A prosecutor's core philosophy should distinguish between cases where individuals are hurting others (requiring accountability) versus cases where they are hurting themselves (requiring help). This approach supports alternative justice programs like drug court, veterans court, and emerging adults court, which provide treatment and rehabilitation instead of incarceration for nonviolent offenses, particularly for young adults whose brains continue developing until age 25.
拡張機能をインストールして、あらゆる動画内を即座に検索しましょう
Greg Connor for DA New Interview追加:
[music] Neon [music] lights cutting through the night.
City [music] streets they call out to the fight.
The skyline [music] homes alone never still.
Chasing dreams, we run against the thrill.
>> [music] >> Your heart to the flow in a pulse of the street. [music] We rise, we fall, where the shadows meet. [music] Underneath the lights, where the ones they'll talk about.
You're wild and free. Let it all scream out.
Jerks, what up? What up?
Rocking and rolling right now.
What is up, Moneymike is back. I love that Afro Man video. I love that video. SK27, the song is great. The video is awesome. Afro man is awesome in it.
Ed is also in it. Ed, Ed is in it. Ed Flynn, Boston City Council, Ed Flynn is also in it. What's up, chat? Good to see you all back here.
I can't believe how hot it is in May right now and how much it's going to swing. It's going to get cold and rainy this weekend. But gez, right now it is very warm. Even here, this is like the coolest room.
Usually we have the central ear going and gez. Usually I have some type of sweatshirt on in here cuz it's colder down here and I am hot even with just a t-shirt right now. Wow.
I hope people are staying cool. Drink lots of water today.
How's everybody doing? Some trolls were in the chat earlier. We had some trolls.
Let's see if any trolls come back. I think there was one earlier, but we made them we made them wait. I don't know if that troll stuck around.
The goals are very triggered today. I don't know what got them going. They're all fired up. [laughter] We're having too much fun over here.
We're just chilling, just moving on, doing our content.
When they take a swing at us, we throw a little jab, punch them in the nose, you know. That's pretty much it. [sighs] rhetorically, you know, not not literal, not not not in real life. This is just, you know, with words, but it's mostly laughter here lately.
Um, I've been quite enjoying it.
What I'm enjoying now is knowing that my slow season is starting to come in the dog walk business, which I'm looking forward to. I'm looking forward to having some Fridays off, completely off.
maybe just go drive in and do the Grace Curly Show as a guest live in studio.
I'm looking forward to doing that.
That's going to be happening probably in June.
I got the video up.
[snorts] Dish got more signatures than anyone.
Interesting. How do you know how many signatures he got?
That's usually kind of a flex um for ballot initiatives if they got a lot more signatures just so they can say that. But for campaigns, it's really not because it's almost like it's wasted resources at a certain point. But uh that's interesting. I'm wondering how many signatures you got because those are voters. I mean that that's that's the remember I was always talking about how donations from the district. The reason I focus on that so much is cuz those are voters and and signatures are voters too. So yeah, I do have the nice tan. I'm thinking about doing the uh doing doing the tank top because I already have the uh you know what do we call that? The farmer's tan. I already have it. I already have the farmer's tan because this is what I too. I walk dogs for a living.
So, yeah, I got the tan going. I think I'm going to have to put on a tank top just to get my shoulders some color too, a little bit.
Um, so let's watch this video. This is uh Greg Connor. And what's interesting is there's going to be at least three different forums almost like debates.
Uh, different town committees, Democrat town committees are holding them. I think there's one in Medway. I know there's one in Canton and maybe like Brooklyn or something like that. Yeah, there's like three different towns that's going to be upcoming DA forum where all the candidates it looks like are going to be there and people get to ask them some questions.
Usually those questions are highly moderated. They usually have to write it down and the moderator decides whether they're going to ask the question or not. But, uh, there's forums coming up and if you're somebody that's on [snorts] social media or YouTube or Twitter, might be a good opportunity to try to get some uh, questions answered in person. Soon as they step off the stage, pull out your camera phone, ask a question.
If anyone wants to do that for me, if anyone wants to get some content for us, I'd actually offer you some money for it, too. hit me up. Especially if it's exclusive to us or we get to we get to play it first.
Let's watch this. This is Stoen Politics with uh this guy Greg Connor.
Do I got the wrong video up? I do. Hold on a second. I got the wrong video.
Here we go.
[music] Hello and welcome to Stoen Politics with this guy. I'm your host Noah Beta Haron and I am here today interviewing Greg Connor who is our sixth Democratic candidate for district attorney to come on the show which is very exciting.
Possibly the last because um uh >> you got to give it to Noah. You got all six candidates on.
I thought I was covering the race. Like I was the first one probably to have a candidate on in the race.
I've had How many have I had? I think I've only had two candidates on actually because I had uh Junah Perkins over and over again. And I also had um Jimmy Jimmy Jimmy Barricat.
But uh you know Connor's definitely not going to come on here and and uh Dish hasn't gotten back. So well he did get back but then they didn't really get back if you know what I mean. Um but Noah Noah got all six. That says something good for Noah and uh Stoton Politics. If you want to watch this, this is on YouTube. This is uh this is I I want to say Canton Community Television. It's on Stoton I think community television. It's there cable access. Stoen and the show is Stoen Politics with this guy. Noah, he's a good host. I like Noah. Some people uh gave him some push back. I like Noah. He actually commented too on the last review we did. He he said he actually uh when he was preparing to interview some of these candidates, he said he watched our interviews. He watched my YouTube my interviews with Judah Perkins, for instance, and and uh got some ideas for his interviews and shows. So, it's pretty cool that he's watching me while I was watching him, and we're it's like a meta thing. We're both watching each other. So, uh, I want to thank Noah for doing these interviews. This is going to be a good one. I'm looking forward to watching this.
>> Uh, oh my goodness, I'm forgetting Jubenville's first name.
>> Oh, Bob.
>> Bob Jubenville. Thank you.
Has Last time I called the uh the Secretary of State's office or not Secretary of State, whatever.
>> Secretary of the Commonwealth.
>> Yeah, Secretary of the Commonwealth. Um, last time I called the office, they said he hadn't yet submitted signatures, so I I don't know if he's going to. um and therefore possibly our last Democratic candidate. Um so, >> thanks for the update. I didn't >> Thanks so much for coming.
>> Excellent.
>> Uh we're going to start out with just like the simplest stuff. Give me your your regular pitch, your background, your credentials.
>> Oh, okay.
>> What What's your elevator pitch for why you ought to be >> get to know Greg? Um sure. So, uh I grew up in this county, but I'm fourth generation Northfor County resident. My grandparents grew up in Brooklyn. Dad grew up in Norwood. Mom grew up in Walpole. They um she grew up in Medfield. They raised my brothers and myself in Walpole. I'm a second generation Norfor County prosecutor. My dad was a prosecutor in the DA's office from 68 to 75. Uh I went to Severe BC BC Law and joined the office. I was an intern in 96 under Delah Hunt and then I joined the office in 2001 under Bill Keading.
>> Okay.
>> Uh my wife and I live in Milton. It's where we raised our two girls. And so I've been >> just gotta say living in Milton [laughter] went to BC High and then BC Zavaria. I mean it just it's just funny. It's like the stereotypical he it's just [laughter] oh man I'm just laughing. So he he's just like the rest of them.
>> Go ahead.
>> In Milton since ' 05. And so, uh, in March of this year, I left the office to run for office after 25 years in the office. Uh, I'm running because I had the opportunity to see who else was out there, and I thought that I would bring the most amount of experience uh to this this job, having been a prosecutor in the county for 25 years, leading several different units within the office. But, uh, the work wasn't done. you know, I had the opportunity to be a part of some great programs and I want to continue those and build on those and that's why I'm running. I also when I joined the office as an intern in 96, I got to see a gold standard in prosecution. What the Delahun office had done uh I think the rest of the country was looking to as far as how to approach domestic violence. And so I had a great amount of pride being a part of that office. I wanted to be an employee of that office and that's when I waited for Bill Keen to hire me and I want the rest of Norfor County to have that pride in their their office. I want the people to feel that they are if they're victims, they're being heard and realize that people like myself are going out there fighting for them. So that's that's why I'm running.
>> What are some of the programs that you're particularly proud of? Well, so I got in March of 2001 and the drug court in Quinsey District Court had been founded, but I actually got to help had been created, but I helped develop it from there. And drug court is a great program for people that are facing incarceration, but instead of that, they're getting treatment for addiction issues.
It's intense and it's not a rubber stamp because the idea is to get them to this point where they're going to be able to maintain sobriety afterwards and it's not easy, right? Sobriety is not a silver bullet type scenario. You we got to give everyone the most amount of ability to do it. And so drug court I helped get to develop that, help figure out who are the right people that should be going into the program. And then in 200 2011 time frame, I got to help create a veterans court. And that was not only was that dealing with vets who were dealing with addiction issues, but it was mental health issues.
>> And so we also realized that in order for this to be successful, we should be having vets involved in it. I'm not a vet, so I kind of dialed back. And we had JAG core members that are in my office that became integral to that program and really ran with it. And so I'd like to the next program I think that we can do is what would be called an emerging adults court and in the western part of the state they have one.
