Opinion ID: 2074925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conduct relating to acquisition of 1963 volkswagen

Text: 1. On December 15, 1977, William E. Gearhart (Gearhart) was present for arraignment in the Roxbury District Court on four complaints: operating an unregistered vehicle; operating an uninsured vehicle, operating without a valid driver's license and operating without a registration in his possession. 2. Gearhart had been stopped by an M.D.C. policeman on November 11, 1977 and his 1963 Volkswagen was towed from Charlesgate East and was stored at a Brighton towing company. 3. When he appeared before Judge McKenney on December 15, 1977, Gearhart had accumulated towing costs and thirty-four days of storage charges. Gearhart lived in the Back Bay, parked in the street and had accumulated eleven unpaid parking tickets in various parts of the City of Boston. The parking tickets were not before the Roxbury District Court on December 15, 1977. 4. Before appearing in court, Gearhart considered that he faced storage and towing charges of a couple hundred dollars, possible fines of $100 or more and approximately $110 in parking tickets. Gearhart was without sufficient funds to pay any substantial fine which might be imposed or any substantial storage costs or parking tickets. 5. Before the case was called, Gearhart talked with the prosecuting officer about the charges. Gearhart testified that he was advised that the charges were serious and could result in a criminal record. Gearhart, who had never been in court before and was nervous and uncomfortable, asked the officer what to do. The officer advised him to address the Court and Gearhart decided to do so. Gearhart stated that he wanted to minimize any exposure or expense and that he wished to make a deal whereby he would give up the Volkswagen and the charges would be dismissed. The officer also told Gearhart that the Volkswagen was worth at least $5000 and tried to persuade him not to abandon it. The officer said that if the automobile was given up it was his experience that Judge McKenney would place the cases on file. Gearhart had come to Court that morning prepared to relinquish the Volkswagen in lieu of paying any money. 6. When the case was called, Gearhart immediately addressed the Court and told Judge McKenney that the car had been impounded, that he relinquished it. His intention was that he was relinquishing it to the Commonwealth. Judge McKenney asked what he meant by relinquished and whether there had been a bill of sale. There was testimony that Judge McKenney also asked what kind of car was involved and how much it was worth. Gearhart said it was a Volkswagen in good condition and in his opinion worth about $450. Judge McKenney indicated there were persons interested in that kind of car and that perhaps even someone in the courtroom might buy it. He instructed Gearhart to go outside with a court officer and work out the matter. The case was then suspended and a recess occurred at sometime before lunch. 7. The colloquy between Judge McKenney and Gearhart was of some amusement to the spectators and lawyers in the courtroom and there was laughter and comment from some of the lawyers in the front rows. 8. After the proceedings described in paragraph 6, Gearhart met with the court officer in a room outside the courtroom. Gearhart agreed to give the court officer a Bill of Sale for $1.00. A Bill of Sale was written out and signed by Gearhart. Before he signed, Gearhart asked what would happen to the charges against him and the amounts Gearhart considered to be owed by him. 9. According to Gearhart's testimony, the court officer assured him that the charges would be filed. According to the court officer, he said he would check with Judge McKenney, did so, was advised by Judge McKenney that the charges would be filed, and returned to give this information to Gearhart. Judge McKenney denied this conversation with the court officer. 10. Judge McKenney and the court officer had a conversation during the recess. According to the court officer, he asked the Judge what to do about the defendant with the 1963 Volkswagen which had towing and storage charges and the Judge said that the court officer should buy the car and then sell it back to him (Judge McKenney). According to the Judge, the court officer said that he wanted to buy the Volkswagen and that it would be a good car for us on the island (a reference to Martha's Vineyard where the Judge operated a charter fishing business and the court officer owned land), and the Judge testified he said OK in response to the court officer's statement and did not see anything wrong in the court officer's buying the car. 11. When Gearhart signed the Bill of Sale, he believed that the charges against him would be filed and that he would have no further expense by way of tickets, storage charges or towing expenses. In his mind, he had estimated $100 or more in possible fines (no fines were in fact ever imposed); $100-$150 in storage (34 days); $20 in towing charges and about $110 in parking tickets. He therefore believed that the value of his car was approximately equal to this total aggregate expense. 