply the
law unquote is dead wrong. The reason I'm going through
this tonight, and going through it at a pace that
hopefully all of you can follow, is that this is
(10:45):
all part kitten kaboodle, if you will, of what we
would call due process for Boston bomber number two. Now
under the standard that I have recommended, when there is
no scintilla of doubt about the guilt of an individual,
(11:05):
and there is no scintilla of doubt in this case,
as a matter of fact, this guy has pled guilty
to the crime. And there's no suggestion that he was
pleading guilty for because he was being pressured or anything
like that. He's guilty, he understands it. And are the
aggravating circumstances, Yeah, A couple of pipe bombs, a pressure
cook of bombs near a crowded marathon finished line the
(11:29):
day of the Boston Marathon on Boylston Street, where there
are hundreds or not thousands of people who could have
been impacted by the explosions. Yeah, I think those are
aggravating circumstances. So the consequence is that as we fight
and argue about the guy from Maryland, the Maryland dad
who now is in El Salvador, I guess he's in
(11:51):
a better prison than the sea caught prison. Good for
him or someone else who is deported the Trump administration
how much? How much due process. Do we need to
give the Boston Marathon bomber. I think we need to
give him one more bit of due process, and it
(12:13):
should be applied in Terre Haute, Indiana, where he would
go to be executed. I want to open this line
up because most of you out there understand in your
in your gut, in your heart what should be done
and how quickly it should be done. I certainly understand
what should be done. And I know that there are
people who were posted in aulterably opposed to death penalty.
(12:35):
That's fine. Kind of argue with people who have a
either a philosophical or religious opposition of that, that's fine.
But we have a death penalty in this country. It
has been found by our Supreme Court to be to
be constitutional. And it is now time for Boston bomber
number two to get the Jews as far as I'm concerned,
(12:56):
which he so richly deserves. We don't need to allow
him to live a long and comfortable life in supermacs
in my opinion. But the reason I mentioned this tonight
is in the last few days, the whole concept of
due process is sort of an elastic process. What due
(13:16):
process might mean for one person is a little bit different.
There are some fundamentals of due process. Now, this guy
actually was a citizen. He became a citizen. I think
it was just about seven months before he did this
dastardly act. He knew what he got himself into. Okay,
(13:38):
we're told, well, he was the younger brother and he
was influenced. All of that has been out there. We're
done with this. Let's get it over with. I'd love
to hear from you. This is my little bit of
a treatise, a due process. Okay. I believe in due process,
I truly do. But due process is different for an
American citizen who is charged with a crime for which
(14:00):
that you enjoy the presumption of innocence than this guy
who has surrendered his presumption of innocence. At this point,
it is time to put to get the show on
the road. Six one, seven, two, five, four to ten
thirty six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty. Feel
free to join the conversation. I'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w B Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
So my question essentially is how much due process does
the Boston bomber deserve and has he has he has
he exhausted his his his good, his good, his due process?
Pretty simple question. I think it was exhausted a long
time ago. Six one, seven, two, five, four to ten
(14:45):
thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty. Gonna
go to Larry in Boston. Larry, welcome your first this
hour night side. Larry, go right ahead.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Thanks Dan, thanks for taking my call. I agree with
you wholeheartedly. I think I think this this individual, let's
give him the benefit of that at least, has has
lived thirty five hundred days too too long. Given the
rough math, I think, you know, the the you know,
the abhorrent situation that he and his brother caused, and
(15:18):
the and the you know, irreparable harm that he's done
to the city of Boston, and the plague that he's
kind of placed upon us. One more bullet by the
Watertown police would have solved that problem, right yeah, And
and I and I think you know, he's he's lived
too long, and he's not due any due process, so,
you know, and I think due process is something that
(15:40):
you know, we as citizens deserve if if there are
situations and situations that require that due process to be invoked. However,
not something you know, again, you come here illegally and
not here as a legal citizen. Due process unfortunately does
not apply, right, And I know your question is specifically
about this individual on I don't think he's deserved any
(16:02):
and I think I agree with you. I think he's
he's he's kind of taken up residents in a federal
institution far longer than he deserves.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Yeah, that's you know, that's my feeling on it.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
That's my point, and that that we as a society, Okay,
we're very generous. And the more publicity that a case gets, Uh,
there are plenty of you know, young poor Americans, young people,
teenagers who do something stupid, rob a bank or whatever,
(16:34):
and they get moved through the process pretty quickly. But
on the high profile cases, if you have enough money
to purchase lawyers, or if you have enough money because
of the the case, you can attract lawyers who will
be willing to offer their services for the publicity that
you get.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
In the background, this guy could live another four or
five years here, I mean, you know, he What will
happen is that Georgia O'Toole is not going to refuse himself.