They they started it a while ago but in 2024 a decision came down by the Supreme Judicial Court uh called the Mattis decision and in that decision the SJC recognizes that the riskreward analysis of young adults is not the same as when they get older. Not a big surprise. I know that it wasn't for me. I I made a lot of silly I made some mistakes when I was younger and got second chances out of those >> and so this program is designed for that. And >> nobody asked him about his second chances and his mistakes. I would like to hear about those >> and so now the western part of the state they talk their their program goes 18 to 21 18 to 24. I was looking to do 18 to 21 but I'm open to discussion. I think you really have to be open to different uh points of view on this, but the idea is is that young adults charged with certain nonviolent offenses would have their cases diverted, which means they wouldn't be having a conviction. They would have no criminal record, >> but they would get the treatment they need for addiction issues, mental health issues, help them get education, help them get professional lensure or help them get employment. And so at the end of it, they have no criminal record, but they've gotten the same resource they would have got had they been convicted and they had probation. So it's a pre-trial or predisposition type program so that we give people a second chance.
And that's what one of the things I want to capitalize off of. Uh, you know, other No, I interrupted you.
>> No, no, I'm You didn't interrupt. I'm seeking to interrupt you. Um I is there any thought towards expanding that at some point to certain violent offenses because not because I'm all in favor of violence but because you know I know teenagers also they get into fights they you know like >> so >> they're they're no more developed >> I see a couple friend right >> so I see a couple issues with that the program is a predisposition program >> and when you deal with say drug offenses yeah >> those drugs are going to sit in an evidence locker and not going to be touched and that case can be tried almost whenever. Right.
>> Right.
>> When you do that to a victim, you've delayed that victim from getting justice. And so [clears throat] I have a very kind of simple philosophy to prosecution. If you're hurting others, we want you to be held accountable. If you're hurting yourself, we want to get you help. So like that's really where I >> So the distinction with the violent versus nonviolent offenses is that nonviolent offenses don't tend to have hurt somebody.
>> Right. Right. And so that's the idea behind it is that if you need help, let's get you help. But if you are hurting other people, victims have to be the the primary focus of a DA's office.
And we can't have them being waiting to have their cases uh adjudicated.
We have to keep going forward.
>> That doesn't mean a victim couldn't be a part of this. Right.
>> Right. Because presumably shoplifting nonviolent, but there is a victim.
Right. Right.
>> But you know, it's it I think that if let's say your scenario is that someone gets into a fist fight.
>> Yeah.
>> Um is that the person if that's the fist fight scenario, does that person need the intensive treatment, the defendant, does that need the intensive treatment we're talking about opposed to I'm talk I'm thinking about people that are getting caught with cocaine, meth, stuff like that where if you're getting caught, it's not your first time.
>> Yeah.
>> It's the first time you got caught, >> right? So those are the people that might need some help and they've their life has gone off the >> track like this. I gotta say like it's like dude you're 25 years behind. Like great dude you you caught up to the last 25 years about uh drug laws. Great stuff that I was arguing 25 years ago. You've caught up to it, Greg.
Great. But what about the science? what what Noah is really probably pointing to what JFK points to a lot brain development of young people don't mature and develop a brain until they're age 25 and how often young people can do crazy awful [ __ ] as a young person and then be re what do we call that rehabilitated saved given a second chance given in the right environment. Environment means so much to young people and he's just not even he's not even hearing it. He's just going right back to oh nonviolent drug offenders.
There's a lot of other [ __ ] that goes on out there, you know, and if you throw the book at somebody like Noah was saying for a fist fight, for instance, and it's not that you you can't hold people to be accountable. it just h how do you hold them to be accountable and how do you get them to change the behavior especially young people?
I just feel like this guy's going to throw the book at him and when you throw the book at a young person often that what that creates is a lifelong criminal because once you throw the book at them there's no future. So they just you put them in prison and they're surrounded by criminals. Guess what they're going to become?
acts at 18, 20 years old and they're not in school or if they are they're in danger of losing that >> the fist fight scenario. Um that might be something where we really have to work with a victim and go what is it you're looking for here like what is the justice you see >> and what is the justice that should be or what has been delivered in the past for people in that and I've seen that kind of scenario where two kids get into a fist fight and sometimes the victim's like I don't want any part of this.
>> Yeah. And you know the other thing too, the costbenefit analysis, I'm all about that. The costbenefit, I always talk about costbenefit because I'm a money guy. The cost benefit of a there's a difference between sending a a 30, 40, 50y old lifelong violent criminal in jail, you could just write them off at that point.
But when you write off an 18year-old, that's a big [ __ ] bill for us. That's a huge bill. Especially knowing that you could flip it around and make them a net positive. So many 18, 20 year olds, 21, 22 do [ __ ] when they're young. I did a lot of crazy [ __ ] when I was young and then they they get that whatever it is, a wakeup moment. Uh uh somebody comes into their life and changes their life for the positive. They maybe sometimes it's just they they realize it themselves.
maturity.
They feel the brunt, you know, like cost benefit. That's what we need to invest in. Young people, I don't see it with this guy already. I don't see any thought on this.
I see he's uh he's okay. He's cool on on the on the drug aspect, but he's not cool on everything else. It looks like he even gave him a layup one about the shoplifting.
There's a difference between like criminal gangs of shoplifterss and some 18-year-old who just trying to eat or has some issues. Maybe they're a little whacked out, you know, like we need to invest in young people.
>> Those that that's that one-on-one contact on every case you need to do as a DA.
>> Well, the interesting thing about fist fights is often they're both victims and they're both assaulters, right? By the time the fist fight is over, >> I got two kids hitting each other. One one police officer, she once told her kids and she told it to me. She goes, >> "There's a here's a comment. Um, says, "Mike, how about the cost of all the illegals? You mean undocumented workers?
I'll call them undocumented workers. I don't think any person's illegal. I think all human beings are legal, but anyways, you call them that. You can label them because they're breaking some administrative regulations."
Uh, and then said, "Your pal Biden let in and Mara Healey spending three billion on them." Well, the three billion part that that's what bothers me, bro. Like the rest of your little uh diet trap, I think it's just all red meat and like ridiculous. But I think the three billion or I don't even know if it's three billion, but it's a [ __ ] lot of money. It's actually a big it's a it's billions. I don't know if it's three billion, but it's it's it's billions, right? And um I think that's the an issue. I agree with you on that. The cost benefit on that. Like it's that's wasteful. That that's what I'm talking about. That's why when I say I'm like an independent, a moderate, that's what I'm talking about. I I can see both sides, you know, and uh the economics of it is not good. Especially knowing the state of the Commonwealth, like the potholes, the traffic, the cost of living, the towns, the town's all asking for override money right now, the schools.
So, I'm with you on the on the end of it that on on the cost. There's got to be a better way. I feel like they go too far with that. I don't I don't know. Like, I'm not an expert on it. I probably should get an expert on it, but I don't know who's an expert. I feel like everyone's polarized on it. I don't feel like you get any good info on either side. I feel like people are so caught up in the immigration issue. But I I think it is wasteful. I think there's got to be a better way.
Should be low. I mean, they should if it costs that much money, just build some freaking housing. Like, why are we why are we paying hotels and driving people around? Like, it should be a lowerc cost way. Like, find some micro housing. I don't know something. whoever goes to the police versus first is the victim.
Uh and so you don't want things to be that simplistic, but you want you want to do a full investigation. You want everyone to be heard. And we see that scenario a lot. We see two people get into, you know, sometimes legally it's called an array. Um or it's there these cross complaints of assault and battery.
And that's where you want to make sure that everyone's being heard. You've completely investigated it. You've got the victim and if both are victims, like let's take a look at this. And at times, and I've this has happened to us, we have to bring in another prosecutor from another county or an independent prosecutor to be one of the people doing the other side of that case because you can't have that inherent conflict where the DA's office is representing both people in the same fight. Right. It it puts the victims who are also defendants in this impossible position of giving statements against each other, violating their right to remain silent.
>> For sure. For sure. Okay. Uh, that was all a a follow-up [laughter] question.
So, I ought to I ought to ask some of the questions I wrote down, too.
>> Yeah, go ahead.
>> Um, what do you see as a proper relationship with local police?
>> Well, it's it's imperative that you have that. So, >> sure. It starts really, I think, at the patrol level of having the patrol officers feeling comfortable when they make their arrest knowing that they're going to be adequately or make or have a case that they're going to be adequately prosecuted. That gets uh elevated to each town uh department has a police prosecutor who's kind of like the liaison from the town to the DA's office. That person goes to court every day and works with the DA's office giving them the information about the cases and actually can actually act as a prosecutor at times.
>> Oh, interesting.
>> Yeah, it's a it's a great opportunity for local law enforcement if somebody's interested to be in a courthouse seeing how the the courthouse works. This is a really good job for for an officer and they become like almost a lawyer at this point in time. And in the old days, they actually used to try uh what we call denovo trials. Um, so they were they were better than some of the prosecutors.
>> Um, but that person, that liaison is really great for the DA's office because when they come in with a new arrest, the new the information about cases, >> what could seem vanilla, like this fist fight, this uh example we're talking about, they can go, actually, you don't understand, one of these two people is a real problem in our town.
>> This person has been under investigation for other cases. There's problems with this person acting out. And so that that relationship with local law enforcement gets stronger with the prosecution at the uh at that level. I'd say the next important level is the chief to the DA.
>> Okay?
>> Because the chief and the DA have to be in constant communication about what's going on in the community and also in their department. Uh we found in 2020 we were able to con uh create a conviction integrity unit.