12. Gearhart testified that the court officer returned and told him the charges would be filed. Geahart gave the court officer the key to the Volkswagen and left with the assurance he could later pick up his personal effects from the car. 13. Gearhart believed that he had made an arrangement whereby his surrender of the car satisfied all obligations to the Court and the towing company arising out of the criminal charges against him and the parking violations which he thought were outstanding. 14. According to the court officer, he returned to the Court after Gearhart left, and was asked by Judge McKenney if the matter had been taken care of. The court officer said it had. 15. Judge McKenney had no memory of the events which took place in the courtroom that day and did not remember the case or Gearhart. 16. The court officer called the Brighton towing company about the Volkswagen. Because the car was unregistered and uninsured, MDC permission had to be obtained to release the car. The court officer asked a police sergeant at the Court to arrange this release. The towing company records show an MDC clearance (Exh. 9). 17. According to the court officer, he and another court officer picked up the Volkswagen that day at the towing company and returned it to the courthouse, parking it in the courthouse parking lot, and he told Judge McKenney he had obtained the car and showed it to him. 18. The 1963 Volkswagen had some body damage and according to the court officer, at Judge McKenney's request, he took the car to a body shop where the car was later repaired and Judge McKenney reimbursed the court officer for the expense. The owner of the body shop returned the Volkswagen to the Roxbury District Court parking lot. 19. All charges against Gearhart were placed on file without a finding (Exh. 10A-D) and no costs or fines were ever imposed on him. 20. Sometime before December 29, 1977, the court officer gave Judge McKenney a Bill of Sale from him to Judge McKenney in the amount of $50, the amount paid to the Brighton towing company. Judge McKenney testified that the court officer either made him a gift of the car or that he reimbursed the court officer for the amounts spent by him. An unsigned copy of the Bill of Sale (Exh. 11) from the court officer to Judge McKenney was produced by Judge McKenney. A copy of the $1 Bill of Sale from Gearhart to the court officer was not produced either by the court officer or Judge McKenney. Gearhart testified that he did not keep a copy. 21. About December 29, 1977, the court officer was instructed by Judge McKenney to register the Volkswagen. He went to the office of the insurance company with the Bill of Sale to Judge McKenney and completed the RMV-1 which showed a transfer of the Volkswagen from the court officer to Judge McKenney (Exh. 12). The court officer signed Judge McKenney's name. The court officer then took the papers to the Registry and registered the Volkswagen in Judge McKenney's name with the principal place of garaging at Oak Bluffs. The court officer paid the registration fees and sales tax by checks and Judge McKenney later reimbursed him in cash. The registration transferred to the Volkswagen was MS-38, a vanity plate Judge McKenney had previously been issued. 22. When the court officer returned from the Registry, he gave Judge McKenney the Volkswagen registration which was the yellow copy of the RMV-1. Judge McKenney thereafter immediately loaned or gave the vehicle to female probation officer [Marcia S.] for her use in going to college. 23. The 1963 Volkswagen was registered and insured in 1978 in Judge McKenney's name and he paid the insurance premiums for 1978. Probation officer [Marcia S.] used the Volkswagen continuously in 1978 and it was still in use at the time of the hearing. 24. On June 24, 1978 Judge McKenney dictated a Bill of Sale selling the Volkswagen to probation officer [Marcia S.] and stating a payment of $100.00 (Exh. 13). There was no actual sale of the Volkswagen on that date and no money was paid. C. CONDUCT RELATING TO PROBATION OFFICER [ MARY B. ] 1. Probation officer [Mary B.] would invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to testify. 2. [Mary B.] was switchboard operator at the Roxbury District Court when Judge McKenney first met her. She was then 23 years old and a night student at the University of Massachusetts. 3. [Mary B.] did not have a college degree when Judge McKenney gave her her first 90-day appointment as a temporary probation officer on January 30, 1975 (Exh. 14). 4. On April 14, 1975, Judge McKenney reappointed [Mary B.] as a temporary probation officer for a second 90-day period commencing on April 16, 1975 (Exh. 15). 