close
close

Association-anemone

Bite-sized brilliance in every update

    • MA Law Stops Dismissal of Domestic Violence Charges Facing Taunton Mayor
    asane

    MA Law Stops Dismissal of Domestic Violence Charges Facing Taunton Mayor

    Online Niel Posted on

    play

    TAUNTON – Why can’t Taunton Mayor Shaunna O’Connell get her domestic violence charge dismissed? Just ask former state representative Shaunna O’Connell.

    In 2014, then-state representative Shaunna O’Connell was one of the 91 co-sponsors of the House Bill 4036 — the House version of a bill entitled “An Act Relating to Domestic Violence.”

    Among other provisions, O’Connell’s bill sought to close what The Boston Globe described it as a loophole in Massachusetts’ domestic violence laws.

    Previously, people accused of certain types of assault charges could face those charges if the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim both signed what’s called a “plea and satisfaction,” a type of agreement in which the accused agrees to pay the victim and in which both. the parties agree that the charges be dismissed.

    A person who has benefited from an agreement and a satisfaction agreement, The Boston Globe reported in an oedwas William Bryant Moseley, a Malden man who had been arrested for assaulting his then-girlfriend in 2011. The case was dismissed because Mosely and his girlfriend signed a plea and satisfaction agreement. A year later, in 2012, Moseley killed his girlfriend.

    “The option to reach a ‘consent and satisfaction’ settlement may make sense for a minor altercation, such as a bar fight. In the case of domestic violence, however, state law should recognize that there is no level playing field between victim and abuser,” The Boston Globe wrote. “Many women are under enormous pressure to reconcile with their abusers and may not be in a position to resist requests to sign such agreements. The state should give up the option.”

    O’Connell co-sponsored legislation to do just that and Her legislation barring consent and gratification was eventually passed unanimously by the House and Senate and signed into law in 2014.

    Why an “Agreement and Satisfaction” is not allowed for internal taxes in Massachusetts

    O’Connell’s attorney asked a judge to dismiss the two criminal charges filed against her after she allegedly assaulted and injured her husband with a gasket scraper.

    Included in O’Connell’s motion to dismiss was a signed agreement and satisfaction agreement between Ted O’Connell and Shaunna O’Connell. According to the agreement, Shaunna O’Connell paid Ted O’Connell a nominal sum of one dollar, and Ted O’Connell “expressly requests that the Court release the defendant from the criminal complaint.”

    The problem with Shaunna O’Connell’s motion to dismiss the case, special counsel he wrote in his legal filing in responsewas that none of Shaunna O’Connell’s allegations were eligible to be resolved through a plea bargain.

    One of the charges — assault and battery with a dangerous weapon — is a felony, and the felonies are not eligible to be dismissed using a plea deal. The second charge — assault and battery on a family or household member — is a misdemeanor, but the law Shaunna O’Connell co-sponsored precluded the charge from being subject to such a plea deal.

    “A plea and satisfaction is not appropriate in this case,” special prosecutor Daniel Bennett wrote. Massachusetts law “specifically precludes the Accord and Satisfaction(s) from being used in felony cases,” he explained, adding that the law does not allow the Accord and Satisfaction to be used for assault and battery on a member’s charges of the family or household.

    Ultimately, the judge in the case denied Shauna O’Connell’s motion to dismiss the case and the case is scheduled to go to a jury trial.

    What Shaunna O’Connell says about the case

    Shauna O’Connell’s spokeswoman, Holly Robichaud, said she is limited in what information she can share because of the ongoing nature of the case.

    “Ted O’Connell filed an affidavit asking that the case be dismissed and repeatedly said he never should have involved the police,” the statement said. “As the Gazette is fully aware, Mayor O’Connell cannot discuss the legal case at this time. She cannot express an opinion as to why the case has not been rightfully dropped. When her name is cleared, she will additional statements.”

    Shaunna O’Connell’s History of Tough on Crime

    When Shaunna O’Connell was first elected as a state representative, sentencing laws were a key issue in the campaign.

    Her opponent, then rep. Jim Fagan, had made controversial comments against a law that would have established minimum sentences for some people convicted of raping children. Fagan said he opposed the law because setting minimum sentences would discourage those accused of such crimes from taking plea deals, which would mean more cases would go to trial and young children could be questioned in -a trial by a defense attorney.

    In his controversial speech, Fagan described what a defense attorney might do when questioning a child in a criminal trial.

    “We’re going to crush them,” Fagan said. “I will make sure the rest of their lives are ruined. That when they’re 8 they throw up, when they’re 12 they won’t sleep, when they’re 19 they have nightmares, they’ll never have a relationship with anyone.”

    Shaunna O’Connell created postcards playing an audio recording of Fagan’s remarks and distributed them to voters.. The tactic worked. Shaunna O’Connell won her race against Fagan and The Boston Herald described her congratulations as “a brilliant move that may have made the difference in a race less than 50 votes apart”.

    “Mayor Shaunna O’Connell is very much in favor of law and order,” her spokesperson said. “Nothing has changed.”

    Former political rival speaks out in support

    Speaking more than a decade after his loss to Shaunna O’Connell, Fagan told the Gazette he believed his one-time opponent had “done a good job” since winning her first election.

    Fagan, a former defense attorney, said in retrospect he had no regrets about the remarks that could have cost him the election. He said his opposition to policies like minimum sentencing laws is based on his experience as a lawyer.

    “Mandatory sentencing just means we don’t trust judges,” he said. “Judges, believe it or not, can tell the difference between Atilla the Hun and someone who has done wrong. And they have all the power to condemn people accordingly. That’s why we pay them money, that’s what they’re there to do. those decisions and when we don’t let them do that, it hurts the whole system.”

    “I’ve had tough judges when I’ve been before them in court. They weren’t shy about putting people in jail who deserved to go to jail,” Fagan said. “When they deserve to go to jail in this state, they go.”

    “It is important in the administration of justice that we exercise care and discretion,” Fagan said. Judges should “take into account all the things that affected the case before them, including people’s backgrounds, including their contribution to society or lack thereof, including whether they have any prior due process.”

    Shaunna O’Connell “really appreciates Rep. Jim Fagan’s kind words,” a spokesperson for Shaunna O’Connell said when asked about Fagan’s remarks. “Shaunna O’Connell fought to protect innocent children from repeat sex offenders. Anyone who commits the horrific act of violating a child should face a mandatory sentence.”

    What sentence could Shaunna O’Connell face in a domestic assault case

    If convicted, Shaunna O’Connell is charged with assault and battery on a family member could result in a possible prison sentence. The prosecutor, in a legal filing, said he did much evidence to reach a guilty verdictincluding photos of Ted O’Connell’s injuries, a 911 recording, a video of Shaunna O’Connell on top of Ted O’Connell’s car, and statements from Shaunna O’Connell herself.

    “I would find it hard to believe that any reasonable judge would do that,” Fagan said when asked about the possibility of a prison sentence for Shaunna O’Connell. “I would consider it a colossal insult to all sitting judges to think that a sitting judge would do that.”

    Asked if he thought a judge should take into account the fact that this would be Shaunna O’Connell’s first criminal offence, Fagan said: “I think that’s completely reasonable. The average person walking into that court, with their son and daughter appearing in that court, would hope that a judge would be able to consider things like that.”

    “Most people would hope that their family member would have an opportunity to go before a judge where reasonableness is still available,” he added.

    Online Niel
    View all posts

    You Might Also Like