OUI Charges Dropped Against Patrick Fund-raiser
by Aaron Margolis, December 21st, 2006 at 08:18am
It’s all about who you know…particularly if you are a key fund-raiser for governor-elect Deval Patrick.
The Bristol County district attorney yesterday defended throwing out OUI charges against a politically connected socialite who flunked four sobriety tests and two breath tests, blaming red tape for blocking prosecutors from getting the Breathalyzer report.
“This case could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” said DA Paul F. Walsh Jr.
Walsh’s office dropped OUI charges against Suzanne Magaziner last week despite a police report alleging that she twice blew .12 on the Breathalyzer, which is above the legal limit of .08.
But Walsh said his prosecutor, Roger Ferris, decided he had little chance to win the case, mainly because the DA’s office couldn’t get reports proving the accuracy of the breath test machine used in the April 4 arrest.
Another factor was that Magaziner had no prior OUI charges, he added.
Magaziner, 54, is a key fund-raiser for Gov.-elect Deval Patrick. Her husband Ira worked with Patrick in the Clinton administration. Asked whether the woman’s political ties played a role in his decision, Walsh replied: “I voted for Tom Reilly and I voted for George Bush. I don’t know Deval Patrick and I don’t know Bill Clinton and neither of those guys called me.”
So this holiday season, all you fund-raisers for Deval Patrick, have another drink, and if you get pulled over, fail the breathalyzer, and have to go to court, have no fear, your case will be thrown out because you are a fund-raiser for Deval Patrick, and he owes you one.
Entry Filed under: Deval Patrick
7 Comments
1. D. R. Tucker | December 21st, 2006 at 10:39 am
Together, we can…get off scott-free!
2. JK | December 21st, 2006 at 2:13 pm
This is pretty weak and smells of partisan hack journalism.
You don’t even offer any conjector as to why the DA can’t get the needed info on the machine.
While on the face it does appear that this case should have gone forward, it more appears to be a case of lazy, state employees refusing to do their job then any political connection.
Honestly guys, you have to do better then this.
3. jeremiah | December 21st, 2006 at 8:48 pm
“mainly because the DA‚Äôs office couldn‚Äôt get reports proving the accuracy of the breath test machine used in the April 4 arrest.”
WHAT THE F*CK?!?! Look if they can’t prosecute this woman because they are too incompetent to keep records. FIRE THEM! They aren’t doing their job! Duh!
Christ, how fast would they find those reports if their job was on the line? Actually, I guess we can infer that their job *was* on the line, which is why they ‘lost’ the records.
Pathetic. Ridiculous. I cannot believe it. Corrupt even by Massachusetts’ Kennedy standard.
4. wave maker | December 22nd, 2006 at 6:44 am
Are you trying to imply that Patrick intervened with Mr. Walsh and fixed this case? Sounds very so, and that is low-rent.
5. jeremiah | December 22nd, 2006 at 10:08 am
Patrick? I can’t really say. If this IS corruption, any number of big-wigs in his organization would have had the power to do this. Also, it may be the DA or the cops who are to blame.
I’m implying that various big wheels in the Patrick organization made it clear to law enforcement who it was that they pulled over, and DA and/or cops decided for the benefit of their own career advancement that letting her go would be better for all of them.
Either that OR the DA/cops are just plain, old run-of-the-mill incompetent.
Anyways, if the state isn’t awash in corruption, the onus should now be on the DA and police to be punished for their inability to charge a high-ranking member of Patrick’s party. Either bust them for corruption, or bust them for incompetence, but don’t let them get away scott free.
6. wave maker | December 22nd, 2006 at 11:30 am
sorry jer — I was asking Margolis, not you — and the question was rhetorical. But I accept your supposition — that someone made sure to chat with DA Walsh. The cops did their job — they got screwed in the process too. I don’t think the cops were incompetent — and I don’t buy for a moment the “proof of proper operation” baloney. The cops had more than sufficient evidence of intoxication to bring the case to trial, even if the breathalyzer was thrown out.
7. jeremiah | December 22nd, 2006 at 2:03 pm
I didn’t think about that. You’re right that it’s more likely the DA than the cops. Multiple police witnesses should be enough to bring charges, regardless of the condition of the breathalizer machine.