Though she possessed evidence of his innocence at arraignment, it took a prosecutor in your office more than 11 months to dismiss charges against Ernst Jean-Jacques, a Black man.
It took that same prosecutor under 12 hours to dismiss charges against his aggressor, Linda Greenberg, a white woman.
I would like to bring to your attention this prosecutor’s conduct and its troubling implications.
Last December, via referral from the National Lawyer’s Guild-Massachusetts Chapter, I entered my pro bono appearance on behalf of Ernst Jean-Jacques, a Black Lives Matter activist charged with assaulting an elderly white woman while counter protesting a pro-Trump “MAGAchusetts” rally in Swampscott.
The complaint alleged that Mr. Jean-Jacques “punched” Linda Greenberg, a pro-Trump supporter. Video evidence I obtained and furnished to the prosecutor at the arraignment demonstrated that Mr. Jean Jacques never punched Ms. Greenberg.
Instead, he was peacefully dancing in front of the Trump group when Ms. Greenberg walked away, retrieved a bottle of water, walked back to Mr. Jean-Jacques, then threw water on him, drenching his face and chest. Mr. Jean-Jacques reached out with an open hand to swat the bottle out of her hand.
Ms. Greenberg was interviewed at the scene and made the following statement “he was gyrating in front of me and I was getting mad. I did get water on him, I don’t want to lie.” When a bystander asked, “So you assaulted him first?” Ms. Greenberg replied, “Why don’t you f— off? You are not America. You are not America.”
Based on the evidence, we requested that your office dismiss the charges against Mr. Jean-Jacques, and file charges against Ms. Greenberg who was, indisputably, the initial aggressor.
Instead, prosecutor Danielle Doherty-Wirwicz filed a motion seeking to have Mr. Jean-Jacques labeled a danger to the public. She threatened to seek detention if Mr. Jean-Jacques presented witnesses at the hearing. Ultimately, her motion was denied.
On April 22, 2021, we filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Greenberg. I was informed that a backlog at the clerk’s office would mean months would pass before that complaint would be considered.
Consequently, I emailed Ms. Doherty-Wirwicz a request that your “office assign a conflict prosecutor … to handle the instant complaint applications (both because) the victim, Ernst Jean-Jacques, and the public” deserved protection “from the criminal conduct of the defendant[…], which conduct appears motivated by racial animus” and to prevent “the appearance of impropriety and race-based bias which has accompanied the prosecution of this publicly scrutinized case.” As with most of my messages to her, she did not respond.
Last week (week of Nov. 22), an impartial magistrate processed the complaint application against Ms. Greenberg. He ruled that probable cause supported charging Ms. Greenberg with assault and battery and issued a complaint against her.
The magistrate’s decision echoed the findings of an independent internal investigator, which the Swampscott Police Department retained: that probable cause supported charging Ms. Greenberg with assault and battery.
Yesterday (Nov. 30) we appeared for trial and, upon learning that a criminal complaint had issued against her, Ms. Greenberg, through her attorney, reported that Ms. Greenberg would exercise her Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.
Ms. Doherty-Wirwicz asked the Court to dismiss the case, claiming that pretrial rulings hampered her ability to prosecute. The judge, the Honorable Matthew Nestor, declined to do so, correctly noting that his rulings were based on the law as applied to her requests. Ms. Doherty-Wirwicz then dismissed the case on her own.
Today (Dec. 1), I read in The Daily Item that, after I left the courthouse, Ms. Doherty-Wirwicz brought the criminal case against Ms. Greenberg in front of a different judge, then entered a “nolle prosequi” or dismissal of the charge against her.
She did so without notice to the victim, Mr. Jean-Jacques, in violation of the Victim’s Bill of Rights, G.L. ch. 258E, which guarantees his right “to confer with the prosecutor … before the filing of a nolle prosequi[.]”
Honorable District Attorney Blodgett, as attorneys, we are mindful that we must not only avoid impropriety, we must avoid the appearance of impropriety in all of our doings. This duty is underscored for those performing the role of prosecutor, who have “the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.”
This is a case that has, in the words of Ms. Doherty-Wirwicz, been “closely watched and widely publicized[.]” This is a case in which the objectivity and motivations of the prosecutor have been publicly questioned. This is a case where two independent bodies — the clerk magistrate’s office and the independent auditor retained by the police department itself — determined that probable cause exists to charge Ms. Greenberg.
The prosecutor’s decision to unilaterally dismiss a complaint charging what many believe to be a racially-motivated assault, in deliberate violation of the Victim’s Bill of Rights, is one that raises the specter of conflict of interest ―- the appearance of impropriety.
That appearance is only deepened given the misinformation which Katie Katzman, your office’s spokesperson, provided regarding the outcome of yesterday’s proceeding. In a statement submitted to The Item, Ms. Katzman asserted that “at no time did Greenberg refuse to testify or indicate she was not willing to testify.”
This statement was patently false. After consulting with Ms. Greenberg, her attorney stated in court via Zoom that his client would exercise her Fifth Amendment right not to testify if called at trial.
The clerk magistrate, and numerous members of the public who attended the hearing, can confirm that fact. I presume that Ms. Katzman was not aware of the falsity of her statement. I request that your office conduct inquiry into the source of the false information which it publicly reported, and impose appropriate discipline against that source.
Finally, I request that your office publish a retraction of that false statement to correct the public record.
Honorable District Attorney Blodgett, the question has been raised: Does the Essex County District Attorney’s Office believe in justice for all, regardless of race?
Permitting Ms. Doherty-Wirwicz to place her name on the signature line of the nolle prosequi did violence to the cloak of impartiality to which your office is otherwise entitled.
It deepened the rift in a fractured community crying out for fairness, transparency, and accountability. It plants the seed of mistrust which, if untended, threatens to grow into a weed which will strangle the public’s confidence in its elected prosecutor.
The damage is done, but it can be corrected. In situations where conflict of interest and improper appearances arise, we can remove ourselves from the equation by surrendering decisions to those in a position of neutrality.
You have the power to appoint an independent prosecutor to determine how the case against Ms. Greenberg should proceed. Whatever decision that prosecutor then renders will be beyond the reproach and suspicion which otherwise surrounds Ms. Doherty-Wirwicz’ handling of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Murat Erkan, Esq.
Erkan & Associates, LLC