>> Yeah. And part of that was to identify officers that we would have to disclose information about. And we couldn't get that information without having great relationships with the chiefs.
>> I don't know why I think that's a funny little chat comment from Coco Mo. Thank you, Coco Mo. You got me chuckling. And so that's really really important is that the chiefs have to understand that they can get access to the DA that they can give the DA the information so that the exculpatory information the information that a defendant needs to have is getting in the hands of their counsel and the defendant themselves.
>> So I that's where I if you ask like how important it is it's imperative that there's a good relationship with local law enforcement and it's really part of the daily basis from the top down from the DA to the district court prosecutor.
>> Yeah. from the top down. Funny how you say that. Is that how [ __ ] works in Karen Reed? From the top down, bro.
Like, it's funny how he uh this is one of his talking points that he's got good relationships with the town cops. Like, isn't that the issue here, bro?
Um, what do you see as the proper relationship uh with federal law enforcement such as ICE and uh FBI and so on?
>> Uh, how about the US prosecutor's office, bro?
>> Um, that's a little bit more difficult.
Um, I know in television and movies it's always seems like there's this like, wow, the FBI came in, they took over the case, [laughter] >> strangely enough. And depending if it's a show about the FBI or a show about the local law enforcement, either the FBI comes in and just messes everything up or the FBI comes in and fixes everything.
>> Yeah. So, for the most part, everyone's trying to do the the right thing.
>> Um, and they're trying to do their jobs, but their jobs are very different. And you bring up ICE. ICE's job is very different than my job. And I have been fighting with ICE for 25 years because ICE once said to me on the phone, "Hey, listen. we are a people moving organization, not a people holding organization. And I got chills.
>> Yeah.
>> Cuz I'm like, I need that person.
>> You know, whether it be a defendant, a victim, or a witness, I need that person in order to get the case to go forward.
And for 25 years, they have been taking defendants that had detainers. And if they were on the street, they weren't in custody, they were deported within days.
>> Yeah. And so, you know, in particular, when you're talking about somebody who is hurting other people, >> those victims never get a chance at justice and that person is never held accountable. So, that has been an ongoing problem for for me and I think every DA's office has been fighting with ICE. Uh, the other problem with ICE is that you have what's called the supremacy clause of the constitution.
And if it was easy, >> yeah, >> we would all prosecute ICE officers and it would be done regularly. In fact, just look at Minneapolis >> and if you're telling me that Attorney General Ellison could do it, he wouldn't do it. I mean, this is the same person who prosecuted Derek Schovin >> for sure.
>> And and in fact, I think they are actually prosecuting a couple of ICE officer. I I was reading about about this like yesterday or something. Yes.
>> The day before, but it's been a long time with town meeting and now I And so >> now I'm half asleep. So >> and on those cases that I've read about, it has been what they have done outside their job, not stuff that they've done during their job.
>> So if an ICE officer, for instance, is drunk driving >> while he's not on duty, right?
>> You can prosecute that ICE officer. But if that ICE officer >> detains someone and is forceful with them and they are doing it under the color of law, the supremacy clause is going to trump whatever the state is.
And not only that, the state could indict somebody, could prosecute them, and then the feds can transfer the case to federal court.
>> Now, my understanding is that the supremacy clause is about the supremacy of federal law. Yes.
>> Over state law. Yes. Um and therefore in theory and it ought to be in practice, if you are breaking the uh the federal law as well as the state law, um then there is no supremacy involved. Right? If it if the laws are are identical or close enough to it and the question is can a federal agent get away with breaking the law, the answer is no.
>> Right.
>> Right. Um, >> but the the federal agent needs to be breaking federal law as well, right?
Like that's kind of the big problem.
Well, so if if the federal law is in conflict with the state, if >> it's in conflict, right? But what I'm saying, let's say I'm going to come up with a deranged scenario here. Let's let's say, >> which by the way, we live in a deranged world right now. So you're not >> that we do. So let's say that um >> I don't know. Okay, there is no federal speeding law, right?
the there is no federal law against uh making illegal U-turns, right? Uh >> it's interesting. Look at the body language on Greg Connor. He's kind of like he's really leaning in to Noah and Noah's kind of leaning back.
This It's funny. You know, Greg Connor, he reminds me of his mannerisms and the way he talks a little bit. He reminds me a little bit of Chris Christie.
Don't ask me why, but he just does. I I don't know. Just some of the >> Chris Kirsty did that, too. He leans in.
>> In theory, right, federal law has nothing to do with it. You see an ICE agent making an illegal U-turn and driving at 100 miles an hour to catch up to somebody, your local law enforcement should be able to pull that person over, potentially arrest them, say they're driving recklessly, and so on. the the fact that the state law says these things are illegal um and the federal law doesn't speak to whether these things are illegal or not. Supremacy shouldn't shouldn't weigh in on that.
It's if if the supremac, you know, if the federal law were to say the opposite, were to say uh specifically, you know, uh agents of of federal law enforcement are allowed to uh you know, break uh right-of-way laws, etc. uh in order to to fulfill their duties, then you'd have >> Oh, we we need to be nicer, Sarah.
[laughter] This isn't good good leadership from us.
I started it. I'm sorry.
>> Have a supremacy issue where the federal law says it's allowed and the state law says it's not. But in in cases where the federal law doesn't say it's allowed, it either says it's not allowed or doesn't really speak to it one way or the other, then the the state law ought to ought to still be valid. Yeah, >> except if this federal agent is doing that in the course of their job lawfully.
>> So if the federal [clears throat] agent is in high-speed pursuit to do something part of their job, then they are going to be covered by their existing by the existing rules and laws that cover that ICE agent. So and that's what we're seeing, right, is that ICE agents like are roughing up people and they're they're murdering people and >> and so but they're saying, "Well, wait a minute. we were doing this under the color of our job as ICE officers.
>> Yeah.
>> And so, um, that's where we're having our true conflict is that they are they are saying that we're doing this under the authority, the federal authority that gives us to to execute these orders.
>> I'm glad we're having our laughter on the ice stuff cuz I'm I'm bored right now a little bit. I'm just like, oh god.
It's funny cuz Sarah, I think I need time me out. Time me out. I need to be timed out for five minutes. Sarah, just play the video and don't let me talk.
Time me out, Sarah. I'm I'm the one who needs to be timed out.
And so, you know, I come back to it like I've been fighting with this group for 25 years. It's a maddening organization.
And what we've done in to try and mitigate that is, you know, you you try and use the U visa policy for victims and witnesses as much as possible.
However, that caps out at 10,000 nationwide. So in the last I think four years it's capped out.
>> It used to not and now it has because this is the this is the life this is the world we live in now.
>> And then for defendants that are in danger of being deported you know we now have to calculate that in a bail scenario >> is because if they are released >> they will be deported and they are truly a flight risk. a literal flight, right?
>> Because they're going to be flown to Sierra Leone or something, >> right? And so, and it's going to deprive anyone from getting justice. And I, you know, my father is a retired judge and we have had this argument for years >> where it's like, well, Greg, come on.
Like, it's this person's going to be deported. Like, no, hold on a second.
This person broke the law here, >> you know, and like there has to be some accountability here. And so I think that we both agree now, but like we've had that like kitchen table discussion where it's like well don't you have other cases? I'm like every case counts, right? Like so like you have to you have to do that. So I got to hit I got to say Sarah knows me so well. I think it is I think it's time for me to take a five minute break.
>> I got to check on Charlie and Winston.
Mama took off. So they're they're alone.
The house is clean. Um they had a nice long walk. They did all their business.
They ate their dinner. They should be relaxing. So, I'm gonna go check on them real quick, too. But Sarah knows I need a I need I [laughter] need to take a couple minutes to go outside so I don't continue to talk and ruin this interview during the boring part. It will get good. I know. I know this is going to get good. It always does.
Yeah. I need Mary Jane and the dogs.
First, I got to see the dogs, then I got to see the Mary Jane, and then I'll be back and I'll be watching the whole time on my phone. I'll be listening.
Otherwise, I'm just going to I'm going to this one hour video is going to take us four hours.
So, let let's just play a little bit.
Let's get through some of this and I'll be back.
>> Yeah. I'd like to say we're all one family. Um but we're not. is that there are times that the federal authorities have a different mission and agenda than the state authorities and uh I have found a fantastic working relationship with the local departments. Uh I've loved working with them. Um I've had some positive relationships with the US attorney's office and I've had some positive relationships with the FBI.
I've had I've had really some some frustrations with ICE >> and then you know have the US attorney's office and the FBI disagreed have we disagreed in the past sometimes not so much. I've never been in that room where it's like this is our case it's just it just it has that conversation and I haven't had that conversation.
>> Yeah. Um there's a few questions that you know everybody would be mad at me if I didn't ask you. So I'm going to ask you a few a few uh kind of local case questions. Um first actually um let's discuss fundraising a little bit because I I know that you you left your job because uh if you were still working for the state you couldn't fund raise for yourself.
>> Yes.
>> Um >> my uh you know there there have been complaints against your now former uh boss Michael Morsy uh of soliciting and receiving campaign donations from people working in the office um or from people tied to the office in some way. Yeah.
Um, and so, you know, are are you committed to not taking campaign donations from people tied to the DA's office?
