The state’s judiciary has been facing a perfect storm of criticism lately — some of it justified, some not so much. But too much of it is aimed at mindlessly tearing down a critical institution in the process.
This rhetorical piling-on, the talk of impeaching one judge and disparaging the system generally, is nothing short of an assault on judicial independence — and the consequences of that can be dire.
In the eye of the current storm is Salem Superior Court Judge Timothy Q. Feeley, who last month sentenced Manuel Soto-Vittini of Peabody to two years probation in a drug dealing case. That Soto-Vittini is a Dominican national, albeit a legal, permanent resident, seems in part responsible for the animus generated by the case.
There are, of course, a number of inconvenient facts for critics of the sentence to ponder. First, it was the result of a plea deal. Soto-Vittini was pleading guilty, sparing the system a trial. He was a first offender (a prior case for simple drug possession a decade earlier had been continued without a finding). And between the time of his arrest, on June 11, 2015, and the time of his sentencing nearly three years later, the now 33-year-old had managed to stay out of trouble, to get a job, and support his family
The judge’s “crime’’ apparently was not sending him to state prison, and now critics cite one sentence in the 44-page transcript of a presentencing hearing indicating Feeley was cutting Soto-Vittini slack to protect him from deportation.
Frankly, Feeley was all over the place in the course of that hearing. He also said, “I don’t think state prison is appropriate. I wouldn’t be doing that for Mr. Soto or for anyone else with no record. I don’t think I would be sending them to state prison on 15 grams [about a half-ounce] of heroin. But I do think a conviction is important.’’
And at Soto-Vittini’s sentencing, three months later, the judge, before accepting his guilty plea, would tell him, “It is practically inevitable that your pleas and convictions today will result in deportation, exclusion from admission or denial of naturalization under the laws of the United States.’’
No, this is no time for the courts to be “soft’’ on drug dealers, even small-time ones. And Feeley himself raised that point during the presentencing hearing.
“It’s not fentanyl, but it’s an opioid crisis we’re dealing with,’’ the judge said. “It’s not just about him. It’s about persons dealing drugs in the community. The sentence has to make sense to the community.’’
Well, he got that right — until he didn’t, ultimately incurring harsh words from Governor Charlie Baker and House Speaker Robert DeLeo, and threats of impeachment from several Republicans in the Legislature, one of whom is running for US Senate and another who admits he never read the actual transcript.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether the punishment imposed by Judge Feeley fits the crime. That is, after all, how this state got mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes several decades ago — laws only recently revisited.
What is flat-out wrong, however, is to call for an “investigation’’ or impeachment of a judge not for misconduct but because of a legally imposed sentence.
Attacks on judicial independence, by the way, aren’t confined to antidrug hard-liners and the right. In California on Tuesday, voters recalled a judge whose light sentence of a Stanford swimmer convicted of sexual assault made him a #MeToo bête noire — even though it was the local probation department’s recommended sentence for a first-time offender.
Judicial independence is a cherished, but fragile, tradition. The Massachusetts officials joining the politically motivated hysteria over Feeley should know better.