5. On July 15, 1975, Judge McKenney gave [Mary B.] a third appointment as a temporary probation officer until October 15, 1975 (Exh. 16). 6. In November 1975, Judge McKenney made a fourth 90-day temporary appointment of [Mary B.] as a probation officer until January 15, 1976 (Exh. 17). 7. On January 26, 1976, Judge McKenney made a fifth 90-day temporary appointment to [Mary B.] to April 13, 1976 (Exh. 18). 8. The five separate 90-day temporary appointments given to [Mary B.] permitted her to obtain the one year of social service work necessary to qualify for appointment as a probation officer. 9. On April 14, 1976, Judge McKenney appointed [Mary B.] a permanent probation officer. She had received her college degree at that time (Exh. 19). All of Judge McKenney's appointments of [Mary B.] were approved by the Commissioner of Probation. 10. In September 1978, Judge McKenney submitted [Mary B.]'s name for approval for designation as an Assistant Chief Probation Officer (Exh. 20). The Commissioner of Probation responded that Judge McKenney would be required to provide additional information for consideration of approval (Exh. 21). That further information was never provided and the appointment was never approved or disapproved. 11. Judge McKenney visited [Mary B.] at her home in the evenings in 1977 and 1978 at the rate of approximately once a month. 12. Judge McKenney visited [Mary B.]'s home and was an overnight guest on two or three occasions. [Mary B.] accompanied him on a one-day fishing trip to Hyannis in 1978. 13. In December 1978, Judge McKenney went to Bermuda and was accompanied by Ms. [B.]. They stayed at a two-bedroom suite in the Southhampton Princess which was provided by a [Boston travel company]. 14. Judge McKenney testified that [Mary B.] accompanied him to Bermuda as his nurse. He denied any sexual relations. 15. [Mary B.] accompanied Judge McKenney to Anthony's Pier Four on one occasion and to the Harvard Club on a couple of occasions, and she was a guest at luncheons in Judge McKenney's chambers. 16. [Mary B.]'s employment was consistent with a minority recruitment program being carried out in the Roxbury District Court. D. CONDUCT RELATING TO PROBATION OFFICER [ MARCIA S. ] 1. Probation officer [Marcia S.] would invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against incrimination and refuse to testify. 2. [Marcia S.] was first appointed as a temporary probation officer on January 4, 1977 (Exh. 22). At that time she had no college degree. 3. [Marcia S.] was reappointed by Judge McKenney for 90 days on April 5, 1977 (Exh. 23) and for 6 months on August 10, 1977. 4. In August 1977, Judge McKenney personally appeared on behalf of [Marcia S.] before the Probation Committee (Exh. 24) after the Commissioner of Probation had declined to approve an extension of her temporary appointment because she had no college degree. 5. After Judge McKenney's appearance, the Probation Committee approved the extension of her temporary appointment conditioned on her obtaining a degree (which was then anticipated in June 1978) (Exh. 25). 6. On April 28, 1978 Judge McKenney appointed [Marcia S.] Temporary Assistant Chief Probation Officer (Exh. 26). At that time she still had not received her college degree. 7. On June 12, 1979 Judge McKenney appointed [Marcia S.] permanent Assistant Chief Probation Officer. At that time she had obtained her degree. 8. [Marcia S.] was permitted by the Chief Probation Officer, with Judge McKenney's awareness, to attend college classes during the day and through Judge McKenney's efforts, received supplementary income from the grant which funded the pre-trial diversion program. 9. Judge McKenney visited [Marcia S.] at her home after court hours and was an overnight guest there on a couple of occasions. He denied any sexual relationship. Judge McKenney further testified that he and [Ms. S.] were once on the same plane for Bermuda and that while there, he took her to lunch. 10. In 1978 and 1979, [Ms. S.] drove the 1963 Volkswagen which had been previously owned by a Roxbury District Court defendant and which had been registered on December 29, 1977 in Judge McKenney's name, and on January 2, 1979 was registered in [Ms. S.]'s name. The plate used was MS-38, a plate issued to Judge McKenney or his family. 11. Before her employment at the Roxbury District Court, [Marcia S.] had been associated with a program for the Diversion of Female Offenders, an LEAA program which resulted in her appearance from time to time in the Roxbury District Court. 12. While employed as a Probation Officer and Temporary Assistant Chief Probation Officer, [Marcia S.] was competent in carrying out her duties as head of the Pretrial Diversion Program in the Roxbury District Court. E. CONDUCT RELATING TO COURT OFFICER JOSEPH DRAGO 1. Joseph Drago is a former building superintendent of the Roxbury District Court (job title  Senior Building Custodian) who became a Court Officer in 1977. 