>> No, I I would actually I I would disagree with that entirely. Um, so first off, campaign donations under the Supreme Court is free speech.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> So, you know, it people should be allowed to support whatever candidate they want. And you know, I'm flattered when my co-workers support me cuz I think that one, they're in the industry and two, they are people who usually live in the county. And so when they donate to me, I'm truly touched that they these are intelligent people who know the business, know how valuable this this office is, I think that they're they're the people that we would want to look to in our community and go, who do you think should be the next DA?
And so when they donate to me, I I think that that's an incredible endorsement.
And so, no, I I wouldn't do that. And, you know, I think sometimes it's easy for people to say like, well, I'm not going to take money from the DA's office. Like, well, I don't think they were going to donate to you in the first place. You know, I think that there's a reason why people that who have worked with me and know the type of person and prosecutor I am do donate to me.
>> And, uh, again, I'm truly I'm truly touched by it because I also know how valuable their money is. They don't they don't get paid a lot. And so when they they decide to go in their pocket and donate to me, I'm I'm I'm touched. I'm sure I'm sure my former boss would feel the same way.
>> Okay. I'm you know it it's an interesting conversation because um while I I totally understand that there's also you know another side to it of um obviously some people couldn't get those donations if they wanted them but there's a there's you know a a um uh a concern over a over having a a culture of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours where where you know a person who uh maybe was friendly with you as a coworker, but who would be hoping for a promotion might make, you know, a donation of a of a certain quantity and in order to to try to um get in your good graces that that despite the fact that it's obviously legal for them to donate you. Where whereas the person receiving the donation, you might say just in order to avoid the appearance of impropriy and the and the feel, you know, the the kind of to avoid uh creating a culture where people feel like they there's a paytoplay going on.
I would I would prefer to not take those. Do you see what I'm saying? I I I do hear what you're saying, but then there's an entire group of people who don't get to have their voice heard, which is contrary to what the Supreme Court's telling us about about donations. So, I I can't agree with that. I mean, particularly because I mean, one of the things we do is when we're assistant district attorneys, we take an oath to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth and the Constitution of the United States. And I can't go against the First Amendment, so I'm not going to. Um, but I also think that when I take that oath and I take it every four years and I take it as a special prosecutor and I go into other counties, I take it serious. And so, and I've felt that other people have taken it serious.
I've worked for three different DAs.
I've worked for Delah Hunt. I worked for I worked for Keading and I worked for Moresy. I didn't see a paytoplay. I didn't, you know, I found that competent people were being going up the ranks. I found that people were donating, you know, if people donated to Michael or to to Bill or to Bill Dalah Hunt, I think they did it because they thought they were the right candidate. And so, um, I I never saw that there was a basket of cash that was in exchange for a job. Um, you know, they are not highpaying jobs.
It is hard work. It is, uh, it is emotionally taxing. And, you know, if you wanted to do better, you could be a defense attorney. And they a lot of our my co-workers did do that. And you know then the the next step is does the defense bar not get to donate if you're going to do this because well actually they should be able to donate. Shouldn't they be able to say like we think that this is a reasonable person in the industry that can that should be involved in prosecuting cases.
>> I mean counterpoint >> this guy. Oh my lord. Number one, you're calling prosecuting people in the public se sector in industry, which is just so [ __ ] cringe, bro.
And number two, you have three candidates that I know of. Jim Bareric, Juna Perkins, Adam D, who have all refused those contributions from workers who work at Norolk County DA's office.
It's a huge conflict of interest.
for you to pretend it's not even like even worth considering.
Talk about freedom of speech. Give me a break, bro.
Oh, Delah Hunt did it.
Just like I said, you're just like the rest. You're just part of the system.
Around the rest of the country, this isn't normal. A lot of other places, a lot of offices, a lot of DA's offices don't take money from people that work for them.
It's kind of a Massachusetts thing. It's kind of a hack thing. There's kind of a coat coat holder reputation.
There's a guy named Quinton uh Zanderman who was a Cambridge city councelor that I've had on the show in the past a bunch of times. He's no longer a Cambridge city councelor, but he was for several terms.
When I asked him about that, uh, will you take campaign donations from city employees way back way back even before all this Karen Reed stuff, he said, not only will I not take money from people who are who are working for the city of Cambridge, I won't take money from any developer, anybody that has business that I know of that I'm going to have to decide on.
That's integrity. That's ethics. That's thinking about your office, thinking about the people. [snorts] This guy, are you kidding me? It's a freedom of I can't I'll limit their freedom of speech [ __ ] They work for you, bro. They don't have when when they're employees uh within your office, they don't really have free their freedom of speech has already been limited, bro.
Can can anybody in your office can Adam Lai just go and say whatever he wants about Karen Reed right now?
Freedom of speech, bro. What are you talking about?
Did you Did you actually leave? You left as an employee of North County to run for office, didn't you?
didn't you?
I I just can't believe this, dude.
This is a hack. This is a [ __ ] hack.
You're a hack, bro.
I've never seen any pay to play. Oh, okay.
Have you ever read a Howie Kyra? I mean, come on. You've never seen a coat holder?
Do you know what a coat holder is? How can you be from Quinsey and you don't know about cohold code holders?
I went to Bridgewwater State. I'm a Northshore guy. I I I didn't grow up among this culture, but I I know about it just from Bridgewwater State College.
People who made campaign contributions in Northol County who got jobs.
You could say, "What if all these people >> uh what if it's not socially acceptable for any of these people to donate, but they're already allowed to endorse?
They're already allowed to actually >> How how many people in the court are given donations?
I It's such a conflict of interest."
>> They go on TV and to say, >> "I'm glad No, no, no. He's Noah's doing a good job. I like this.
>> I think everybody should elect so and so. They just um you know the difference the difference I mean they can ask me [laughter] but but what I'm saying is there's there's a difference between um >> if you're within uh let me just say too if you're if you're attending any of these upcoming forums that they're holding, you have to ask this question.
You have to ask this question because this will give Adam Dish Juna Perkins Barcat and whoever else is taking contributions from employees of Northol County. It'll give them the opportunity to tee this dude up. You have to ask the question at these upcoming Mass Dem forums, the town committee forums.
There's one in Canton upcoming. I believe there's one in like Medway.
I think maybe the other one's Brookline, something like that. There's three different towns who are holding forums, maybe even four.
These qu this question needs to come up.
Will you accept money from people that you have as employees within North County? Will you accept campaign contributions from employees?
That needs to be a question that is asked. If you're with with one of these town committees, please ask that question. Please make sure that question gets asked. And if you show up to the forums, write it on the piece of paper and submit that question. And that is the best question to ask these this hack needs to be held account.
You're right. Like there are going to be upcoming forums and all the candidates will be there and this is an opportunity for them to take this dude to task on this ridiculous answer that he's trying to give right here. free speech as a legal right >> and um and upholding the legal right to free speech and upholding the right of anybody to uh to use their free speech however they want to in a in saying that that the manner in which they're doing it is socially acceptable. Right. It's obviously if um if one of my friends starts going on a racist rant.
>> Yeah.
>> And is and is like just flat up, you know, shouting slurs at people and whatever, >> right?
>> I They have a right to free speech. I I have no right to tell them that uh they cannot [snorts] say those things, but I do have a right to tell them that saying those things makes them no longer my friend. I agree with you. And so, >> and you also have a right not to accept their campaign contributions. I wonder, Greg Connor, are you going to accept money from out andout [clears throat] Nazis? Like, are you going to be worried about limiting their free speech?
If David Duke wants to make a campaign contribution to you, are you going to accept his contribution because you don't want to limit David Duke's free speech? Are are you really going there, bro?
>> So, with that, wouldn't it be that somebody has the right to donate to whatever candidate they choose, >> but if that person happens to be bad at their job, the candidate still has the right to fire them >> or the elected official has the right to fire them.
>> And so, like that happens.
>> And and so people take their job and their responsibility to the public seriously. And if they find that >> they have the they have the right to fire them. They also have the right to promote them and hire them, right?
That's the problem, bro. You can't have it both ways. Like, you can't have You want to have your cake and eat it, too, bro. You just admitted the problem here.
They They have You have If you're the DA, you have hiring and firing. You have you you have a lot of power and you're using that power to collect campaign contributions. That's shady, bro. That is shady. And you can't admit that.
There are people who can't tow the line.
I And again, I've never seen it come into play where someone's like, I've never seen like, well, he donated 50 bucks at the last. Like, I've never heard >> I've never seen it come into play. I've never seen it. So, therefore, it doesn't exist. This is such a classic [ __ ] line.
>> It doesn't matter if you've never seen it, bro. It's the optics of it. Number one, >> but I don't I don't think you necessarily would. I think the the whole idea of of um >> it's subtle.
>> Well, most of the time [laughter] the Supreme the Supreme Court has has allowed a ridiculous amount of bribery.
But I'm I'm I'm not talking about like outright bribery. I'm I'm talking about the way in which um you can generate positive feeling by uh signaling support in a certain way, right? like uh you're you're more right if I'm if I have a performance right and I'm singing >> and you know the other thing too it's also almost like cheating too and and and one more thing is you you're basically forcing your employees in a lot of respect pressuring them to donate to you.