They're going to probably appeal that back up to the
first Circuit Court of Appeals. It's like a yo yo
going up and down. His due process is endless, endless. Uh.
(17:14):
And you think about what what the people who lost
loved ones, or the people whose loved ones were badly injured,
or the individuals who were badly injured, what is their
due process?
Speaker 5 (17:25):
You know?
Speaker 2 (17:25):
I mean, same way with this guy down in down
down in Maryland. Whiz whiz, where's the due process?
Speaker 6 (17:35):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (17:36):
For him? He's they want to bring him back now.
He apparently, you know, was told to leave the country,
didn't leave the country. It's uh, it's almost the more
bizarre your crime, the more due process that you're allowed.
And I think President Trump said it yesterday talking with
(18:00):
the guy from ABC for ABC Terry Terry what the
heck was his last name? The reporter who I have,
Terry Moran. He's basically saying to him, hey, uh, let's
you know, let's you know, let's let's get this over with.
(18:21):
There's no question of this guy's guilt or innocence. We
we know that they are aggravating circumstances because there was
one or two yours who might have been a little
less than forthcoming. I think it's it's a complete waste
of time, and it it gives me something to talk about,
(18:41):
but it also it shows how the system can be
In my opinion, a great system of justice can be abused.
I'm gonna let you go. I appreciate your calling and
getting us going.
Speaker 5 (18:51):
Okay, Thanks Dan, Thank you much.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
I'd love to hear from you. Six one, six, one tenth.
The whole concept of due process difficult to explain, but
when you look at it in the context of what
we're talking about, Boston bomber number two, how long does
it go on? You've You've seen that there are killers.
(19:17):
I'm not familiar with all of their cases, but some
of these very bizarre killers are on death row for
twenty years. And I know that there are good people
out there who are posted the death betal. We may
hear from one in a few moments. I'd love to
hear from you. Six one, seven, two, five, four ten
thirty six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty Coming
right back after the news break here at the bottom
of the hour on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
All right, let's get right back to the phones. You're
going to be talking with Harvey Silverglad in just a moment.
But Jean's been waiting a little longer. So I want
to get to Gene. Jeane. You are next up on
Nightside Gene from Brookline.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Welcome, Hi, how are you?
Speaker 2 (19:57):
I'm doing just great, Gene. We're talkingalking about due process.
Speaker 7 (20:01):
It is, Uh, he had a not due process. He
should have been executed within a year of getting found guilty.
I give a year versus he's young. He could be
on death row for sixty years, working in his twenties
or something.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
It's only thirty one right now. He's already been there
for twelve for twelve years. Yeah, well he's been there.
He's been there a long time.
Speaker 7 (20:28):
He's Yeah, I think he should not be there any longer.
Speaker 5 (20:31):
I mean, where was where.
Speaker 7 (20:32):
Were the rights of people that just want to go
watch a marathon not get killed or made you think
about them? So how can we think about him?
Speaker 2 (20:41):
I understand, I understand, but uh, it's it's a real
it's a problem. It's a problem, and it is a problem.
It's a it's it's it's a problem that people understand
due process. But uh, it's it's it's sort of a
it's a concept that is uh, it's it's it's a
(21:04):
concept that is somewhat flexible. It's it's not specifically laid
out that due processes A, B, C, and D. There
there are a number of ways in which due process
has been incorporated on a on a case by case
basis into the rights that all Americans and everyone in
(21:24):
this country to some degree is provided. Absolutely well, Gene,
I appreciate your your.
Speaker 7 (21:31):
Supporting oh, because I believe what you're saying with the
tail and that's the right way to pronounce it, doubt
without with the world until Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Again, that's a standard that I have created, which is
without a sintela means that there is no doubt. Okay,
that's it means like the smallest possible pardon. Okay, you know.
The whole The word due process comes from the fourteenth Amendment.
(22:01):
It says no States shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States. So, nor shall state deprived of any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
That's that's what we're what we're referring to. But it's
not defined with any specificity. It's become defined over years,
(22:24):
depending upon you know, various you know, various court decisions,
nor deny any person within his jurisdiction the equal protection
of the law fourteenth Amendment. Thank you so much, very much, Gene.
I thank you for taking the time to call, and
thank you for agreeing with me.
Speaker 7 (22:38):
Okay, okay, always.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
Probably going to disagree with me.
