It seems that the strange charisma of Mike McLaughlin, which has caused otherwise unsentimental prosecutors to swoon, held no charms for federal Judge Douglas Woodlock. Despite the odd alliance of defense counsel and US Attorney Carmen Ortiz’s Office pleading for a light sentence (USAO asking for a slightly tougher punishment), Judge Woodlock slammed the Prince of Chelsea Housing with three years. (If he wanted to be really harsh he could have sentenced the felon housing chief to three years in one of the apartments he let rot).
Case closed. Except I still wonder: what does Mike McLaughlin have on prosecutors in this state?
I have to rely here on what has been reported but let’s review the US Attorney’s representation of McLaughlin (excuse me) pleas for leniency for McLaughlin (excuse me) prosecution of McLaughlin.
Here is the lead paragraph from the Boston Globe’s February 20, 2013 story about McLaughlin pleading guilty in federal court:
Former Chelsea public housing chief Michael E. McLaughlin could face little, if any, prison time under Tuesday’s plea agreement with federal prosecutors, but he still faces possible criminal prosecution from state Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is conducting an energetic investigation into McLaughlin’s allegedly illegal political fund-raising.
The assistant US attorney acknowledged at the plea agreement that McLaughlin’s motive was money. In a sign of hope, Judge Woodlock stated that “I am not bound by the plea agreement. I am going to make my own decision.”
But from the AUSA, we start with “little, if any, prison time.”
The thought was, and still is perhaps, that McLaughlin would trade political figures like former Lt. Governor Tim Murray on fund raising offenses. Then it was speculated that he was trading some HUD flunky who tipped him off to inspections. Nothing has developed yet.
So things were looking good for our rebel with a criminal cause when he showed up for his pre-planned wrist slap at sentencing in June. Having somehow worked itself into a punitive frenzy, the US Attorney’s Office asked for actual time: “at the low end” of the 12-18 month sentencing guidelines, as reported in the Globe. But Judge Woodlock refused to impose a sentence and ordered a further hearing because the USAO “had not taken into account allegations of obstruction of justice or the fraud McLaughlin allegedly committed by collecting more than $500,000 in salary that he failed to report.”
New evidence of obstruction of justice from a supposedly cooperating witness is usually the sort of thing that pisses off the US Attorney’s Office but, hey, this is our ol’ pal Mike. So let’s see Judge Woodlock’s reaction, again from the Globe:
Woodlock appeared angry when the prosecutor, Assistant US Attorney Theodore Merritt, with little enthusiasm, told the judge he would participate in the obstruction of justice hearing “if you ask me to.”
“This is not ‘mother, may I?’” Woodlock shot back.
But hey, at least the USAO moved from “little, if any, time” to the “low end” of 12-18 months.
The compelled game of “mother, may I” resumed in federal court last week. Forced to present evidence of McLaughlin’s further wrongdoing including obstruction of justice, the USAO braced itself and went to 18 months in its recommendation. Judge Woodlock ignored the USAO’s recommendation and ordered McLaughlin to serve a three year sentence. Let’s read on for a quote from the Globe’s story on the sentencing:
“Through self-interest, you have committed very serious crimes,” Woodlock said to a courtroom packed with more than 100 public housing tenants. “You have lined your pockets while picking the pockets of the people of the Chelsea Housing Authority. It’s money taken away from programs that are always under stress.”
Tenants cheered and hugged one another as they left the courthouse.
So let’s review the reports of the USAO’s sentencing recommendations:
February 2013: “little, if any, time”
June 2013: “at the low end” of the sentencing guidelines of 12-18 months.
July 2013: 18 months
July 2013: sentence imposed, three years
What was going on here? What magical hold did McLaughlin have on federal prosecutors?