If you're in the office and you're one of the assistant prosecutors and you're the only one who didn't donate, you don't think you're going to feel funny, you don't feel like you're going to have some pressure to donate, uh, as I sometimes do. Um, you know, I may have more positive feeling towards my friends who show up, who clap harder, you know, [laughter] etc., than I do again, you know, for for my friends who couldn't make it. And it's not because they've the friends who couldn't make it have done something wrong. And it's not because I have a rule that says if you show up to my performance and clap hard, you know, you're going to be the first person I call when I need help with my, you know, car or whatever. But there's a, you know, it still creates an influence where I'm like, who have I seen recently that I feel really good about, >> right? [laughter] >> Okay. You know, there's a there's like a a degree to which um we're we're often not aware of the influences on ourselves just by these little subtle things, right? That that we're just like we don't I don't I won't I won't say the reason I like so and so is that he shows up to all my performances. I but I might say like, you know, I see a lot of so and so and he's great. So I I I don't I don't like fighting hypotheticals because what what wind up happening is that we'll have like this like long discussion of like well wait a minute so and so only went to second the second performance and the third performance >> right >> you know your question to me was yeah would I not take the money and and my response to you is I would because if someone is willing to endorse me um and they're willing to do it by by a donation people can endorse you.
You don't have to accept their money.
>> And they're somebody who knows me, who knows my work, and they have and they are in the same industry as me. I'm I am actually I'll tell you, I am I I believe that that's a very positive endorsement.
I believe that that's somebody who knows the business and I appreciate it. And so that means a great >> the business. Well, this is the other thing, too. Putting people in jail shouldn't be a business, bro. like maybe work on that that language.
Yikes.
>> Great deal to me. So, uh you know, I guess the question was would I take the money? And the the answer is I would I would take the donation by somebody who is in the business.
>> Would you take the money and run? Yeah, you would. Cuz you're you have no ethics. You you don't even you know you don't think about these things. You don't think about the conflict of interest, the optics, uh the fact that people are going to feel pressured to give.
I would want to work for you, bro.
If I if I had to decide who to work for, I'd want to work for Jim Barracat, Juna Perkins, or Adam Gish, because they're not demanding campaign contributions.
>> Whether they be a defense, whether they be in the prosecution, whether they be in the office, whether they be someone who's just left the office. Okay.
>> I think they should have the right to make they should have the right to endorse whatever candidate they choose.
>> All right. Yeah. I mean, it's a solid answer. [laughter] >> Thank you.
>> I'm not going to argue that it's not an answer. you've answered the question.
Yeah. Um, okay. There was another question that somebody suggested, a friend, um, >> that that, um, apparently Michael Morrisy has continued to insist um that Sandra Burmore killed herself. Um, do you believe he's correct in that?
>> My god, this came from my show. This came from my show with Juna Perkins. Uh, and Grace Curley. Wow. This this this question came from my content. Wow. Holy [ __ ] I want to hear this. Holy [ __ ] I didn't know this was in here. Wow. Holy crap.
So, I didn't handle the Birchmore case.
Um I don't know if So, if Michael's been insisting it, Michael's been I can't speak for Michael. I know recently uh in preparation for trial, the medical examiner's office changed their determination in that initially Dr. Kappa Martinez determined that it was suicide and chief ex chief medical examiner Mindy Hull backed up that determination.
>> Yeah.
>> And so that was the determination that had been put on the death certificate.
That was the determination that had been given to uh all the parties. I know that Dr. Boden when he was hired by the family determined that it was a homicide.
>> Yeah.
>> And then I believe Dr. Smok that was retained by the US attorney's office also deter >> I'll be right back. I just heard a crash. I think I think Winston just broke down the gate again. Oh my god. I may have to bring him down here during this question of all the questions. Winston. Oh god. All right.
I'll be right back.
>> Thought it was a homicide.
>> Yeah. Um, >> and the medical examiner has now changed the cause of death undetermined.
>> I believe so. I thought I thought I read that recently. Um, that doc that the in I don't know if it was Dr. Kevin Martinez changed it or if Dr. Hall changed it, but the medical examiner's office itself has now put it as undetermined, I believe.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, so I don't think that, you know, the district attorney doesn't get to choose whether the medical examiner puts on a death certificate. Of >> course not. And so I'm sure that I'm sure Michael has been saying well the death certificate says X. I don't know if I don't I I can't say for what he's saying beyond that.
>> Okay. Let let me just ask kind of point blank then. Do you believe that she killed herself?
>> So I don't know because it's not my case. In addition, it's a case that's going to go to trial soon.
>> Yeah.
>> And so what I don't want to do is get involved in a case that's going to go to trial and make a determination on that.
Um, there's some ethical problems with doing that. As a prosecutor, you shouldn't be commenting on a pending case. Um, also I wouldn't want to give one side a blueprint on or the other side of like, well, this is what we should be doing because Greg Connor said so, >> right? So, I think that, you know, to get into the to get into a greater discussion on Birmore, I think that there were missed opportunities by the DA's office that could have kind of generated more information and figured out a cleaner path on how to go forward.
But, as far as like I I can't tell you because I didn't read the medical examiner's report. Um, I haven't read all the police reports. It would be an uninformed opinion and those are kind of dangerous to give out.
>> Yeah. You say that that um you know prosecutors should not be influencing a case by by making public statements about it, but that there's always some amount of public statement that happens when you bring charges, you know, like so so um could you could you kind of like tease tease out the difference there? Like when when is it okay to comment publicly and when shouldn't it be?
>> The rules of professional conduct uh that govern lawyers particularly prosecutors is that they are not supposed to make extrajudicial statements.
>> Okay. So an extrajudicial statement would be outside the courtroom.
>> Okay.
>> In the courtroom when the prosecutor does an arraignment and says, "Your honor, I'm asking that the person be held without bail >> and one of the reasons is the facts of the case. Let me go into the facts of the case." That is a safe haven for the prosecutor.
>> They're allowed they're allowed to do that. So they they they shouldn't go on the steps of the courthouse.
>> Oh, okay.
>> And go while the case is pending and like this guy, he's a bad guy type thing.
>> Oh, okay. cuz I because I feel like I feel like I've seen that happen all the time where like someone will go will have a press conference about like we are charging so and so with these things because they did these things right >> you were allowed to say certain things at those press conferences so for instance you're allowed to say the identity of the person being charged you're allowed to say what the charges are what the next date is where the court will be um you can give some overall cursory information about the initial facts in initial press conference but after that you really can't do much more. And so once the case is arraigned, you really should be doing everything in the courtroom.
>> Okay. Um let's see.
>> So would you say that um >> kind of criticize the DA's office a little bit? [laughter] >> Excuse me. you didn't handle the Karen Reed case and you're not handling the the Sandra Bidmore case, but um what >> is your impression that that the the statements that Morsy made in those cases have been conducted appropriately?
Would you conduct yourself differently in some way?
>> So, I think that yes, I would always construct I would conduct myself the way that Greg Connor conducts himself. So, when you ask a question about Michael, it's like, well, ask Michael. So, that being said, um I >> the guy who's backing you, who's endorsing you, right? The guy who's taking you around to the charity events, right?
The guy you work for. I mean, come on.
>> I think that I believe that a prosecutor should be doing their talking in the courtroom. And that's where if there's something to be done, that's where we should be doing it. And there are opportunities in the Reed case where prosecutors could have said things in the courtroom and to their own choice.
They didn't. I don't it wasn't my case.
They made tactical decisions. I I can understand why they might have wanted to do certain things at certain times.
>> Um there have been times when I've been in court where I felt it was important to say, "Judge, this is what's going on." And the reason I felt comfortable saying that was that I knew that it could be released to the world because I I was in that safe haven.
>> Yeah.
>> I was in the judge had asked me a question, Mr. Connor, what's going on with this thing right now? And I could say, oh, your honor, these are the different factors of what's going on with this case right here and now. And then if a reporter wrote about it, I felt that I had done the right thing.
So, um, and so that's how I would traditionally conduct myself. Uh, you know, you ask about other statements.
Again, those are Michael's calls. Um, but I believe that our our spot under the professional uh respons code of professional responsibility is that we're supposed to be doing our talking in the courtroom.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um, >> come and freeze frame, >> I think, is the last question about Michael. [laughter] >> Okay.
>> I'm sorry. The the >> I get it. He's He's been there for 15 years.
>> He's been there for 15 years. And the And you've been, you know, working in his office for all 15 of those years.
>> He inherited me. Yes. Yeah. And um and the thing is that um you know seeing as also he's endorsed your candidacy um I think I think um there's there's reason to think that anybody who was satisfied with the job that Michael Morsey has done would also be likely to support you. And so I'm I'm interested in >> doesn't he seem surprised that uh people want him to hold him accountable for Michael Morrisy who's endorsing him who has all the same campaign funders. I mean come on man you work for him and you're like oh kind of what what you have to say to people who are specifically dissatisfied with him. what what is um what is kind of your pitch to people who are not happy with how things have gone um and would like some >> well >> some big change. So, I tell everyone, no matter what happens in January, there's going to be a change.
>> You know, Michael did not run. And so, when people go, "Well, we need a change." I'm like, >> "Good.
>> You got it.
>> You got it. No matter what you do, no matter what happens, change is coming."
>> Now, I'm proud.
>> Except for the Except for the campaign donations, bro. I mean, that's the thing. You just back the same policy Morrisy had on the campaign contributions, bro.
You can't be the candidate of change when you're backed by Michael Morrisy.
You're backed by his machine.
You're getting his endorsement.
