Another Example Of Why Law Enforcement Always Needs Monitoring

By: PM
Published On: 11/20/2006 7:58:40 PM

This Hartford Courant story illustrates the dangers of giving law enforcement unfettered and unmonitored operational abilities.
When a flurry of gunshots ended Edward "Teddy" Deegan's misspent life more than 40 years ago, there should have been no mystery about who pulled the trigger.

FBI agents had been listening to the murder plot unfold for five months through a microphone hidden in a mob office and through reports from informants. They knew that Vincent "Jimmy" Flemmi and Joseph "The Animal" Barboza, two hoodlums the bureau was recruiting as informants, were behind the conspiracy.

But what should have been an open-and-shut case turned into a legal nightmare. Thousands of recently disclosed U.S. Justice Department records show that the FBI, in order to cultivate Flemmi and Barboza as informants, allowed them to frame four innocent men for the Deegan murder.


Some "highlights" (or "lowlights") from the Courant story:
In his opening, Hartford attorney Austin J. McGuigan, representing Salvati, cited a score of FBI memos and reports showing that numerous FBI agents - including Hoover - not only knew the identities of Deegan's real killers, but had the information before he was killed.***

According to the lawsuit, in their zeal to recruit the two men as informants Rico and others in the FBI agreed to help Barboza rope the four innocent men in as his accomplices. The suit contends that the FBI essentially handed the Deegan case to Massachusetts state prosecutors after arranging with Barboza what his testimony would be.

When the trial ended, Limone, Tameleo and Greco were sentenced to death by electrocution. During her opening statement last week, Limone lawyer Juliane Balliro, of Boston, flashed a picture of the Massachusetts electric chair on an oversize courtroom television screen. The death sentences were later commuted to life in prison, the same punishment Salvati got.

Tameleo and Greco, a decorated World War II hero, died in prison in 1985 and 1995, respectively.


How did this evidence see the light of day?
In the late 1990s, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Durham to a special Justice Task Force assigned to investigate longstanding rumors of corrupt relationships between lawmen and gangsters in Boston.

How corrupt can a lawman be?  Here's what happened to one of the FBI agents:

The documents also marked the beginning of the end for former agent Rico. In 2001, he was questioned by members of a congressional committee about FBI abuses. Pressed about the consequences of convicting an innocent man such as Salvati, Rico snapped: ""What do you want? Tears?" Salvati and his wife sat just 20 feet away, listening with expressions of horror.

Two and a half years later Rico was under arrest for murder. He was accused of conspiring with another Top Echelon informant from Boston, Flemmi's brother Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi, in the murder of Roger Wheeler, president of the World Jai Alai corporation. Rico and Stephen Flemmi were part of an underworld attempt to take over a substantial portion of the East Coast parimutuel wagering on jai alai.

Rico died in January 2004 while awaiting trial in a Tulsa, Okla., jail.


Comments



Where's the REC button? (Andrea Chamblee - 11/20/2006 10:45:55 PM)
Today we have cell phone cameras thank god.  Hopefully from now on it won't take a decade or longer for these rotten apples to get caught.


This is another example (Catzmaw - 11/21/2006 8:38:36 AM)
of why it is so very necessary to have oversight on the executive.  Anyone who has been involved in the criminal justice system knows how easy it is for mistakes to be made, how easy it is to get confessions or apparent confessions from innocent people, how easy it is to suborn perjury.  Once a person's a target of investigation it's too easy for the investigator to become emotionally investigated in making the case.  It doesn't have to be a conscious effort to twist evidence.  It's just human nature, once one thinks one knows what happened, to try to make the facts fit.

All tyrannies have an efficient police and prosecutorial system.  The thing that makes a free society is an aggressive system of checks upon such powers.  In our system it's the reason for a strong criminal defense bar and adversarial trial system.  When you take away the capacity of the accused to defend themselves, to confront the evidence and witnesses against them, to question the tactics and conclusions of the investigators and prosecution, then you remove the safeguards that keep flagrant injustices from occurring.  My favorite scene in "A Man for All Seasons" is Thomas More's conversation with his son-in-law, who tells him that if he were chasing the devil he would do anything to catch him, even if it came to obliterating the law.  Thomas More asks him how, once he has eliminated all law, and caught the devile, is he going to defend himself agains the devil, now that the laws are gone. 



Oops, I meant to say "emotionally invested". (Catzmaw - 11/21/2006 9:28:38 AM)


Having worked in a prosecutor's office (PM - 11/21/2006 12:41:45 PM)
Prosecutors do get emotionally invested, as you say -- even people who are pure of heart and want to do the right thing


This 4th Amendment wonk... (JD - 11/21/2006 12:20:35 PM)
agrees wholeheartedly.  And you'll never see the "originalist" Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts more conflicted with their principles than when they steadily remove judicial oversight of police procedures.  The Fourth Amendment is not ambiguous about requiring magistrate-issued warrants.  But then, I guess we support an "activist" Court. 


They are selective, aren't they? (PM - 11/21/2006 12:43:39 PM)
I only hope that Bush does not get to appoint any more justices


Yes, funny how many people who (Catzmaw - 11/21/2006 1:46:31 PM)
call themselves conservatives see nothing wrong with curtailing every one of the Bill of Rights (except the 2nd Amendment -- God help those who would read the second clause as subordinate to the first), but who accuse judges who construe our First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights as they are plainly written of being "activist" and of "legislating" their findings.  Their faith in the people in whom they place their trust is almost touchingly naive.  How they reconcile their animosity toward government run agencies and entitlement programs ("the government is incompetent!  Privately run programs are always best!  Let's give all the money to privately run prisons and private faith-based initiatives! Private contractors can run everything for the military!") with their faith in the government's abilities to conduct full, fair, and impartial criminal investigations is beyond me. 


If you want to see result-oriented decisions (Andrea Chamblee - 11/29/2006 12:02:10 AM)
Read the Gore decision on Florida. The judges stopped the recount, even though the only "irreperable harm" from letting them continue was "wear and tear" on the paper ballots if there would be multiple recounts, and then 3 days later said there couldn't even be ONE recount because they couldn't complete it in time, because they had stopped it. And another basis for not allowing a recount was "equal protection" in other jurisdictions in Florida. That could have been easily overcome by counting all the votes in all jurisdictions. But the really maddening thing was these are the same judges that say there are no such thing as "Equal Protection" (14th Amendment) issues, even from lynchings based on race for chrissakes, but there are these issues for vote counting regardless of race?