Chuck Turner: “Guilty”, Energized

(The following report is via a third party source. It should not be understood as representing the viewpoint(s) of the Green-Rainbow Party. We re-publish it here and urge everyone to read it, as it represents a valuable source of items missing from most other published accounts of this case--Ed.)

This was a “bizarre” proceeding, according to a headline in the Boston Globe. Veteran Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner from the mainly-black Roxbury district including parts of Fenway, South End, and Dorchester—known for his ardently principled pro-democracy community organizing, his sys tem reform activism, and simple life-style— was on trial in October for “attempted extortion” and three counts of "lying to FBI agents" in his district office. All of which he denied. Here was the rare councilor who had voted "no" on council pay increase. Here was the only councilor who has maintained a district office, at his own expense, to better serve his constituents.

After eight days of testimony and a day and a half of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of "guilty" on all four counts.

A Martignetti wholesale liquor employee had been called to the witness stand in the sparkling glass and marble US District Court on the Boston waterfront. Under systematic questioning by US prosecutor John McNeil, she testified that more than 99 percent of the liquors they—and competing wholesalers—sold to package stores, restaurants, bars, etc., were manufactured out of state. Why such questioning in a local corruption trial? Because this case could not be brought to a federal court unless “interstate commerce” was involved—the alleged briber had wanted a liquor license. A bit of a stretch for FBI involvement in local corruption cases. This also meant that the jury could be—and was—selected from all over the state including areas unfamiliar with Boston doings. Among the sixteen or so jurors and alternates were two black faces, one Asian, and the rest white.

The case against Chuck Turner was based on the notion that he took a bribe to help an applicant named Ron Wilburn to get a liquor license, which had been denied to his nascent supper club in Roxbury, by putting pressure on the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commissioner and/or the Boston Licensing Board. Because a license ultimately was issued to Wilburn’s proposed establish ment, and because as an undercover agent he had been trained and wired (audio and video) and loaded with cash by the FBI, Wilburn appeared in Chuck’s Roxbury of fice “to show his gratitude”—supposedly slipping Chuck $1000 in a handshake. [Disclosure: I have worked with Chuck on var ious Alliance projects and other civic projects, and consider him a friend; hence the familiar appellation.]

Many of the details of the trial are recounted in the accompanying article by Gintautas Dumcius in the Dorchester Reporter. In actuality Chuck was not interested in Wilburn’s getting a license, but in Roxbury and surrounding “minority” areas (south of Massachusetts Avenue) getting their fair share of licenses. Despite those areas having been designated an “economic development zone”, the coveted, money-making licenses had been distributed only to establishments outside this district. To help, Chuck had called a city council hearing on the issue, which was canceled, and supported a state-level bill to increase the number of liquor licenses to be issued.

The trial was largely involved with who said what to whom, when, and for how long, together with showing of the FBI secret video several times. The video, shot through a tiny hole in the FBI’s special briefcase inconspicuously aimed by Wilburn, fuzzily revealed two buff streaks (ignored in the proceedings) and “something” greenish between the two hands in the goodbye handshake following (or preceding?) Wilburn’s audio-recorded comment to “take the wife to dinner.” It could have been a fold ed $50 bill, the maximum cash allowable under Council gift or campaign contribution rules. (Five-hundred dollars is allowed by check.)

Chuck testified that he had no recollection of the incident— he sees 50-60 visitors a month and this was more than three years ago. The prosecutor told the jury that it was the “sly slip” of a $1000 “wad” of cash, implying sly recipient rather than sly agent. Chuck had never asked for anything, nor had he implied favor for favor, nor was there any such evidence. According to Barry Wilson, the defense lawyer, he had been “doing his job” of assuring equitable treatment for people south of Massachusetts Avenue. Read Dumcius’ article for further details. For my court experience and reflections, and for a taste of Chuck's current, post-conviction energy, read on...

Moral Considerations

First, I was aghast at the openness and pride shown by the FBI agents in their undercover work—the scheming and wiretapping and lying and rigging of equipment and dispensing of public money. I was incensed at their immunity from prosecution for doing daily what they prosecute others for—the immorality of it all. Their agent provocateur, Mr. Wilburn, referred to his “doing their dirty work”, and was very angry at the FBI for short-changing him and “hanging me out to dry” (after they paid him $29,099 for similar work on both state senator Dianne Wilker son and Chuck Turner )—exposing him, thereby ruining his later chances for certain employment or business deals. (Fol low ing the trial Chuck referred to Wilburn, who also is black, as a “puppet” and “handkerchief-head”.)