You're not changing anything on the campaign contributions from employees.
Like, bro, you can't have it both ways.
You want your cake and eat it too. You That's not working.
This guy is a politician, man. He is He's snaky. He is a snaky bro. of the work I did and I did it for 25 years. I did it for three different DAs. Uh I I look back at my career and think that I fought for victims. I think that I tried to help people that were in crisis. And I like to think that I've served the community I grew up in. And so, you know, when people ask me about Michael, I can only say, listen, Michael can talk about Michael. I can talk about me. And so, what am I about? I think I've told you. I think I've said, you know, hey, if you're hurting others, then you have to be held accountable. If you're hurting yourself, I want to get your help.
>> Absolutely.
>> Um, if you want to talk about the cases I've done where, you know, somebody kills a police officer in the line of duty and a senior citizen who saw that murder and I felt that we had to prosecute that and even though it was a hung jury, we went back and did it again.
>> I have no regrets on that. And you've talked about a man who >> And the second time, did you get the conviction?
>> Yes, we did. We did. Uh so you know the first time this is the the way case for Michael Chzn and Vera Adams where they were the victims. It was a long trial and we not only that it had a certain amount of media attached to it to the point that we had to pick a jury from another county. Um and that the what had happened was you know it was one of the we know this because of an interview that was done by a local media outlet outlet with the four person in the jury was that one person wouldn't wouldn't deliberate >> and so after a number of days and the entire trial it was a mistrial we had to retry it and so we then go to another county and pick another jury and we spend a lot of resources doing it but two people were murdered and we had and we wanted that that person held accountable. And so with that, we prosecuted the case a second time and the jury was out for an extended period of time, but they came back with a first-degree conviction for the murder of Michael Chzn, a second degree conviction for Vera Adams and justice was done. And I feel a great deal of pride about that case as well as all the other cases that I've been able to be a part of. You know, there have been murders throughout the county that I've been able to be a part of, financial crimes I've done, motor vehicle homicides I've done, and trying to work for those victims. I have a great deal sense of pride and so you know if you ask me about my work that's what I believe in that's I think that's what I can best comment on that standpoint >> you should have just ran on that >> awesome because that's what I want to be asking more questions >> I mean >> jeez bro I I like that experience but at the same time you are part of the machine and it's pretty obvious bro like you know what I'm Man, how's the chat doing?
Oh, it's funny. It's time. You're over there. Um I That's where I'm actually redirecting people is to Brian's uh video next. So, as soon as we're done with this, we'll be going over there.
>> Okay. Uh, we've we've gotten rid of all of the uh you have to ask this question now. There's the you get to ask.
>> Hey, listen. I get it. By the way, I I and and you got to do your job. And when your when your people are saying, "Hey, you got to ask him about X." You got me here. You got to do it.
>> Yeah. I mean, okay. So, I've asked every DA candidate uh this question, too. Um are there any forms of evidence that despite their admissibility in court, uh you distrust their accuracy and might discourage their use?
>> Yeah. Um so the National Academy on Sciences uh came out with a publication in like 2012 I believe and they were they decided that in put into writing DNA is the gold standard.
>> Right. Okay.
>> So understanding that they then went after different types of evidence that is that is no longer really considered valid. So like bite mark has kind of gone down that road.
>> Yeah. Um, and I would have a real problem with that type of evidence where we're relying on bite marks. Um, and you know, I think that that's one example.
Uh, I think that's also, uh, you know, I always get confused by fingerprints, >> you know.
>> Yeah, >> it's it's an interesting it's fingerprints is more, uh, at times uh, subjective than objective. And so, >> and yet it has that kind of patina of of science. Yes. That that makes people feel like it must be very objective.
>> That's so with that, I think a lot of it comes down to the examiner. And then when you do a deep dive in how they get to that point, I've felt more comfortable. But when someone first goes, well, that swirl is Tom. I'm like, really? How did you get to that point?
But then actually with with there's certain databases that examiners use and there's one called Avis and that's kind of like the the nationwide one >> with a V.
>> Avis F >> AF.
>> And so and so when they submit a print they will get like 12 different category 12 different potential hits.
>> Oh, interesting.
>> Of different individuals and they don't have a name associated with them. So you you're you're taking out confirmation bias. And so then they go and look at those prints of them and they do their examination. And so when you do a deep dive into what it takes to become a print examiner >> and how they get that and also that it goes through peer review.
>> Yeah.
>> I felt more comfortable with prints.
>> But I will tell you when I started my career I'm like I don't know. But you know so would I throw out Prince? No. I think prints can be valuable. I also think what's interesting about Prince >> Prince I don't even know what the hell they're talking about right now but I have to say a couple comments here.
Sheila Sheila True Crime Chat says I think Noah is doing a fantastic job and I have to agree. I mean he's so good he even asked a question for me. He asked my question that Juniper Perkins brought up on our show right or in Grace Curley's show. both of our shows.
Actually, Noah's watching. Noah got the got the question from our show. I mean, I'm I think that's pretty cool. Actually, Noah is a Noah is a good host. He got all six of them, too. I mean, that's that's pretty amazing that he was able to get all six candidates >> when you don't find prints. And so, like, that's actually kind of a helpful tool of like, oh, well, we did look, we couldn't find it or we couldn't find a usable print. There is a print there.
Like, that type of information is really valuable. Yeah. So you don't want to, but I think when you get to that conclusion, you want to make sure all the requisite steps have been done. And you know, when you deal with an accredited crime lab like the state police crime lab, they have those protocols in there that are established by the FBI and accreditation agencies so that you know that when you get that conclusion, it has that kind of uh additional >> uh supervision to it that they went through these criteria.
>> Yeah. How do you feel about um uh >> first super chat tonight >> in uh imprisoned informants? You know how how there's this whole thing where like you know someone will say, "Oh, well, I'm the roommate in in our jail cell with the accused person and he told me so and so." Right?
>> I don't think I've ever used one.
>> Okay. Uh, I know I had a case where I was in we were doing an investigation and someone came forward with information and actually there's been a couple times where people come forward with information and you know you turn it over but like I just I've never used that person as a witness. Um, that doesn't mean I haven't used cooperating witnesses that weren't in jail. Like for instance, you know, have have we >> made made uh like given someone immunity or given someone uh have a proper meeting with someone to see if they can give us information with the understanding that we would there'd be an agreement to what would happen if we wouldn't prosecute >> or like if we do it would be this would be the the disposition. So I have done that. Um but as far as like a jail house informant >> I can't remember the time I've used one.
>> Okay. Um, although mass incarceration is a nationwide problem, it's driven primarily by local prosecution. So, what what policies would you pursue to reduce prison populations here in Massachusetts and Norfick County?
>> Well, in 25 at it. So, you know, we've closed Walpole, we closed Conquered. Um, when I started at the DA's office, I believe they were sleeping in the gym at the Northfor House Correction. And so the population far exceeded what the building could hold. And now uh I believe it's a fraction of its capacity, which is great. And so the overcrowding is done. And that makes it uh we have a responsibility to an inmate as a society to make sure that they're safe. And um so as far as the initiatives that we've been able to do, I think the state has been at the forefront with the Brandan decision and then with bail with kind of codifying that into the bail statutes that I have seen this decrease in incarceration and simultaneously when I joined the office 25 years ago, we were averaging about 18,000 cases a year.
>> Yeah.
>> We're now down to 10,000.
>> So >> okay, >> we closed Walpole.
>> Yeah.
>> We closed conquered. There's less people at Norfork. Crime's down.
>> Yeah.
>> So, it looks like incarceration wasn't the answer.
>> Yeah.
>> And you really can't jail your way out of this one. And so, that's why initiatives like drug court, veterans court, emerging adults court, if we can get that up and running, I think that those are all going to be the solution, help that solution of less people incarcerated, more people getting treatment, >> and that's really what you want to be doing.
>> Um, so yeah. So those the I I think that overall the trend has been positive in Massachusetts and you know we have the lowest incarceration rate in the country. Um and so that's and again I think if you go to Boston, Boston's been ranked one of the safest cities in the country.
>> So like things are working.
>> You know incarceration wasn't the answer.
>> Do you support the construction of new prisons in Massachusetts? Because I I remember a few years back there was a whole thing about no new women's prison in Framingham or something. I don't I don't remember if it was built in the end, but how do you feel about the construction of new prisons?
>> I would support them with the idea that they would be a place where people are going to be safe and s and get the appropriate housing. When you look at Walpole, which was a dinosaur. Yeah.
>> You needed to close that place, right?
And it was and also it was getting to the point it wasn't safe.
>> Yeah.
>> So, um what >> so as replacements for other prisons, >> right? I I'm not looking to increase the prison population. I'm trying to I would like to see the prison population be adequately cared for.
>> Um particularly, you know, the women's the women's situation in Massachusetts is really rough, right? Like so you've got Framingham as your state prison.
>> Yeah.
>> And then you've got, you know, you've got a couple different locations where women can go throughout the state if on a pre-trial basis.
>> Yeah.
>> But this is really difficult. Like we're a bigger state than people give credit for. We have a population of over 7 million people. Um, and yet there's only one place for women to go.