Speaker 5 (22:43):
Thanks.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Yea.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
This is my friend, Harvey Silverglade. Harvey is a pre
eminent defense attorney. UH, one of the best, if not
the best, that I've ever watched in court. Harvey, welcome
to Night's side. You've heard me talk about due process.
It has been applied and applied very very well. Uh
(23:05):
to the benefit of Boston bomber number two.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
At what point do we say, Okay, this guy's had
enough due process. He has had due process.
Speaker 5 (23:15):
Let me the last time I dealt with this on
your program, I pointed out that institutionally I was opposed
to the death penalty because of the possibility that the
line would be of what is certain would be moved
and moved and moved, and eventually an innocent person would
(23:36):
be executed, with which the innocent spasure has shown has happened,
and my.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
And my my audience respects and I respect your philosophical
concern absolutely.
Speaker 5 (23:48):
Now, now let me take another approach. You're an orthodox Catholic.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
I'm a Colby that I'm a Catholic.
Speaker 5 (23:56):
I'm you're you're you're believing Catholic.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Yeah, I'm a strugg like everyone else who's a Catholic,
they will tell you they're they're an imperfect, struggling Catholic.
Speaker 5 (24:06):
If you know what I'm saying, Hey, I I do.
I do. I have the same problem with Well, okay,
go ahead. My question is this, how do you square
your support for the death penalty with the Ten Commandments?
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Well, I I do see a little bit of separation,
separation of church, church and state. Let me just finish,
let me sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (24:32):
The Tank Commandment says say murder it is our start kill,
which is different than murder you kill. Yeah, okay, now
let's let's go just by your opposition.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Well, what I'm what I would be, what I would
argue is that the state is not murdering him. He is,
you know, he's living just as if in a state
of war. If someone goes to war and happens to
kill an enemy combatant, they haven't murdered them. They generally,
you know, they get they get a medal for having
taken out one of the enemy. I think that a
(25:09):
society has a right to defend itself, and I do
believe that the death penalty does have a deterrent effect
and it will make some people think about it. And
I feel that, you know, it is up it is
up to God Almighty whether and I think the same
God runs Judaism, Catholicism, Islam and all of that. There's
(25:30):
not multiple gods up there. There's one person. In my belief.
I can't prove any of that, Howie that it's that
it's up to him and I but I think that
we as a society have a right to defend ourselves. Uh.
And you know what do you do? I'm with with someone.
Let us say who is on who kills? Uh? And
you don't give him or her the death penalty? And
(25:50):
then they kill a corrections officer? You know how many
how many people would they would they kill? I mean,
I have no problem morally or or religiously with doing
away with this guy based upon what he did. And
I know that there, by the way, are members of
the families of the victims who are opposed to the
death penalty. I don't think that the Richard family is
(26:12):
advocating for his death penalty. They're probably just better, better
people than I am.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
Well, I don't think it's got to do. It's better people,
but I do think that well, I guess in the end,
you and I just disagree, and there's no way of
reconciling our precisions. But I well, let me ask you that,
let me ask you us.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
I know that you're If there ever was a case
that my friend Harvey Silverglate, the great defense lawyer, could
see them, could see as a possibility, this would be it.
My feeling is that from a moral point of view,
I have no doubt about his guilt or innocence. He's
fled out, and he needed right, right, right, and and
(26:53):
we certainly have the aggravating circumstances that no sentilla of doubt,
So it fits my my standard. I also believe that
the amount of money that we're gonna utilize to feed
and house him and give him a lot of the
comforts that he will have for the balance of his
life could be better used to help people in this
(27:15):
country who have anyone.
Speaker 5 (27:18):
I wouldn't call being in a supermax prison comfortable.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Well, you know, I mean, here's the thing, Harvey, You
and I know that he can. He can meet religious
whatever religious leaders he wants. He can be visited by
family and friends. He can as time goes on, he
will get some of the privileges of time. I'm sure
that he gets to watch some level of television. They
(27:42):
don't put him in a cell twenty four you know,
three sixty five twenty four seven, because that would be
violation of the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment. And
if he behaves himself, if he behaves himself over time,
he will he will be treated better.
Speaker 5 (28:03):
It will never get out though.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
They would never get out, there's no question never get out.
And the only the only UH person who faced the
death penalty who told his lawyers to drop all appeals
that I know of, and you probably know more than
I do, was Timothy McVeigh. You know everyone has said
to me, oh, the death penalty is the easy way out.
(28:26):
I don't think it's the easy way out in the
minds of most killers. Harvey's from a you know, from
a from an argumentative point of view, most people who
are facing the death penalty fight it till the end legally,
in everything that's available to them. None of them say, oh,
you know, I want the easy way out. They say, no,
(28:47):
I'm going to fight this to the end. And yet
my friends will always tell me, oh, it's it's the
death penalty is the easy way out. I don't know
too many mass killers, and in this case, this guy
would be a mass killer who sees the death penalty
as an easy way out. How let me ask you this.