2. From 1952 to 1975 Mr. Drago was employed by the Real Property Department of the City of Boston as a Building Custodian. 3. Contained in the personnel files of the City of Boston is a letter dated 1/14/75 concerning Mr. Drago (Exh. 27). Thereafter, as a result of a doctor's letter (Exh. 28), Drago was placed on leave without pay by the Real Property Department, which, with extensions, lasted more than two years, until Judge McKenney appointed him a Court Officer. 4. Drago's personnel record with the City of Boston is annexed as Exhibit 29. 5. In 1971 as Building Superintendent for the new Roxbury District Courthouse, Mr. Drago first met and later became friendly with Judge McKenney. 6. On April 27, 1977 while Mr. Drago was still on a leave of absence without pay from his job with the Real Property Department, Judge McKenney appointed him a Court Officer at a salary of $264.75 per week. 7. Judge McKenney denied that he had any knowledge of the facts contained in Mr. Drago's personnel file with the City of Boston. 8. In June 1977, Judge McKenney promoted Mr. Drago to Assistant Chief Court Officer (Exh. 30). 9. In 1976 Judge McKenney gave Mr. Drago one of two tour conductor airline tickets to Hawaii which Judge McKenney had received from Mr. H. Lowe. Thereafter Mr. Drago accompanied Judge McKenney to Hawaii. 10. Mr. Drago has resided for at least thirty years at 35 Worley Street, West Roxbury. He also rented and lived in penthouse apartment 41E at Harbor Towers, Boston. 11. Mr. Drago gave Judge McKenney a key to the Harbor Towers apartment to be used by Judge McKenney on unspecified occasions. Judge McKenney used the apartment in Drago's absence. 12. Judge McKenney made a trip to Washington in 1978 at Mr. Drago's expense to speak personally with Senator Brooke about assisting Mr. Drago's business  Creative Industries of Boston  in its relationship with the General Services Administration. 13. On July 14, 1978 Mr. Drago entered the Faulkner Hospital with symptoms of acute appendicitis. Surgery was performed on July 15, 1978. Mr. Drago underwent further surgery on July 20, 1978. Mr. Drago was discharged from the hospital on August 1, 1978. He did not return to work until December 8, 1978 although he was seen in the Courthouse in October 1978. 14. Judge McKenney testified that shortly after Drago's operation he visited him in the hospital. Drago was still seriously ill and had tubes inserted in various parts of his body. Judge McKenney further testified that he asked Drago whether he had sufficient sick leave and Drago replied that he did. 15. On October 26, 1978 Judge Baron Martin, who had assumed some of the administrative duties in the Roxbury District Court, asked Mr. Drago to substantiate his claim of accrued sick leave (Exh. 31). 16. Judge Martin requested three times that Mr. Drago produce substantiation but by January 2, 1979, Mr. Drago had not done so. Judge Martin then advised Mr. Drago that he had not alternative but to assume that no substantiation existed (Exh. 32). 17. A doctor's letter of December 8, 1978 with respect to Mr. Drago's availability for work (Exh. 33) was unsatisfactory to Judge Martin, and another letter was received dated January 22, 1979 saying Drago was allowed to return to part-time work on December 8, 1978. 18. Following Exh. 32 from Judge Martin, Mr. Drago delivered a document dated November 21, 1978 addressed to To Whom It May Concern from a Mr. Thomas Gately of the Real Property Department of the City of Boston (Exh. 34) which stated that Drago had accumulated 148 days of sick leave. 19. Mr. Gately has no recollection of having signed that document, and the document does not contain his proper title. Mr. Gately acknowledged that his signature was genuine. 20. The To Whom It May Concern memo signed by Mr. Gately was not in the personnel files of Mr. Drago at the Real Property Department of the City of Boston, and was not seen by Judge McKenney until after January 2, 1979. 21. No time records or time cards or other original records as of 1977 were located showing that Drago had 148 days of accumulated sick leave from his City of Boston employment. 22. Neither Judge McKenney nor anyone at the Roxbury District Court had requested Mr. Drago's sick leave record or his employment record from Boston City Hall, nor was there may any communication between City Hall and the Roxbury District Court on these subjects. 23. Judge McKenney never discussed Mr. Drago's accrued sick leave with Chief Court Officer Bush. 24. During his testimony in December, 1979, Mr. Drago produced a certificate by Chief Court Officer John Bush (Exh. 35) purporting to be an extract from records kept by Bush in 1978. Mr. Drago's six-month absence is not noted in the original records kept by Chief Court Officer Bush. 25. Between July 1978 and December 1978 and at other times, Judge McKenney routinely signed payroll records for the employees of the Roxbury District Court. These records included the name of Joseph Drago without any indication or notation that Mr. Drago was sick or otherwise absent. Mr. Drago was paid for the entire period July-December 1978 during which he was absent due to illness. 