Photo from Dennis Hammer at Thinkstock

If you weren’t one of the hundred or so crowding into Room 157 at the Massachusetts State House on Wednesday, September 17, for the Governor’s Councilors hearing, and if you were not engaged in the discussion as to why Josh Wall should or should not become a superior court judge, you missed quite a show.

For more than six hours, supporters and those who oppose Wall’s judgeship took turns testifying in front of the eight member council. The Governor’s Council is the antiquated part-time body that is elected by the citizens of Massachusetts designed to primarily vote on the nominees of the governor for the Parole Board and the judiciary. A wonderful article by Chris Faraone in the former Boston Phoenix said these $25,000+ a year employees usually rubber stamp the nominees of the governor. But will the controversy over Wall’s nomination will be enough to change the status quo?

And what made this a show, you ask? Much of the Parole Board staff seemed to have taken vacation days to be in the room; Janis Smith, attorney for the Board, brought her parents. There was a DA and some judges, attorneys and a Board colleague—the current Parole Board chair did not miss a beat—and there was even a religious pastor, a crime victim, and a parolee testifying for him. He had every base covered as those “he asked to testify on his behalf” sang his praises. At one point, one of the Councilors said that they had received 60-65 letters in favor of Chairman Wall.

However, no surprise, considering the controversy that for weeks has surrounded this nominee, the Councilors have also received the same amount of letters opposing his ascent to judge. Many feel that he should not be rewarded for his poor performance on the Parole Board. As I wrote in Boston Magazine in July, 2013 about lifer hearings: “In 2010, a decision…took an average of only 1.4 months. In the first five months of [2013], that number was 10.4 months. Thirty-five of the 135 inmates who had a hearing in 2012 were still waiting for their decision at the end of…May [2013].” Also, out of 395 lifers who had hearings between Feb, 2011 and May, 2014, only 32 had actually been released on parole – for a parole release rate of 8.1%.  That is absolutely contrary to well-known data that says a higher rate of parole is a public safety tool.[1]

But the people who spoke against Wall’s nomination on Wednesday talked less about his performance on the Board and more about his temperament. Their point was that Josh Wall does not have the judicial juice.

Criminal defense attorney Willie Davis, a lawyer for more than 50 years, nailed the problem with this: “He has demonstrated an attitude of win at any and all costs.” That might not seem surprising for a prosecutor, but Davis explained how Wall sought to get criminal history backgrounds of jurors in the murder case Commonwealth v. Joseph Cousin when Davis was the defense attorney opposing Wall. This violated state law, he said, and Wall should have gone to the judge if he wanted such action to be taken. It was unethical. As reported by State House News, Davis said, “He [Wall] was looking for a reason to abort the trial before the verdict was rendered.” Some of the jurors had misstated their criminal history, and a mistrial was declared. Wall won—at any cost.

The Woodmans blamed Josh Wall for his insensitivity and dismissiveness. They said he was the main person they had contact with in DA Conley’s office after their son’s death. They lost their son to police brutality, said Cathleen Woodman, mother of David who died, but the police were never charged. “Being attacked by six police officers, lifted three or four feet in the air and slammed to the ground stopped his heart from beating. That was the cause of his death,” she said forcefully, holding back tears. At the hearing, she blamed the DA and Wall who told her that there were too many pages in the police report for them to have a copy. Conley said the young man’s death was a terrible loss, but the facts of the incident did not warrant charges against the officers involved and disputed her claims that Wall was the lead investigator.

“I thought he was supposed to be neutral, she said, dismayed during their meetings, and she added how disrespectful Wall was towards her, wondering at the time, “Could you not roll your eyes while we say something?”