You know the system as well as anybody. He's been
(29:08):
on death row now since twenty fifteen, convicted in twenty fifteen.
How long How much longer do you think he will
be able to come up with his lawyers will come
up with appellet ideas that will string it out. How
many more years do you think he'll have before he
will face that moment in time, assuming the death penalty
is not eliminated in our country.
Speaker 5 (29:33):
Well, I think I think this is the end of
the road. But of course creative lawyer can usually flame something.
But I think this is the end of the road.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Yeah, I mean O'Toole has refused to recuse himself. I
have premendous respect for Georgie O'Toole. I think I know
you well enough to know that you respect O'Toole as well.
He's a good judge and uh and not you know,
not that that most judges aren't good judges, but he is,
in my opinion, a particularly experienced judge. I don't know
(30:09):
how much, how much time you've been in how often
you've been in front of him, but he's got a
great reputation. Uh. And I assume that they're going to
take his his his refusal to accuse himself up and
appeal that. So there's another set of appeals.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
Right, They'll they'll lose that.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
Yeah, but it will take Tod. It will take Tod, Harvey.
I so respect your your intellect and your your moral compass.
And I wish I could agree with you on this one,
but I don't. And I really appreciate you. You challenge
me on this every time, and it makes me think.
And I really do appreciate your friendship and your challenge here.
(30:48):
Thank you much, my friend. Right, Oh, by Howie Silverglate,
there there there's no if I haven't had a serious
criminal case, a criminal charge, Harvey would be my gut
to go do. I would advise any of you in
similar fashion. We got to take a break. I got
salin Ohio coming up. I got Mark and Cambridge. I
(31:08):
got a little bit of room for you. Six months
seven two four thirty, six months, seven nine thirty. Be
right back here on night's side. And by the way,
tomorrow night, the BSY car guys will be with us
from ten until twelve. I know that's a favorite guest
of many of you. It's time the spring driving season
come on, and the Bzy Car guys are going to
be here tomorrow night from ten to twelve. And we
(31:30):
will also have former state Representative Dave Nagel, who spent
time in federal prison. He ran into a problem with gambling,
gambling debts and then did some things which for which
he admitted used money that he should not have used
(31:50):
campaign money, not public money, but campaign money. And he
spent seven months in prison. It was sentenced to a
year and a half. And we're going to talk to
him tomorrow night about life and is it and what
he regrets, uh, and now how he will be able
and I think he will be able to build his
life back up. So it's a uh, it's a story
(32:11):
of reclamation tomorrow night, as as well as your crime
and punishment as well. We'll be back right after this
on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Okay, back to the phones. We're going to get both
the sale in market. Let's start off with Sal in Ohio. Sal.
You were next on Nightside.
Speaker 8 (32:32):
Welcome, Hi Dan, nice talking to you. Can you hear me?
Speaker 5 (32:36):
Okay, I can hear you, find sir, go right ahead, okay,
all right.
Speaker 8 (32:41):
As far as due process, you know, I followed, I followed,
I followed the bombing and such. But how does the
families heal if if this keeps coming up, if there
is anything about healing after you lose someone like at
least someone does something tragic like that, But how do
(33:03):
people get on with get on with their lives if
to me? For me, I've tried to follow his sister
Helen Praijan movement. I don't believe that. I think we
should just have have a cut and dry your lifer.
You've been sound guilty, and don't tie up the legal
(33:24):
system and all the everybody. You know, somebody's gonna some
attorneys some days are going to make a book or
something about what they how they defended somebody.
Speaker 5 (33:35):
Again, Yeah, I just understand that.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
By the way, I understand, I know, I know who
Helen Prejean is. I understand that, and I respect her opinion.
I don't agree with it. I just think that in
my opinion, sal and it's only my opinion that there
are certain levels of crime. And if someone you know.
Speaker 5 (33:57):
Breaks into a store masterardly.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
No, no, no, Yeah. What I'm saying is if someone
breaks into a store and they've done it repeatedly, or
they get caught stealing something out of a store, that's
one level of crime. If someone goes in the street
and they have a gun and they threaten someone, well
that that raises the stakes a little bit. And but
in terms of what these guys did, I think everyone
and you use the word dastardly, I agree with you.
(34:21):
I mean, there's just no way to defend it. I mean,
it's as simple. It is as simple.