26. Judge McKenney's signature on the Roxbury District Court payroll followed the certification which stated that ... The persons listed on this roll were employed during the payroll period covered by the roll and actually performed the duties and employments indicated... F. CONDUCT RELATING TO THOMAS J. HANNON, ESQ. 1. Judge McKenney first met Attorney Thomas J. Hannon at a barbecue in 1972; 2. Mr. Hannon has been present in various establishments such as Charlies Eating and Drinking Saloon on Newbury Street and Baxters (on Cape Cod) where Judge McKenney was also present; 3. Judge McKenney and Mr. Hannon were part of a group of boat owners who socialized on some summer weekends; 4. Mr. Hannon was present at luncheons served in Judge McKenney's chambers in the Roxbury District Court. 5. Mr. Hannon and his family visited Judge McKenney on Christmas Eve 1979; 6. Judge McKenney has spent a good deal of [his] leisure hours with.... [Attorney] Hannon; 7. Mr. Hannon was appointed as counsel for indigents at least 57 times in 1978 not including appointments in October and November 1978. Records for those two months are missing but the average number of appointments for the preceding six months was six per month. 8. Mr. Hannon was suggested by Judge McKenney to non-indigent defendants which resulted in Mr. Hannon's engagement as counsel. There is no record of the number of such occasions. 9. In 1976, nineteen lawyers received compensation in excess of $2,000 for the representation of indigents. Mr. Hannon received $3,612.50 which was the ninth largest amount received. Four lawyers received more than $4,000. 10. In 1977, nineteen lawyers received compensation in excess of $2,000 for the representation of indigents. Mr. Hannon received $4,992.50 which was the fourth largest amount received. Three lawyers received more compensation, i.e., $10,300.00, $9,029.00 and $5,157.00. 11. In 1978, twenty lawyers received compensation in excess of $2,300 for the representation of indigents. Mr. Hannon received $6,287.50 which was the seventh largest amount received. Four lawyers received $10,000 or more, and two other lawyers received $7,571.50 and $6,382.00 respectively. G. CONDUCT RELATING TO THE TAPE RECORDING OF ARRAIGNMENTS 1. Judge McKenney's announced policy was that there would be no tape recording in the arraignment session over which he presided. His policy with respect to refusal to permit tape recording was well known to lawyers who appeared before Judge McKenney and he made no effort to conceal it. 2. Judge McKenney never permitted the tape recording of a police officer's testimony at an arraignment and, on his own motion, never tried tape recording the arraignment session to see how it would work. 3. The evidence indicated one specific request of Judge McKenney for tape recording an arraignment in late October 1978. In that case Judge McKenney did not permit the tape recording in his session but sent the matter to another session to be tape recorded. 4. Judge McKenney's reasons for refusing tape recording were that it delayed the arraignment session, was impractical because it would require records such as probation and clinical reports to be read into the record and that tape recording interfered with his working out flexible solutions to cases before him. H. CONDUCT RELATING TO SERVICES OF COURT OFFICERS 1. Court officers performed numerous personal errands for Judge McKenney including: a. Taking Judge McKenney's cars to the service station, garage or dealer for washing, servicing or maintenance; taking papers to the insurance company and to the Registry to effect insurance and registration for Judge McKenney; obtaining repair plates for use on the Cadillac. b. Preparation and serving of meals at the Roxbury District Court including setting up of the table, food preparation and assistance in cooking, clearing tables, washing dishes, buying food and keeping accounts. c. Picking up and delivering packages and personal property. 2. Judge McKenney was a gourmet cook and did the major part of the cooking for the luncheons at the Roxbury District Court. 3. The luncheons at the Roxbury District Court were attended by Judges, some probation officers, some court officers, business persons, community leaders and other personalities. There was no evidence that the cost of food was paid from public funds. 4. Judge McKenney testified that the court officers performed the above services in order to conserve his time for judicial services and because he was concerned about judges venturing into the Roxbury community during lunch and dinner hours.