>> Um, and so if you uh want to visit your family member who's incarcerated and you live in the western part of the state and she's in Framingham, like that's not great. I mean, that being said, >> you could make that argument for, well, you know, my relatives at Soua or my my relatives at Norfork.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, we don't you don't get to choose relatively where you go. Um, so it's it's not ideal. you'd like to see people have greater access to their family. Um, and if they can come up with a solution that would adequately do that, I'd support it. I think the other issue with the prison population is is that >> we're at this point now where it's aging and the health needs of our incarcerated population are becoming greater and greater every year >> and particularly as we get to the point with mental health, but also with dementia. And so, you know, there are studies out there that if you're doing more than 20 years, you're going to be looking at early onset dementia, heart disease, diabetes, and so it's going to become more and more expensive to care for these individuals. Um, and we have a responsibility to do just that. Uh, I think though recently, Norfor House got a uh like an A+ or an A rating as far as it's handling its population, but it's a pre-trial population mostly. And I think that what we want to do is be able to care for the people who are in the system and make sure they're getting the requisite healthcare. Um, you know, we we have responsibility to these people once they become uh once they become incarcerated.
>> Okay. Um, what's your stance on the prosecution of crimes of civil disobedience such as disorderly conduct?
>> Um, I think it comes down to talking to the police. So, it's easy to say, "Well, I just dismissed that because it's a silly crime and uh as a person who actually had done things like that in the district court."
>> Um, >> wait. Done things like disorderly conduct or done things like >> Watch me right now. No. Uh, so no. Uh, so I had prosecuted disorderly conduct.
>> Okay.
>> Uh, so when you when you prosecute a disorderly conduct crime, you're like, "Well, this case is going to get dismissed. This is this person isn't like this person is an Al Capone. Let's move on."
But then if you do that and you don't talk to the police beforehand, they're like, "No, you missed the boat, Greg.
This person was scaring everyone. There were kids around. Um they were threatening to shoot up a school." Like, "Oh, well, that wasn't in the report.
That would have been helpful information." So before you make a determination like that, you really have to be talking to the police on the civil disobedience stuff because I will say, you know, I do think that people if you know, if you're dealing with unions that are looking for a right to assemble and be heard, yeah, you want to support that. You want to let them have that opportunity to be to assemble. You just want to make sure everything's done lawfully, right? Are they blocking traffic? Well, then we're going to have to have some issues here. Are they threatening people? You know, but I'm not that's really not the problem I'm seeing with unions. I you know have we seen that in other scenarios where people were trying to intimidate others and stuff like that? That's that's a different thing. Then then you're dealing I don't know so much as civil disobedience but like when we talk about the intimidation of a witness statute or obstruction of justice like that's actually pretty serious.
>> Yeah, for sure. Um the I mean my my first thought is is victim statements, right? Because because while the the um police may have an interest in uh catching someone for something other than what they actually have a problem with, right? Because they they might say, "Okay, uh what you don't realize is this person's a problem in our community." It's like, "Okay, but they're a problem in your community for other reasons, not because of this disorderly conduct." Like if you if you can't find if you can't find someone who says, "Yes, this man scared me." Right?
Then then like what are we doing here?
>> Well, so just so we're clear, if it's a disorderly, that might not have a victim attached to it. You might not necessarily know it because that could be a person, you know, let's say it's a person who's on a street corner screaming, >> right? That, you know, because it's in public because in and they're doing something that is causing someone to have uh fear or alarm, uh they would be charged with it disorderly.
>> Now, we can go down the hypotheticals like we said all the time, right? I think that if the police are like, "But this guy's a problem." Well, that's when we're like, "All right, well, let's talk about why is he a problem? What is it that this this charge might not be your solution?"
>> Right?
>> You know, is he a problem because he's shoplifting? Is he a problem because he's selling drugs? Like, that's really where you need to be focusing your efforts because we have to uphold the law here. And we get that he could that this guy that you got him for the disorderly. Um, but, you know, that's not necessarily what we're we're about.
We're we're trying to if you tell me he's a drug dealer, make a drug case.
>> Yeah.
>> And let let's give you the resources to do that. You know, do you need some help drafting a search warrant? Do you need do you have do you need additional resources for the investigation? Let's have that conversation. And that's really where I would prefer to be opposed to, well, we're going to go to trial and disorderly conduct.
>> Yeah.
>> Um because it becomes it comes down to resources at times. You know, you want >> Sure.
Um, okay. We have some minutes left and I want to ask my favorite question, which I didn't I didn't even get to ask Adam Dich this question because I ran out of time. Um, so what is something that you personally would like to rant about? Um, everybody in politics has at least one thing that drives them nuts that they need to get off their chest.
What's yours?
Um, I would suggest that the being a member of the Republican party at one point in time became an issue of not so much believing in small government and lower taxes and strong national security. But on a nationwide level, all of a sudden it became once Trump became involved this idea that you had to not like people for what they looked like, where they were from, or who they loved.
and that's really driven me crazy. Um, and so and I think that that's hurt the discourse between Democrats and Republicans. I would long for the day where we could all get together and have an intelligent conversation and take hate out of it. And so that's where politics has driven me crazy is that I felt that the extreme right made everything so difficult for everyone to try and have an intelligent conversation. Um, and so that's, you know, if you wanted me to rant and rave about the Trump administration and how I feel like that that fueled that fire and it's brought us down and it, you know, look at January 6th and, you know, that type of stuff breaks my heart and I felt that, you know, that was really kind of where the Republican party went. And then it's just that breaks my heart to see that the idea that you wear a patriot like so as a result >> if I wear a patriotic tie am I now all of a sudden associated with the extreme right where I was like no actually I'm a I I love this country I love this country I'm a Democrat I love this country you know and my grandfather would would be horrified that I was showing any sympathy to the Republican party um but I think that >> you know what drives me crazy is the vitriol that came out and you know when you see the capital get stormed and then people astonished that they're prosecuted for it.
>> Are you kidding me?
>> You stormed the capital and you thought that you were going to get away with it and then to see those convictions just thrown out that yeah >> that breaks my heart. Um you know there there was that is a sad day in American history and and it was fueled by the extreme right and that that really that's a that's a problem. Yeah, thanks so much.
That's a that's an excellent answer and I like it very much. [laughter] >> But the other like because the thing is that there's um >> you know there's an aspect to it where >> the the Democratic Party has been blamed now for decades for so politics.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. For for bringing identity into everything. And yet it's not the Democratic party that says you look and act a certain, you know, you you look like this, you don't belong. You know, it's not the Democratic party that says like >> we don't like your gender, [laughter] >> right? That says like, well, I think you shouldn't exist. Like Democrats don't say that. No.
>> Um, all of that identity stuff is on the right. I would I would love it if we actually had great conversations about what is government's role like how small should it be? What is states rights roles? Where should it fall? What is national security? How much money should we spend to it?
>> Opposed to like why is it we have to hate people because they love somebody that we don't agree with. I just don't get it. It's never made sense to me. I and it drive if you talk about ranting like that would be one that bothers me to to no end is like I don't understand why we have to hate people because of like just who they are or what who they love. I just drives me crazy.
>> Yeah. Because of their because of their identities, right?
>> It's like it's as it's as simple as that. It's like you know we don't like we don't like the way you >> Yeah. And the way you look.
>> It's almost like it's like Red Sox Yankees. Like well if you like the Red Sox and I if you like the Yankees I can't like you. I'm like I don't care if you like the Yankees. Go ahead. Like >> like Yankees, go ahead.
>> Yeah.
>> I just don't get it. I just I don't get the vitriol.
>> Yeah.
>> The big thing the permission was given.
>> Well, that also it's it's a good explanation why you're running as a Democrat [laughter] >> and not as an Republican.
>> Yeah. It it is. And you know, uh, it's it's one of those things as as a prosecutor, you want to stay impartial, but for this race, you know, I I I one I I have always identified as a Democrat as far as their values, but I always tried to be someone that was open-minded. Um, but man, uh, that Republican party is tough to get behind at times because you look at like just the way that they want to just scream and yell and I'm like, I just >> I you can't even have a conversation.
>> On the flip side, um, are there co-workers or friends that you have who are members of the Republican party that you've worked well with, but >> of course, I'm not saying that all Republicans are bad. I'm saying that the extreme right is.
>> Yeah.
>> And so there's plenty of reasonable I mean, look at someone like Pat O'Connor from Weimoth. Okay. like couldn't find a better friend of labor, right? You know, Republican representative uh but a tremendous friend of labor and supports all the same uh things that I probably would on the labor side. And so like that's a person that you know you can have a great conversation with. Um, but when you talk about like, you know, when you start going down south and you just find that, you know, uh, you've got Marjorie Taylor Green that just wants to yell at people for the sake of, you know, that she doesn't like the way they look.
Like, what are we doing here?
>> And so, no, I the the interesting thing about Massachusetts is >> our Republicans are really easy to get along with, you know, like Charlie Baker was easy to get along with, you know, so like the Massachusetts Republicans I don't think are the problem. M I think it's it's really when you start going down to deep red that like you know that's where you're like oh man this is going to be tough. It's actually because I've I've I've had almost I I wouldn't I wouldn't say the opposite reaction because opposite is going too far, but like I I've I've felt as an adult that our our notion of like a red state as as being a certain way and a blue state as being another way is um is all about margins, right? Because you'll because you'll go you'll go to to you know Texas and you'll be like, "Wow, this is a deep red state. They've got these, you know, state legislatores, you know, just terrible. The governor's terrible and so on. They're like cruel and uh and racist and whatever. And then you'll still say, "But hold on now in this deep red state like 40% of the people are Democrats, right?" And and you have the kind of the same thing.