Speaker 8 (34:25):
As I don't think that you know, you know, as
as as if we want to be true Christians, we're
supposed to forgive everything. We're supposed to not we're not
supposed to keep punishing. Really, Jesus probably wouldn't have prisons.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
Well, I don't know about that. Well, say, here's a
different thing. If here, if you're my neighbor and all
of a sudden you come over and you steal something
out of my house, uh, and I see you stealing
it and running away, and I will go over to
you and I will say, look, you stole that. I
(35:02):
want it back. And if you give it to me back,
I might say, look, don't do that again. So, but
society has an interest above and beyond my forgiving heart
to prosecute you for doing something.
Speaker 8 (35:17):
You know, I understand that, And I mean, look at
the volumes and volumes of law that there is. But
I understand that. But I think I really think that
we need to look at other countries. I don't think
great Great Britain has I don't think that they have
death penalty.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
I think you're right. I think you're right. And again
we're a different country where the United States of America we're.
Speaker 8 (35:42):
We have three hundred and fifty million people too.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
But yeah, I mean again, look, here's the thing. If
if you do, if you truly in your heart believe
that this guy should not get the death penalty, I
understand that Okay, I respect you. I don't agree with you,
but I respect you.
Speaker 8 (35:57):
I'm on the bench. I'm kind of on the fence
because if some if something happened directly into my family,
you know, with something I probably I might be inclined
to change my opinion.
Speaker 5 (36:12):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (36:12):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (36:13):
I don't know what I'm.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
Saying is morally your opinion should be if you're based
it on a true moral foundation, it should be the
same whether it's your family or your neighbor's family. Well, anyway, hey, Sal,
I got one more I got to get in here.
Really interesting phone call. I don't know how often. I
don't know if you've called before, but i'd invite you
to continue to call my program Always welcome.
Speaker 8 (36:34):
One other time, and we disagreed on Donald Trump a
long time ago, It's like twenty fifteen.
Speaker 5 (36:39):
But I listened to you, and people are listening to you.
All right.
Speaker 8 (36:43):
You have a good night.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
Thanks Sale. Where about to Ohio you call it from?
I love to know what.
Speaker 8 (36:46):
How many people from Ohio?
Speaker 5 (36:51):
Pittsburgh I've heard of?
Speaker 2 (36:52):
Stupid Ville? Yeah, absolutely great, Sam, Thanks thanks much. Sal.
Let me go next to Mark and Cambridge. Mark, you're
gonna wrap the hour for us here nightside. What's your
thought on due process for the Boston boment number two?
Speaker 6 (37:04):
My call again, You're welcome. The Celtics one anyway.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
The one last night, that one last night.
Speaker 6 (37:12):
Yep, yeah, anyway, let's get so. Anyway, in my opinion,
due process and justice should have been served that day
when they call him on that boat and he was
in that boat. Due profice and justice should i've been
served that day.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
No, I understand your opinion. I disagree with that because
that's not what this society is about, and I think
that's a yeah, we could disagree and that. So therefore,
I assume you agree with me that it is time
as long since passed for this guy to be breathing,
you know, the fresh air that all of us are
breathing or whatever there is being pumped into the Supermax
(37:55):
in Colorado.
Speaker 6 (37:57):
But to make it to the bop it up real quick.
Due process, in my opinion again, should only be for
naturally born American citizens. If you here on is here visiting,
and you commit a crime, due process should not apply. Again,
that's my opinion.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
Yeah, well, the courts have held otherwise. The courts have
held otherwise. However, However, the thing that to me is
most interesting in my opinion, is that there is no
clear definition of due process that says to get full
due process, you've got to go through steps one through ten.
(38:37):
So you can have a different level of due process
for different circumstances. Okay, this guy is getting much more
due process than he deserves because of the crime that
he committed. In terms off, you're a US citizen, you
have full due process rights. If you're someone who here
is here illegally and it was committed a crime while
(38:57):
you while you're here, you get what I would call
expedited due process. If you get my drift, okay, a
different form. It's like you go to a restaurant. You
can order the whole meal. You can order the everything
from soup to nuts, or you get a sandwich. You
still had a meal, it was just a little different. Hey, look,
(39:21):
I always appreciate you call Mark. You and I pretty
much here on the same page. Thanks, buddy, You have
a great night. We get back right after the not
the ten o'clock news. Here on nightside. I want to
talk about the Trump administration's decision to arrest judges. We
have a case here, which is one that you might
(39:41):
be familiar with, but there's a case down in Wisconsin,
in New Mexico where judges are facing some very serious
federal charges, and I suspect we'll get some good different
points of view on this in the next hour back
on night Side right after this
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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!