Here was a case where the FBI knew that their victim was the most honest and dedicated politician in the city, but an active critic of the system of greed and corruption long evident on Beacon Hill. So they set out to make a criminal of him. To my mind, their business should be to find criminals and gather evidence to convict them—criminals whose activities have had a significant detrimental effect on the commonwealth, like the big fish in the State House who over time have taken hundreds of thousands in kickbacks. (Chuck testified that possibly 90 percent of Boston politicians are corrupt, himself among the other 10 percent, which seemed to rankle the prosecutor.)

The next thing that struck me was the niggling and myopic processes of the courtroom. Every word uttered by a witness must be instantly calculated to be “true” but inoffensive, avoid ing the loaded terms introduced by the prosecutor. Hesitation is a minus. The defense called only one witness (against the advice of counsel): Chuck Turner himself. Why didn’t they also call a law professor with a degree in philosophy to explain what “lying” or “extortion” really were? These concepts—charges— are often complex and contextually nuanced. Yet Reagan-appointed Judge Woodlock let the jury be focused on the pas sing of cash, yes or no, endlessly repeated by the prosecutor. To my mind, “extortion” refers to premeditated, forcefully and underhandedly seeking to take something valuable from some body—literally, “twisting out”. Was Michael J. Sullivan, the Bush-appointed US district attorney who sicced the FBI onto Chuck in 2007, prac ticing extortion when he unethically moved local cases to his federal jurisdiction? (After the trial Chuck told his supporters that Clinton-appointed US district court Judge Nancy Gertner accused Sullivan of as much, the accompanying lies forcing cases to be dropped.) It is rumored that Sullivan was trying to prosecute a sensational case to help him become the next Governor. Extortion?—Chuck evidenced no such mo tive. So conversely, what is “enticement”—an action by the FBI, not the defendant? Lead us not into temptation... Still, as Wilburn told a reporter, “they are going to crucify his ass.”

The judge interrupted now and then to caution the witnesses and the prosecutor and defense lawyer to stick to the narrow details of the case, to refer only to oral testimony given in that courtroom in that trial and written documents and recordings shown there, and to block from their mouths and ears unauthor ized contextual information. For example, the judge admonish ed the jury not to think of “entrapment”—motives for choosing targets of sting operations. With limited context, how can jurors form meaningful conceptions of “knowing” and “willing” actions —as opposed to inadvertently receiving something? It's a bit like testing chemicals in a test-tube, isolated from the many elements of their natural environments, with arbitrarily chosen reagents, and with only yes-or-no results. And the jury were not to consider the harm done or not done by the subject of the charges (or perhaps by the prosecutor). Nor the consequences of conviction.

Energy

All these misgivings seemed to melt away as I listened to Chuck Turner, free on bail, speak extemporaneously to a crowd of about 200 on the lawn in front of his Roxbury office the chilly day after the verdict. Chuck was in highly energetic form. After a long historical introduction highlighting an emerging fascistic regime here, he viewed the prospect of jail as one of joining the distinguished company of others unjustly imprisoned. He com mented on the unsavory character of Wilburn and his associ ates, and on the racist motives and lack of shame of prosecutor McNeil and the FBI in trying to destabilize the community of color—where progress is being made in empowering workers and the unemployed, and against discrimination—racial, gen der, and economic. His strategy, he said, is first to build eco nomic democracy, prioritizing the building of public infra structure with jobs for people of all backgrounds.

Chuck emphasized the importance of moral education for children—not buying into the philosophy of white male supremacy—as well as systemic understanding, involving both mind and heart. “Our purpose on earth is not to party, but to bring about [positive] change,” he said. He vowed, as a life-long organizer, that he would organize in prison (if he landed there). In part because this could rankle authorities and because he could accomplish more by continuing to organize in the com munity, he is asking his supporters to recommend that Judge Woodlock grant probation when he passes sentence on Jan uary 25th. He also asks supporters to write to Michael Ross, current president of the city council, to postpone council action on his possible removal from the council until Judge Woodlock pronounces sentence.

On January 25th we shall see whether the Court is complicitous in the immorality of sting, and the persecution of radicals who challenge the largely corrupt system.

Please Note: Addresses are: Hon. Michael Ross, President, Boston City Council, One City Hall Square, Suite 550, Boston MA 02201-2043. Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, United States District Judge, One Court house Way, Suite 2300, Boston MA 02210. Please send your letter for Judge Woodlock to Hon. Chuck Turner, Boston City Council, One City Hall Square, Suite 550, Boston MA 02201-2043, for passing on to the Probation Office which advises the judge.