>> It's more than that in Texas now, too.
That's funny. I I think Texas might flip >> here where it's like, okay, we think of Massachusetts as like this really democratic progressive place, but like >> like 35% of our voters are >> are just as hard right as Marjorie Taylor Green, right? So, >> so, you know, maybe that is more of reflects more of the nation. Um, I'm I'm in Texas probably about once a year because I have family down there. And so, um, >> and, uh, I can say that like Texans probably have similar concerns that Massachusetts people have.
>> Um, you know, they they they don't want to pay more taxes than they have to.
>> They they believe in, you know, they want to have, you know, strong national security. I think that they actually have, you know, I feel like when they talk about immigration, they have a different point of view than we do because they they are bordering Mexico.
But I have had friends in the construction industry in Texas who are like we need this relationship with Mexico. Like you don't understand like this is where all our labor's coming from.
>> This is where our labor is coming from and these are great people who are doing hard work that we can't get people in Texas to do. Yeah.
>> So, um I think that like in order to have the intelligent conversation about like immigration, you should be talking to people outside of Massachusetts going, "Oh, really? What's going on in your state and why is it why what opinion do you have and why is it that?"
And so, and that's when you get that diversity opinion. I think it's when we just when we only listen to one far side, if it be the far left or the far right, um that's where we kind of we we just kind of want to either turn it off or we get too deep down that road and that's dangerous.
>> Yeah. So, >> okay. Well, on that cheerful note, >> Greg Connor, thank you so much for coming for me. It's been a real pleasure talking.
>> I appreciate it. Thanks. Good to see you, buddy.
>> Take care. You too.
>> I got to say for Noah, congrats. I will say a couple things. Um, I'm kind of scratching my head about one thing that he didn't ask any questions about like the Rolling Rally or maybe Turtle Boy stuff. like that would if my only suggestion to him is if he gets another interview especially for the general election maybe ask about that might be a good idea but maybe he doesn't want to because turtle boy attacked the [ __ ] out of him I think after he did the Adam Dich interview that's and that's the problem with Aiden and Turtle Boy he he he attacks these media people and who the hell wants to help him after that right so but I I I I would have thought he might ask about that and um but I thought it was a great interview. I I think he does a really good job. I like Noah. I think he does a good job. They're thoughtful questions.
He's got a good demeanor. He lets them speak.
He's easy. He's easy to get along with, too. You can tell. Um, so it allows the person that's being interviewed to feel a little more comfortable, I feel like, even when he's asking some of those tougher questions. He asked a couple tough questions. I like the fact that he asked a question from my content. That's unbelievable. like that's that shows know his commitment. He he he I don't know if somebody sent that to him or he wa or he got it from watching my show but uh that one of the questions came from my show and I really appreciate that that he uh dug into that about Sandra Birch and what Michael Morrisy was saying. Um I also like that he asked the question that has been all about this show and what we've been covering for the longest time. Will you take campaign contributions from your employees? Let me get a drink of water. Will you take campaign contributions from your employees? He asked that question, too.
So, I thought Noah did a great job on that interview.
Um, if he does interview Greg Connor, I would also say uh next time also ask him about the mistakes he made when he was younger. He said he got a second chance.
I would have liked to hear more about that. that I think voters would have too. Um, and and I'm not saying that you missed an opportunity or anything because, you know, it's hard when you're interviewing people and they they leaves these little tidbits. It's easy just to miss them, especially when you're trying to plan for your next question. But, uh, as a follow-up interview, that might be a good question for you, Noah, is to ask him more about his background and when he got that second chance. I'd like to hear more about that. But, I thought Noah does a really good job. I like him.
I like that he posted a comment, too, and that he watches the watches my show and did a little prep by watching my interviews with the candidates. So, that that's pretty cool. Congratulations to Stoton Politics. Congratulations to Noah. Good interview. Uh, Greg Connor, man, I don't know, man. I I thought you were pretty [ __ ] weak on the campaign contributions. I must admit, I thought that was pretty damn weak. I respected the fact that you admitted that it was some issues on the Sander Birchmore, but I thought it was pretty damn weak that you're taking campaign contributions from employees, future employees, and then you're calling it an industry and a business. It's not an industry. Putting people in jail, prosecuting people should not be called a [ __ ] industry. Excuse my language.
All right, I think I'm going to head out. I'm redirecting to uh Brian's premiere that happened earlier.
money-making Mike. Thank you so much, Rose, for being uh the one super chat tonight.
Uh [laughter] chicky water says when people answer a question with so I know I noticed that too. I don't like that. Uh Rose also asks, "How's Diana Daglio doing with the audit?" Uh yes, I'm going to answer it at the end right now. You asked that early on in the show. Um she won basically the lawsuit. The SAC basically got the AG to agree to allow Diana Daglio to have an attorney. So, it's going forward. It's going forward. It's looking good for Diana Daglio. She's still throwing some barbs, it looks like, at the AG, but uh the AG had a cave. The SJC made the AG move on this. So, it's moving along. It It's t taking a long time. It shouldn't have taken this long, but with the SJC help, it looks like it's going forward.
A lawsuit. A lawsuit against the state house. Basically, that's what's going to be happening.
Uhoh. Do I have to donate? I swear. I'm sorry.
Yeah, Noah did good. Yeah, he is really relaxing.
Uh, what's this one? Oh, wait. We always We have an Archie Bunker over here. He said he shouldn't have mentioned the Republican side. I don't think he gets it. We want common sense. He is saying that for Noah's viewers.
I mean, Archie, the thing about that is Greg Connor could say that because it's the Democratic primary.
Like, who's voting in that primary? It's Democrats and unenrolled voters.
Republicans aren't voting in his primary. So, that's why he could say that.
And I'm sure Yeah, I'm sure he is going for uh the voters, not just know his viewers, just voters in general, right?
Who's going to vote in the primary?
So, sorry I called you Achi Bunka. I actually like Achie Bunka even though I thought he was like I don't like his politics, but Achie Bunka was the funniest show ever. It's a really good show.
Meatthead.
Meatthead.
Oh, is what the duck here? Did I see What the duck?
Where is What the duck? Oh, what the duck? Let's hear for what the duck.
Let's hear for Sue B, too.
Uh, let's hear for nurse of interest and of course Sheila True Crime Chat and Natalie, Diana, and Sarah. Thank you so much for everyone for being here tonight.
All right, I'm going to go check out I'm done. I am dunzo.
I don't know where what like what what my next show is. I'll probably stream that. We'll see that uh convenience store trial tomorrow. I get a little worried cuz there's a lot of G, [snorts] you know, a lot of certain talk that gets censored even in court. Anytime you have a court proceeding with certain weapons, YouTube can get really weird. A lot of people got whacked on the Kelsey Fitz image trial when uh that prosecutor took out the weapon.
So, I'm not sure. We'll see. Today got I mean they kept talking about the the weapon. It was just like am I going to get whacked on this? So, we'll see. We might stream that tomorrow. I I'm kind of interested in that case cuz it's like stand your ground. It's like we'll see what happens on that one. Um but I do have a lot of shows up coming.
Like I said, I'm going to have Nan upcoming. Uh some people don't like attorney Nan Gallagher. I heard that in the chat today. Well, she's coming back.
She's coming back on the Young Jerks. I like Nan. That's all that matters. She's a great guest and a lot of the audience likes Nan. Actually, a lot of people do.
Like, we have a when when she comes on, she gets a lot of support here.
Much more support than hatred.
Um, and I like her content. I like what she she's very good. She's a great guest. So, she'll be coming on again soon. And we, like I said, we have some more. We're going to be doing some more political shows. It's political season.
I'm going to have a Republican upcoming next week. It's going to I'm going to have a Democrat and a Republican.
Different nights. We, like I said, we're going to feature both parties on the show. We talk about issues, issues over party, you know. So, yeah, that's the other thing. The people that hate her watch her, too.
That's the thing. People that hate her watch her.
Ah, see there. Simon loves Nan.
Rose loves Nan. If you love Nan Gallagher, put a put a heart up or put a one up in the chat on the way out.
All right, folks. I'll see you soon. I want to uh thank you so much for being here, hanging out with me.
I'll probably see you tomorrow. We'll see.
Yeah, we have love for Nan. Nana's the best.
A thank you, Sarah.
Yeah, the trolls. They were fishing today. They were trying to I don't know what they were trying to do. It's funny cuz they were trying to be nice to me.
Like we had a few trolls. They were like literally trying to kiss my ass. It was weird. It was like why are they being nice? What do they want?
[ __ ] funny. They play all these little six-year-old mind games.
It's just a bunch of little ants.
Yeah, Nan really is a nice person, too.
in person.
Just as nice.
All right, I'll see you all soon. Have a great night, everyone. Stay cool. Drink lots of water. Drink lots of fluids.
Get your thermoses out. And make sure you're hydrated. It's pretty hot out there.
There you go. I'm I'm going to stay hydrated. You stay hydrated.
Stay cool. I'll see you soon, jerks.
関連おすすめ
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
Monkton family worries husband who murdered wife could inherit all of her assets
WMAR2news
152 views•2026-06-02
Jury seated in the Frisco Track Meet stabbing trial — opening statements set for tomorrow
Wfaa8
343 views•2026-06-03
