judicially cognizable rape

From the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly:

James J. Kelly, 73, of Leominster, received a myriad of appeals and stays for a pair of 10-year sentences for rape and a five-year sentence for indecent assault and battery. He was convicted in 1988 in Worcester Superior Court in connection with the rape of a former Leominster woman, Debra Hagen, three years before. Following his conviction, Kelly collapsed and was hospitalized and his first sentencing was put off. An unusual cycle or events including lost court transcripts, new appeals, stays and continuances resulted in Kelly’s freedom.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Cordy, in his majority opinion for the court, went on to chastise the Worcester County District Attorney’s office for the lack of action in getting Kelly behind bars.

Justice Cordy further wrote that “the victim of a crime does not have a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution of another.” Heaven help every victim of crime in Worcester County. They must not only forfeit to the District Attorney’s office any interest in the prosecution of the crime against them—which is nothing new at law but still is somewhat counterintuitive. Further, they must entrust their grievance will be adequately redressed by the 26 year-old political machine that is Worcester County District Attorney John Conte’s office, a machine of dubious integrity and flagrant incompetence.

Somebody obviously thinks that James Kelly should not do time for rape. Since District Attorney John Conte is the only person responsible for making sure that the sentence against this convicted rapist gets carried-out, and since Conte has failed in that regard for over fourteen years (Kelly was convicted in 1988), then I think an appropriate punishment for his obstruction of justice would be if Conte and Kelly went to prison together.

They probably have a lot in common.

judicially cognizable rape

One Response to judicially cognizable rape

Archives

Meta