Gov. Baker appeals for bill to broaden charges warranting holding a defendant without bail

DARTMOUTH - Gov. Charlie Baker made a personal appeal for a bill that would increase the number of charges warranting a defendant be deemed dangerous and held without bail during an appearance at UMass Dartmouth Law School Monday.

The bill, An Act to Protect Victims of Crimes and the Public, was first filed by Baker in 2018 and refilled in December 2021. It would, in part, expand Mass. General Laws Section 58A governing dangerousness hearings.

Defendants found to be dangerous following such a hearing can be held without bail for up to 180 days. The bill would lengthen the time that a defendant can be held without bail to a year.

It would also add sexual crimes against children, certain firearms’ offense, and assault and battery on disabled individuals, among other offenses, to the list of crimes that can trigger a dangerousness hearing.

And it would allow prosecutors to present a defendant’s criminal convictions as possible grounds warranting a dangerousness hearing.

Currently, the court can only consider the crime charged when determining whether to hold a dangerousness hearing.

The event at UMass Monday was the fifth roundtable held throughout the state in support of the bill. Other roundtables were held in Plymouth, Springfield, Worcester, and Salem.

Those accompanying Baker to support the bill were Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito, state Secretary of Public Safety and Security Terrence M. Reidy, and Bristol County District Attorney Thomas M. Quinn III.

Victims of crimes that would warrant a dangerousness hearing or be affected under the amended statute were also on hand to speak or filed written statements.

Quinn said, “People have a right to feel safe in their communities. Unfortunately, due to the current language of the dangerousness statute prosecutors are prevented from moving for dangerousness hearings in many cases because the statute does not include certain offenses.”

He added, “In particular, the statute must be amended to add sexual crimes against children, other offenses that endanger individuals and the public.”

Quinn said, “My office previously prosecuted a level three sex offender with a significant criminal history of sexual offenses who was charged with possession and distribution of child pornography that included pornographic images of infants and toddlers being sexually assaulted. This defendant also disseminated child pornography that contained images of children 7 to 9 years old engaged in sex acts. Under the current law we could not at the time move to detain the defendant as a danger.”

How they did it: Police broke up a sophisticated drug ring in Bristol County.

He said lengthening the time a defendant can be held if deemed dangerous to a year was consistent with court rules stating a defendant must be brought to trial within one year.

Quinn added, “A dangerous defendant does not become less dangerous over the passage of 180 days or 120 days.”

Reidy said there are many good aspects to the bill, but the “main concerns” include expanding the charges qualifying for a dangerousness hearing, the duration of detainment, and allowing a record of criminal convictions to be considered.

He said a defendant’s rights would not be abridged with the bill’s passage.

“This isn’t the police department or the DA’s office saying I want this person held and they’re held. It goes before a judge. There’s a full hearing and they’re represented by counsel and their due process rights are adhered to. But there are certain individuals in this state who shouldn’t be on the street and that is what this bill focuses on.”

Kelsey was one of two victims who spoke during the roundtable. Two others presented statements that were read into the record.

In the courts: New Bedford man sentenced to 3 1/2 to 5 years for fentanyl trafficking

It was requested that just their first names be used.

Kelsey, who is 32, said she was the victim of sexual abuse starting at age 5 and continuing until she was 13. Her abuser was a friend of the family who fooled her family and groomed her for the abuse. She wondered, she said, how this person could be so nice and then “hurt me so much.”

He would tell her not to say anything, “or we’d both get in trouble.”

Technically, he didn’t use “violence” against her. When the case was eventually prosecuted, there was no dangerousness hearing. It wasn’t applicable. He remained free while the case was pending.

'The anxiety is high': Some SouthCoast schools increasing police presence after Uvalde

She said the fact he didn’t use overt violence didn’t mean he wasn’t dangerous. She came forward not only to make him accountable but to “make sure no other child could be hurt by him.”

Danielle, a mother of four, said her husband tried to snap her neck, strangled her, and raped her a day after she told him she wanted a divorce.

For three weeks the whites of her eyes were not visible because of burst blood vessels. Her tongue was swollen to three times its normal size. “That’s what happens after you’re strangled almost to death.”

She said her husband was held without bail following a dangerousness hearing but it lapsed three times before his eventual trial and conviction. She had to testify three times in three dangerousness hearings, which were all upheld.

But, she said, “It’s a traumatizing experience to testify in front of the person who tried to kill you while a defense attorney tries to break you down.”

Pair charged: Prosecutor claims video evidence connects pair to April 29 New Bedford homicide

She feared, though, that he would kill her, the children, and himself if released.

Baker thanked them for coming forward, and relating these traumatic events.

He said their courage was “incredibly important in convincing others there’s a problem and it needs to be fixed.”

Baker said that a comment made at the Plymouth roundtable had stuck with him.

A female victim said, “I really didn’t feel the state was on my side.”

He added, “We should never be in that position, and I’m sorry that you’ve been in that position.”

This article originally appeared on Standard-Times: Bill would add charges warranting a person be held without bail